HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - NB-5 - Request for Letter Opposition Senate - 4/18/2017CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: APRIL 18, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: NB -5
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A LETTER OF OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL SB 54
(DE LEON) LAW ENFORCEMENT: SHARING DATA
DATE: APRIL 11, 2017
FROM: OFFICE OF THE CEO
PRESENTATION BY: ALLAN MANSOOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DAN BAKER AT (714) 754-5156
RECOMMENDATION:
Per Council Policy 000-8 (Attachment 1), It is recommended that the City Council
provide direction on whether to authorize the City to send a letter opposing Senate Bill
54 (De Leon).
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
Senate Bill SB 54 (De Leon) would limit local law enforcement agencies from collaborating
and partnering with federal agencies in responding to requests for notification when a jail
houses someone who might be the subject of an immigration enforcement action. This bill
also limits state and local law enforcement agencies involvement in immigration
enforcement and ensures that eligible individuals are able to seek services from and
engage with state agencies without regard to their immigration status.
Council Member Allan Mansoor has requested that this item be placed on the agenda. A
draft letter, consistent with the request to oppose SB 54, has been prepared for
consideration should the Council desire to take this position (Attachment 2). A copy of the
most current version of the proposed legislation is included in Attachment 3.
SB 54 was introduced on December 5, 2016, and was amended on March 6, 2017 and
passed in the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 13, 2017. It was amended and
approved via the Senate Rules Committee and ordered to the Assembly for review on
April 3, 2017.
As of the due date of this report, the latest analysis of SB 54 was performed by the Senate
rule committee and is included in attachment 4. Within the attachment is a listing of all the
major highlights of the bill including the latest Senate floor amendments from 3/29/2017,
comments from the author, a broad fiscal analysis, and a list of groups both for and
against the proposed legislation.
As stated above, SB 54 will limit our Police Department's work with Federal law
enforcement partners in apprehending dangerous criminals and has the potential to create
more fear in communities by forcing federal immigration operations out of our jails and into
our community. A copy of the California Police Chiefs Association letter of opposition is
included in attachment 5.
FISCAL REVIEW:
The Federal administration has indicated that funding may be restricted for municipalities
that have decided to utilize the sanctuary designation. Senate Bill 54, if approved, would
include the entire state of California as a sanctuary state. It is unclear at this point how this
designation would impact Costa Mesa's ability to secure Federal funding.
Attachment 6 is Executive Order 13768 that outlines the Federal Administration's
framework for the enhancement of public safety in the interior of the United States and the
consequences for violating its provisions.
LEGAL REVIEW:
No legal review was prepared for this report at this time.
CONCLUSION:
Staff is seeking Council direction on whether to send the proposed letter opposing SB
54 (De Leon). If the direction is to proceed with a letter, then should the letter be
submitted as drafted per the request, or should it be revised?
DANIEL K. BAKER
Assistant to the CEO
ATTACHMENTS: 1 City Council Policy 000-8
2 Draft Letter of Opposition to SB 54
3 SB 54 Bill Language, Current as of 4/4/2017
4 Senate Rules Committee Analysis
5 California Police Chiefs Association Letter of Opposition
6 Executive Order 13768
Attachment 1
CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
SUBJECT
POLICY
EFFECTIVE
PAGE
NUMBER
DATE
LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS
000-8
5/16/91
1 of 2
Revised 9/20/99
BACKGROUND
The increasing involvement in local affairs by Federal, State and County governments, coupled
with the proliferation of special agencies and districts, makes it imperative that a formalized
proactive approach be taken toward legislation which may impact the welfare of the Costa Mesa
community. Past City Councils have participated in the legislative process to varying degrees.
For the most part, such participation has been informal.
PIIRP()SF
The purpose of this Policy is to establish a comprehensive and formal program for addressing
legislative issues. This includes the establishment of signatory authority and the creation of
legislative review guidelines.
POLICY
1. The City Manager, or his designee, shall be responsible for overseeing the legislative review
process.
2. A Legislative Review Team, consisting of the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and the City Manager,
shall periodically review legislation and formulate the City's position.
3. The Mayor is authorized to execute position letters on behalf of the City Council when the
position is in concurrence with that of the National League of Cities, the State League of
Cities, the Orange County Division of the League of Cities or the Orange County Council of
Governments. At the direction of the Legislative Review Team, position letters may also be
executed by the City Manager, or his designee, as appropriate.
4. Formal Council approval is required in instances in which the City's position may differ from
that of the National League of Cities, the State League of Cities, the Orange County Division
of the League of Cities or the Orange County Council of Governments.
5. Formal Council approval is required in instances in which the National League of Cities, the
State League of Cities, the Orange County Division of the League of Cities or the Orange
County Council of Governments have not taken a formal position.
6. City Commissions and Committees are prohibited from executing legislative position letters
but may make recommendations to the Legislative Review Team or the City Council.
CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
SUBJECT
POLICY
EFFECTIVE
PAGE
NUMBER
DATE
LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS
000-8
5/16/91
2 of 2
Revised 9/20/99
7. All City Council members shall receive a copy of all legislative position letters written on City
letterhead. A quarterly activity report of the City's legislative positions, and the status of such
legislation, will be provided to the City Council.
8. The preceding in no way infringes upon the right of the City Council members to express
individual positions on legislative issues. In expressing an individual position, City Council
members will clearly state that the position is personal and not sent on behalf of the City or
City Council.
Attachment 2
April 18, 2017
Senator Kevin De Leon
State Capitol Room 205 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 54 (De Leon) - OPPOSE
Dear Senator De Leon:
The City of Costa Mesa opposes your proposed legislation Senate Bill 54 (De Leon) related to local law
enforcement data sharing. SB 54 would restrict local law enforcement agencies from collaborating and
partnering with Federal agencies related to an immigration enforcement action. The TRUTH Act of 2016
already governs how and when local law enforcement may detain a person subject to an immigration
hold.
The California State Sheriffs' Association opposes SB 54 stating that, "Sheriffs need to continue to
cooperate with our law enforcement partners to ensure that those who victimize our communities are not
given unnecessary opportunities to do more harm." Furthermore, "SB 54 continues to preclude
communication about potentially dangerous people. Specifically, the language only allows
communication with the FBI (not ICE) in cases in which a person serving a term for a misdemeanor
convicted, who also has a prior conviction for a violent felony, is about to be released. This language
does not permit law enforcement to communicate about persons convicted of felonies and who are in jail
custody or persons alleged to have committed a criminal offense."
All local law enforcement officers and city elected officials take an oath to uphold and defend the State
Constitution AND the Constitution of the United States. SB 54 creates conflict between the two for local
law enforcement agencies to fulfill their duties to both the State and the federal government.
As a rule of law City, Costa Mesa is diligent in upholding and enforcing all laws handed down via the
Federal government, including those relating to illegal immigration. If approved, Senate Bill 54
effectively eliminates local control and replaces it with a state-wide mandate that effectively labels the
state of California with a sanctuary designation.
Thank you for considering the comments of our City and I encourage you to withdraw SB 54 (De Leon)
from further consideration. Please feel free to contact me (714) 754-5156 with any questions you may
have about our position on this issue.
Sincerely,
Cc: Senator John Moorlach Fax: 916-651-4937
Assemblyman Mathew Harper Fax: 916-319-2174
Costa Mesa City Council
Tony Cardenas, League of California Cities, Orange County Division, tcardenas(@cacities.org
Heather Stratman, Association of California Cities - Orange County
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 29, 2017
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 6, 2017
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 1, 2017
AMENDED IN SENATE JANUARY 24, 2017
SENATE BILL
Attachment 3
No. 54
Introduced by Senator De Leon
(Principal coauthors: Senators Atkins, Beall, Pan, and Wiener)
(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Bonta, Chiu, Cooper, Gomez,
Levine, and Reyes Reyes, and Santiago)
December 5, 2016
An act to add Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284) to
Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to repeal Section 11369
of the Health and Safety Code, and to add Sections 3058.10 and 3058.11
to the Penal Code, relating to law enforeement, and deelaring the
urgeney thereof-, to take effeet . enforcement.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 54, as amended, De Le6n. Law enforcement: sharing data.
Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person
arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may
not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify
the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation
matters.
This bill would repeal those provisions.
Existing law provides that whenever an individual who is a victim of
or witness to a hate crime, or who otherwise can give evidence in a hate
crime investigation, is not charged with or convicted of committing any
crime under state law, a peace officer may not detain the individual
95
SB 54 —2—
exclusively for any actual or suspected immigration violation or report
or turn the individual over to federal immigration authorities.
This bill would, among others things and subject to exceptions,
prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies, including school
police and security departments, from using resources to investigate,
interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement
purposes, as specified. The bill would require, within 3 months after
the effective date of the bill, the Attorney General, in consultation with
the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting
assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible
for use by those entities for those purposes. The bill would require all
public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state
or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses to implement the
model policy, or an equivalent policy. The bill would state that all other
organizations and entities that provide services related to physical or
mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including
the University of California, are encouraged to adopt the model policy.
The bill would require a law enforcement agency that chooses to
participate in a joint law enforcement task force, as defined, to submit
a report every 6 months to the Department of Justice, as specified. The
bill would require the Attorney General, within 14 months after the
effective date of the bill, and twice a year thereafter, to report on the
types and frequency of joint law enforcement task forces, and other
information, as specified, and to post those reports on the Attorney
General's Internet Web site. The bill would require the Board of Parole
Hearings or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as
applicable, to notifythe Federal Bureatt of 1twestigatio United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the scheduled release on
parole or postrelease community supervision, or rerelease following a
period of confinement pursuant to a parole revocation without a new
commitment, of all persons confined to state prison serving a current
term for the conviction of a violent , and wottid attthorize the
. or serious
felony, or who has a prior conviction for a violent or serious felony.
This bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature
relating to these provisions.
By imposing additional duties on public schools, this bill would
impose a state -mandated local program.
95
-3—
SB 54
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory
provisions noted above.
This bill wottid deelare thaf it is to take eff�et immediately as Min
Vote: -2137majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State -mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284)
2 is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read:
3
4 CHAPTER 17.25. COOPERATION WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION
5 AUTHORITIES
6
7 7284. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the
8 California Values Act.
9 7284.2. The Legislature finds and declares the following:
10 (a) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the
11 California community. Almost one in three Californians is foreign
12 born and one in two children in California has at least one
13 immigrant parent.
14 (b) A relationship of trust between California's immigrant
15 community and state and local agencies is central to the public
16 safety of the people of California.
17 (c) This trust is threatened when state and local agencies are
18 entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result
19 that immigrant community members fear approaching police when
20 they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health
21 services, or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and
22 the well-being of all Californians.
23 (d) Entangling state and local agencies with federal immigration
24 enforcement programs diverts already limited resources and blurs
25 the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal
26 governments.
95
SB 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
—4—
(e) State and local participation in federal immigration
enforcement programs also raises constitutional concerns, including
the prospect that California residents could be detained in violation
of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
targeted on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause, or denied access to education based on
immigration status.
(f) This act seeks to ensure effective policing, to protect the
safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of the people of
California, and to direct the state's limited resources to matters of
greatest concern to state and local governments.
7284.4. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have
the following meanings:
(a) "California law enforcement agency" means a state or local
law enforcement agency, including school police or security
departments.
(b) "Civil immigration warrant" means any warrant for a
violation of federal civil immigration law, and includes civil
immigration warrants entered in the National Crime Information
Center database.
(c) "Federal immigration authority" means any officer,
employee, or person otherwise paid by or acting as an agent of
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or United
States Customs and Border Protection, or any division thereof, or
any other officer, employee, or person otherwise paid by or acting
as an agent of the United States Department of Homeland Security
who is charged with immigration enforcement.
(d) "Health facility" includes health facilities as defined in
Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code, clinics as defined in
Sections 1200 and 1200.1 of the Health and Safety Code, and
substance abuse treatment facilities.
(e) "Hold request," "notification request," "transfer request,"
and "local law enforcement agency" have the same meaning as
provided in Section 7283. Hold, notification, and transfer requests
include requests issued by United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement or United States Customs and Border Protection as
well as any other federal immigration authorities.
(f) "Immigration enforcement" includes any and all efforts to
investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement
of any federal civil immigration law, and also includes any and all
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
-5— SB 54
efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or
enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes
a person's presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the
UnitedStates, ineluding, bttt not litnited to, violations of Seetio
1-253 1324e,325, or 4 3--26 o Title 8 of the United States Code.
States. "Immigration enforcement" does not include either of the
following:
(1) Efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation
or enforcement of a violation of Section 1326(a) of Title 8 of the
United States Code that may be subject to the enhancement
specified in Section 1326(b)(2) of Title 8 of the United States Code
and that is detected during an unrelated law enforcement activity.
(2) Transferring an individual to federal immigration authorities
for a violation of Section 1326(a) of Title 8 of the United States
Code that is subject to the enhancement specified in Section
1326(b)(2) of that title if the individual has been previously
convicted of a violent felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section
667.5 of the Penal Code.
(g) "Joint law enforcement task force" means a California law
enforcement agency collaborating, engaging, or partnering with a
federal law enforcement agency in investigating, interrogating,
detaining, detecting, or arresting persons for violations of federal
or state crimes.
(h) "Judicial warrant" means a warrant based on probable cause
and issued by a federal judge or a federal magistrate judge that
authorizes federal immigration authorities to take into custody the
person who is the subject of the warrant.
(i) "Public schools" means all public elementary and secondary
schools under the jurisdiction of local governing boards or a charter
school board, the California State University, and the California
Community Colleges.
0) "School police and security departments" includes police
and security departments of the California State University, the
California Community Colleges, charter schools, county offices
of education, schools, and school districts.
7284.6. (a) California law enforcement agencies shall not do
any of the following:
(1) Use agency or department moneys, facilities, property,
equipment, or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect,
95
SB 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including,
but not limited to, any of the following:
(A) Inquiring into an individual's
immigration status, exeept as required to eomply with Seet
9-22(d)(5) of T4tIe 18 of the United States Gode. status.
(B) Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request.
(C) Responding to requests for notification .
by providing release dates or other information unless that
information is available to the public.
(D) Providing information regarding a person's release date
unless that information is available to the public.
(E) Providing
personal information about an individual, including, but not limited
to, ' , the
individual's home address or work address for immigratio
unless that information is available to the
public.
(F) Making arrests based on civil immigration warrants.
(G) Giving federal immigration authorities access to interview
els an individual in agency or department ettstody for
custody, except pursuant to a
judicial warrant, and in accordance with Section 7283.1.
