San Mateo County considers further distance from immigration agency during Truth Forum

Under Senate Bill 54, approved in 2017, state and local agencies are prohibited from using resources to comply with ICE requests but some exceptions can be made for individuals who have committed serious and violent crimes.

Agencies that do cooperate with inmate transfers to ICE are mandated by the state to hold a forum at least once a year as conditioned under the state’s Truth Act, which was approved in 2016.

Community members have argued that the transfers are a form of double punishment for people who have already served their time and discouraged people from reporting crimes out of fear of destabilizing their homes.

Those concerns resonated with Sheriff Carlos Bolanos who, shortly after last year’s forum, said the office would no longer comply with requests from ICE unless the agency presented the department with a warrant signed by a federal judge.

“Sheriff Carlos Bolanos listened to the voice of the community,” Capt. Frank Dal Porto, who oversees the Sheriff’s Office Corrections Division, said, speaking on behalf of the Sheriff’s Office.

By the time the last forum was held and Bolanos made his announcement, eight individuals had already been transferred, necessitating this year’s forum, Sheriff’s Office Administrative Lt. Dan Guiney said. During the 1 1/2 hour event, multiple community members shared hope it would be the county’s last.

Sheriff-elect Christina Corpus has said she will uphold the current policy when she’s in office but forum participants implored supervisors to codify the policy in a county ordinance to ensure any sheriff to enter the office in the future cannot reverse course.

A handful of jurisdictions in the state have taken steps to that end, including San Francisco and Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties, said Krsna Avila, a staff attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and representing the San Mateo County Coalition for Immigrant Rights.

“When we talk about the board and the board’s power, we know that one of those powers is limiting the budget and you are the purse of the county. So pointing to not using resources [to cooperate with ICE] is something other counties have pointed to when passing policies,” Avila said.

Supervisors shared an interest in taking similar steps and directed staff to return at a later date with additional information and an ordinance prohibiting county funds from being used to cooperate with ICE unless mandated by a federal judge, a condition to which board President Don Horsley said the county is requested to adhere.

County Attorney John Nibbelin said he and his staff could likely review and draft an ordinance that respects both the board’s and sheriff’s respective constitutional roles given that other jurisdictions have previously done so under the guidance of their legal counsel.

“It took a while to get here,” Pine said. “[But] there is no cooperation with ICE at this time so I think it’s important to acknowledge that progress has been made and now we look at that next step.”