(H) Assisting federal immigration authorities in the activities
described in Section 1357(a)(3) of Title 8 of the United States
Code.
(1) Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether
pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code
or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal.
(2) Make agency or department databases, including databases
maintained for the agency or department by private vendors, or
the information therein other than information regarding an
individual's citizenship or immigration status, available to anyone
or any entity for the purpose of immigration enforcement. Any
agreements in existence on the date that this chapter becomes
operative that conflict with the terms of this paragraph are
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
-7— SB 54
terminated on that date. A person or entity provided access to
agency or department databases shall certify in writing that the
database will not be used for the purposes prohibited by this
section.
(3) Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies
or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or
special federal deputies except to the extent those peace officers
remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace
officers and the policies of the employing agency.
(4) Use federal immigration authorities as interpreters for law
enforcement matters relating to individuals in agency or department
custody.
(5) Transfer an individual to federal immigration authorities
unless authorized by a judicial warrant or for a violation of Section
1326(a) of Title 8 of the United States Code that is subject to the
enhancement specified in Section 1326(b)(2) of Title 8 of the United
States Code and the individual has been previously convicted of
a violent felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the
Penal Code.
(b) Nedtittg-Notwithstanding the limitations in subdivision (a),
nothing in this section shall prevent any California law enforcement
agency from doing any of the following:
(1) Responding to a request from federal immigration authorities
for information about a specific person's criminal history, including
previous criminal arrests, convictions, and similar criminal history
information accessed through the California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System (CLETS), where otherwise permitted
by state law.
(2) Participating in a joint law enforcement task force, so long
as the primary purpose of the joint law enforcement task force is
not immigration enforcement, as defined in subdivision (f) of
Section'' 7284.4, and participation in the taskforce by the
California law enforcement does not violate any local law orpolicy
of the jurisdiction in which the agency is operating.
(3) Making inquiries into information necessary to certify an
individual who has been identified as a potential crime or
trafficking victim for a T or U Visa pursuant to Section
1101(a)(15)(T) or 1101(a)(15)(U) of Title 8 of the United States
Code or to comply with Section 922(d)(5) of Title 18 of the United
States Code.
95
SB 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
—8—
(4) Responding to a notification request from federal
immigration authorities for a person who is serving a term for the
conviction of a misdemeanor or felony offense and has a current
or prior conviction for a violent felony listed in subdivision (c) of
Section 667.5 of the Penal Code or a serious felony listed in
subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of the Penal Code, provided that
response would not violate any local law or policy.
(c) If a California law enforcement agency chooses to participate
in a joint law enforcement task force, it shall submit a report every
six months to the Department of Justice, as specified by the
Attorney General. The reporting ageney or the2k-ttorney General
operation or a eonfidential inform The report shall detail for
each taskforce operation, the purpose of the taskforce, the federal,
state, and local law enforcement agencies involved, the number
of California law enforcement agency personnel involved, a
description of arrests made for any federal and state crimes, and
a description of the number of people arrested for immigration
enforcement purposes. The reporting agency or the Attorney
General may determine a report, in whole or in part, shall not be
subject to disclosure pursuant to subdivision (0 of Section 6254,
the California Public Records Act, to the extent that disclosure of
a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a
person involved in an investigation or would endanger the
successful completion of the investigation or a related
investigation.
(d) The Attorney General, within 14 months after the effective
date of the act that added this section, and twice a year thereafter,
shall report on the types and frequency of joint law enforcement
task forces. The report shall include, for the reporting period,
assessments on compliance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (b),
a list of all California law enforcement agencies that participate
in joint law enforcement task forces, a list of joint law enforcement
task forces operating in the state and their purposes, the number
of arrests made associated with joint law enforcement task forces
for the violation of federal or state crimes, and the number of arrests
made associated with joint law enforcement task forces for the
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
-9— SB 54
purpose of immigration enforcement by all task force participants,
including federal law enforcement agencies. The Attorney General
shall post the reports required by this subdivision on the Attorney
General's Internet Web site.
(e) Notwithstanding any other law, in no event shall a California
law enforcement agency transfer an individual to federal
immigration authorities for purposes of immigration enforcement
or detain an individual at the request of federal immigration
authorities for purposes of immigration enforcement absent a
judicial warrant, except as provided in paragraph (4) of
subdivision (b). This subdivision does not limit the scope of
subdivision (a).
(f) This section does not prohibit or restrict any government
entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal
immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or
immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual pursuant
to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code.
7284.8. The Attorney General, within three months after the
effective date of the act that added this section, in consultation
with the appropriate stakeholders, shall publish model policies
limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest
extent possible consistent with federal and state law at public
schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state or
a political subdivision of the state, courthouses, Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement facilities, and shelters, and ensuring that
they remain safe and accessible to all California residents,
regardless of immigration status. All public schools, health facilities
operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and
courthouses shall implement the model policy, or an equivalent
policy. All other organizations and entities that provide services
related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or
access to justice, including the University of California, are
encouraged to adopt the model policy.
7284.10. The provisions of this act are severable. If any
provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given
effect without the invalid provision or application.
SEC. 2. Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code is
repealed.
SEC. 3. Section 3058.10 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
95
SB 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
—10-
3058.10. (a) The Board of Parole Hearings, with respect to
inmates sentenced pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1168, or
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, with respect to
inmates sentenced pursuant to Section 1170, shall notify `'-Al
United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement of the scheduled release on parole or postrelease
community supervision, or rerelease following a period of
confinement pursuant to a parole revocation without a new
commitment, of all persons confined to state prison serving a
current term for the conviction—of of, or who have a prior
conviction for; a violent felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section
"VVTT 667.5 or a serious felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section
1192.7.
(b) The notification shall be made at least 60 days prior to the
scheduled release date or as soon as practicable if notification
cannot be provided at least 60 days prior to release. The only
nonpublicly available personal information that the notification
may include is the name of the person who is scheduled to be
released and the scheduled date of release.
SEGA. Seetiott 3058.11 :s a -'-'ed to the Penal Code,
: - .. :. -:
U'2=9 M:ir�esi�:�►:�:i:e�r•.s��:��ai�.i
SEC. 4. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that
this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
95
-11— SB 54
1 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
2 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
3 SEC. 6. This aet is an utgeney statute neeessary for
4 immediate. of the pttblie Mee, health,
5 the meatting ofArtiele RI of the California Gonstitution and shall
6 go itito immediate effeet. The faets eotistittttitig the neeessity ftfe!
7
8
9 eooperation between federal immigration enforeement agent
10 state and loeal goveftiments as soon as possible,
11 this measwe to take effeet immediately.
I
95
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 54
Author: De Le6n (D), et al.
Amended: 3/29/17
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 1/31/17
AYES: Skinner, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Wiener
NOES: Anderson, Stone
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 3/13/17
AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
SUBJECT: Law enforcement: sharing data
SOURCE: Author
Attachment 4
SB 54
DIGEST: This bill limits state and local law enforcement agencies involvement in
immigration enforcement and ensures that eligible individuals are able to seek
services from and engage with state agencies without regard to their immigration
status.
SenateFloor Amendments of 3/29/17 make numerous changes to address issues
raised by law enforcement, including 1) allowing local law enforcement to contact
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and transfer people of ICE, without
a warrant, if the person was previously deported for a violent felony; 2) allowing
response to notification request from ICE and releasing date information if that
information is available to the public; 3) allowing ICE to interview people in
custody or transfer to federal immigration authorities if there is a judicial warrant;
4) clarifying that local law enforcement can participate in a joint task force so long
as immigration enforcements not the "primary" purpose; and 5) adding public
libraries to the list of places that are safe zones.
SB 54
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
Existing federal law:
1) Provides that any authorized immigration officer may at any time issue
Immigration Detainer -Notice of Action, to any other federal, state, or local law
enforcement agency. A detainer serves to advise another law enforcement
agency that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seeks custody of an
alien presently in the custody of that agency, for the purpose of arresting and
removing the alien. The detainer is a request that such agency advise the DHS,
prior to release of the alien, in order for the DHS to arrange to assume custody,
in situations when gaining immediate physical custody is either impracticable
or impossible. (8 CFR Section 287.7(a).)
2) States that upon a determination by the DHS to issue a detainer for an alien not
otherwise detained by a criminal justice agency, such agency shall maintain
custody of the alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding Saturdays,
Sundays, and holidays in order to permit assumption of custody by the DHS. (8
CFR Section 287.7(d).)
3) Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security under the 287(g) program to
enter into agreements that delegate immigration powers to local police. The
negotiated agreements between ICE and the local police are documented in
memorandum of agreements (MOAs). (8 U.S.C. Section 1357(g).)
4) States that notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State or local law, a
Federal, State or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any
way restrict any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving
from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the
citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful of any individual. (8 US
Code § 1373(a))
5) States that notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State or local law,
no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted,
from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service
information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in
the United States. (8US Code § 1644)
6) Provides that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process oflaw; nor
SB 54
Page 3
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(U.S. Const. 14th Amend.)
Existing state law:
1) Defines "immigration hold" as "an immigration detainer issued by an
authorized immigration officer, pursuant to specified regulations, that requests
that the law enforcement official to maintain custody of the individual for a
period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays,
and to advise the authorized immigration officer prior to the release of that
individual." (Government Code, § 7282 (c).)
2) Provides that a law enforcement official have the discretion to cooperatewith
federal immigration officials by detaining an individual on the basis of an
immigration hold after that individual becomes eligible for release from
custody only in if the continued detention of the individual on the basis of the
immigration hold would not violate any federal, state, or local law, or any local
policy and only under specified circumstances. (Government Code § 7282.5)
3) Provides that before any interview between ICE and an individual in local law
enforcement custody regarding civil violations law enforcement must provide
the individual with specified information and requires specified notification to
the individual if law enforcement intends to comply with an ICE hold or notify
ICE that the individual is being released. (Government Code § 7283.1)
4) Provides that where there is reason to believe that a person arrested for
specified controlled substance related offenses may not be a citizen of the
United Stated, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the
United States having charge of deportation matters. (Health and Safety Code §
11369)
This bill:
1) Repeals Health and Safety Code § 11369.
2) Prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies and schoolpolice and
security departments from using agency or department money, facility,
property, equipment or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detector
arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including but not limited
to any of the following:
SB 54
Page 4
a) Inquiring into or collecting information about an individual's immigration
status.
b) Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request.
c) Responding to notification or transfer requests.
d) Providing, or responding to requests for, nonpublicly available personal
information about an individual, including, but not limited to, information
about the person's release date, home address, orwork address for
immigration enforcement purposes.
e) Making arrests based on civil immigration warrants.
f) Giving federal immigration authorities access to interview individuals in
agency or department custody for immigration enforcement purposes.
g) Assisting federal immigration in conducting a search of a vehicle without a
warrant.
h) Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether formal or
informal.
3) Allows local law enforcement to contact ICE and transfer people to ICE
without a warrant if the person was previously deported for a violent felony.
4) Prohibits any state local law enforcement agencies and schoolpolice and
security departments from making agency or department databases, including
databases maintained for the agency or department by private vendors, or the
information therein other than information regarding an individual's
citizenship or immigration status, available to anyone or any entity for the
purpose of immigration enforcement. It further provides that any agreements
in place on the effective date of this bill that are in conflict with the bill shall
be terminated on the effective date of the bill. Any person or entity provided
access to agency or department databases must certify in writing that the
database will not be used for the prohibited purposes.
5) Allows response notification requests from ICE if that information is public.
6) Prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies and schoolpolice and
security department from placing peace officers under the supervision of a
federal agencies or employing peace officers deputized as special federal
officers or special federal deputies except to the extent those peace officers
remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the
polices of the employing agency.
7) Prohibits using federal immigration authorities as interpreters for law
enforcement matters relating to individuals in agency or department custody.
SB 54
Page 5
8) Provides that nothing in this section shall prevent any California law
enforcement agency from doing any of the following:
a) Responding to a request from immigration authorities about a specific
person's criminal history.
b) Participating in a joint law enforcement task force that is not primarily an
immigration law enforcement.
9) Provides that if California law enforcement agency chooses to participate in a
joint law enforcement task force, it shall submit a report every six months to
the Department of Justice, as specified by the Attorney General. Sensitive
information, as determined by the Attorney General, is not a public record for
purposes ofthe California Public Records Actpursuant to subdivision (f) of
Section 6254 of the Government Code.
10) Provides that the Attorney General, within 14 months after the effective date of
the act that added this section, and twice a year thereafter, shall report on the
types and frequency of joint law enforcement task forces. The report shall
include, for the reporting period, assessments on compliance with paragraph
(2) of subdivision (b), a list of all California law enforcement agencies that
participate in joint law enforcement task forces, a list of joint law enforcement
task forces operating in the state and their purposes, the number of arrests
made associated with joint law enforcement task forces for the violation of
federal or state crimes, and the number of arrests made associated with joint
law enforcement task forces for the purpose of immigration enforcement by all
task force participants, including federal law enforcement agencies. The
Attorney General shall post the reports required by this subdivision on the
Attorney General's Internet Web site.
11) Provides that notwithstanding any other law, in no event shall a California law
enforcement agency transfer an individual to federal immigration authorities
for the purposes of immigration enforcement or detain an individual at the
request of federal immigration authorities for the purposes of immigration
enforcement absent a judicial warrant.
12) Provides that this section does not prohibit or restrict any government entity or
official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities,
information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or
unlawful, of an individual pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the
United States Code.
SB 54
Page 6
11) Provides the Attorney General, within three months after the effective date of
the act that added this section, in consultation with the appropriate
stakeholders, shall publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration
enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law
at public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political
subdivision of the state, courthouses, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement
facilities, and shelters and ensuring that they remain safe and accessible to all
California residents, regardless of immigration status. All public schools,
health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and
courthouses shall implement the model policy, or an equivalent policy. All
other organizations and entities that provide services related to physical or
mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the
University of California, are encouraged to adopt the model policy.
12) Provides that the Board of Parole Hearings, with respect to inmates sentenced
pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1168, or the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation, with respectto inmates sentenced pursuant to Section 1170,
shall notify ICE of the scheduled release on parole or postrelease community
supervision, or rerelease following a period of confinement pursuant to a
parole revocation without a new commitment, of all persons confined to state
prison serving a term for the conviction of a violent felony or serious felony as
defined in the penal code.
13) Provides that the notification by the Board of Parole Hearings shall be made at
least 60 days prior to the scheduled release date or as soon as practicable if
notification cannot be provided at least 60 days prior to release. The only
nonpublicly available personal information that the notification may include is
the name of the person who is scheduled to be released and the scheduled date
of release.
15) Provides that the notification may be made up to 60 days prior to the scheduled
release date. The only nonpublicly available personal information that the
notification may include is the name of the person who is scheduled to be
released and the scheduled date of release.
16) Makes Legislative findings and declarations.
17) Defines terms for the purpose of the Chapter created by this bill.
18) Provides that the Chapter it creates shall be known as the California Values
Act.
SB 54
Page 7
Comments
According to the author:
The purpose of this bill is to protect the safety and well-being of all
Californians by ensuring that state and local resources are not used to
fuel mass deportations, separate families, and ultimately hurt
California's economy.
The President has stated publicly that he will order the increased
deportation of a broad category of immigrants and that doing so will
be a top priority. Any expansion of federal deportation efforts will
have a significant effect on California's economy and society.
A relationship of trust between California's immigrant residents and
our state and local agencies, including police, schools, and hospitals,
is essential to carrying out basic state and local functions. That trust
is threatened when state and local agencies are involved in
immigration enforcement.
According to the President Obama's Taskforce on 21St Century
Policing, "immigrants often fear approaching police officers when
they are victims of and witnesses to crimes and when local police are
entangled with federal immigration enforcement. At all levels of
government, it is important that laws, policies, and practices not
hinder the ability of local law enforcement to build the strong
relationships necessary to public safety and community well-being.
It is the view of this task force that whenever possible, state and local
law enforcement should not be involved in immigration
enforcement."' A study conducted by the University of Illinois
similarly found that 44 percent of Latinos are less likely to contact
police officers if they have been the victim of a crime because they
fear that police officers will use this interaction as an opportunity to
inquire about their immigration status or that of people they know.2
California is already familiar with the harmful effects of entangling
local law enforcement agencies with immigration enforcement. Prior
to its termination, the discredited "Secure Communities" program
(S -Comm) operated in California as an indiscriminate mass
' Final Report of the President's Taskforce on21 ' Century Policing (May 2016).
2 Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions ofPolice Involvement in Immigration Enforcement, Nik Theodore, Dep't ofUrban Planning and
Policy, University ofIllinois at Chicago (May 2013)
SB 54
Page 8
deportation program at great cost to California both financially and
otherwise. According to a report prepared by Justice Strategies in
2012, when the Secure Communities program was still active,
California taxpayers spent an estimated $65 million annually to
detain people for ICE.3
For that reason, it is necessary to evaluate the appropriate use of state and local
resources for immigration enforcement purposes and recognize the devastating
impact deportations have on a state with thousands of mixed status families, and a
heavily immigrant workforce
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
• One-time costs of $2.7 million and ongoing costs of $2.3 million per year for
the Department of Justice to develop model compliance policies, provide
training and outreach to law enforcement and other agencies, review
information from local law enforcement agencies, and compile required reports
(General Fund).
• Unknown costs to local law enforcement agencies to change their existing
processes and procedures for interacting with federal immigration enforcement
authorities and for reporting on their participation in law enforcement task
forces (local funds).
In order to comply with the prohibitions on certain interactions with federal
immigration authorities, local law enforcement agencies may incur costs to
modify existing systems or processes. Because the bill does not mandate that
those local law enforcement agencies provide new or expanded services, any
such costs incurred by local governments are not likely to be interpreted as a
reimbursable state mandate; therefore it is unlikely that the state would be
responsible for reimbursing local law enforcement agencies for those costs.
Additionally, the bill requires a local law enforcement agency to report to the
Department of Jus tic e with specified information if the agency participates in a
law enforcement task force. To the extent that local law enforcement agencies
do participate in such task forces, they may incur costs to comply with the
reporting requirements. However, because local law enforcement agencies have
discretion as to whether they participate in such task forces, the costs of
'See Judith Greene, "The Cost ofRespondingto Immigration Detainers in California," Justice Strategies Report, August 22, 2012.
SB 54
Page 9
reporting to the Department of Justice are not likely to be ruled a reimbursable
mandate from the state.
• Unknown fiscal risk to the state, to the extent that the prohibitions in the bill
interfere with existing contracts between local law enforcement agencies and
federal immigration authorities (General Fund). See below for more detail.
• Unknown potential costs to state agencies, courts, and local agencies such as
school districts and county health facilities to comply with model policies
developed by the Attorney General governing assistance between those
agencies and federal immigration authorities (General Fund and other funds).
The bill requires the Attorney General to adopt model policies and requires
certain entities — such as public schools, government health facilities, courts,
and other entities — to comply with the model policy. Depending on the
requirements of that model policy, there could be costs forthose entities to
comply with its requirements, such as information technology costs to ensure
data systems meet requirements or staff training. The extent of those costs is
unknown, but given the very large number of effected entities, those costs could
be substantial. For local government entities, such as school districts and county
health facilities, the state would likely be required to reimburse those mandated
costs.
• Unknown potential loss of federal funding to the state and/or local law
enforcement agencies, due to non-cooperation with federal immigration
authorities by law enforcement agencies (Federal funds).
SUPPORT: (Verified 3/30/17)
Abriendo Puerta/Opening Doors
AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
Alliance San Diego
American Academy of Pediatrics, California
American Civil Liberties Union
Asian Americans Advancing Justice -California
Asian American Criminal Trial Lawyers Association
Asian Law Alliance
ASPIRE
Bill Wilson Center
California Adolescent Health Collaborative
California Association for Bilingual Education
California Central Valley Journey for Justice
SB 54
Page 10
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Faculty Association
California Federation of Teachers (CFT), AFL-CIO
California Health + Advocates
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Labor Federation
California La Raza Lawyers Association
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
Californians for Justice Education Fund
Californians for Safety and Justice
Californians Together Coalition
Center for Gender and Refugee Studies
Central American Resource Center -Los Angeles
Centro Laboral de Graton
Children's Defense Fund -CA
Courage Campaign
CREDO
Drug Policy Alliance
Equality California
Eric Garcetti, Mayor of Los Angeles
Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project of Catholic Charities of Los Angeles
Evergreen Teachers Association
Faith in the Valley
Filipino Youth Coalition
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice
Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Coalition
Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California
Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance
La Raza Roundtable de California
Latino and Latina Roundtable
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
Loyola. Immigrant Jus tic e Clinic
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Mi Familia Vota
Mixteco/Indigena Community Organizing Project
MomsRising
Monument Impact
Muslim Student Association West
SB 54
Page 11
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
National Lawyers Guild, Los Angeles
North County Immigration Task Force of San Diego
National Council of Jewish Women California
National Day Laborer Organizing Network
National Immigration Law Center
Nikkei for Civil Rights and Redress
Nikkei Progressives
Orange County Immigrant Youth United
Our Family Coalition
P angea Legal Services
Peace and Freedom Party of California
PolicyLink
RISE San Luis Obispo
San Diego Dream Team
San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium
San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association
San Joaquin Immigrant Youth Collective
Santa Cruz County Immigration Project
Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network
SEIU California
SEN Local 1021
So mos Mayfair
South Asian Network
Students Matter
Tongan American Youth Foundation
The Children's Partnership
The Utility Reform Network
Training Occupational Development Educating Communities Legal Center
UDW/AFSCME Local 3930
UNITE HERE
UPLIFT
Village Connect, Inc.
Voices for Progress Education Fund
Warehouse Worker Resource Center
Western Center on Law and Poverty
YWCA Glendale
A number of individuals
OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/30/17)
SB 54
Page 12
California Peace Officers' Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
San Bernardino County Sheriff
A number of individuals
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Alliance for Boys and Men of Color supports this
bill stating:
California is already familiar with the harmful effects of entangling local law
enforcement agencies with immigration enforcement. Prior to its
termination, the discredited "Secure Communities" program (S -Comm)
operated in California as an indiscriminate mass deportation program at
great cost to California both financially and otherwise. According to a report
prepared by Justice Strategies in 2012, under S -Comm, California taxpayers
spent an estimated $65 million annually to detain people for ICE.1
Continuing to tangle state and local public safety resources with the dirty
business of deportations threatens the civil rights and safety of all who reside
in California. Such actions foster racial profiling, police mistreatment, and
wrongful arrests, which further undermine trust between local communities
and law enforcement.
The American Academy of Pediatrics supports this bill stating:
It is our strongly held belief that all children should be afforded the
right to attend school, visit a doctor's office, or approach a police
officer for help without fearing for their safety. Parents should be able
to attend school events and parent -teacher conferences, seek medical
care, and request police assistance for themselves and their children
without concern that their families will be torn apart as a result.
Subjecting California families to programs and policies that threaten
these central functions of parenting could pose innumerable, grave
consequences to the social, psychological, and physical well-being of
children.
SB 54 (De Le6n) would dramatically advance the health of California
children by assuring that no child or parent need fear detention,
separation, or deportation as a result of seeking an education or medical
care. It would help to reduce the toxic burden of fear that many
children across our state live with every day, in a time when that fear
has grown substantially more severe. And it would affirm our
commitment to doing right by each and every child in our diverse
SB 54
Page 13
communities, no matter who they are or the circumstances that brought
them here.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California State Sheriffs' Association
opposes stating:
Sheriffs do not wish to act as immigration police, nor are they, and we
protect EVERYONE in our communities regardless of immigration
status. That said, we need to continue to cooperate with our law
enforcement partners to ensure that those who victimize our
communities are not given unnecessary opportunities to do more harm.
While amendments attempt to clarify a local agency's ability to
participate in a law enforcement task force with federal partners, the
bill still lacks clarity as to lawful task force participation and it now
imposes reporting requirements as to the nature of the law enforcement
participation in a task force. And while the latest version of the bill
attempts to allow some communication between local and federal
authorities, SB 54 continues to preclude communication about
potentially dangerous people. Specifically, the language only allows
communication with the FBI (not ICE) in cases in which a person
serving a term for a misdemeanor conviction, who also has a prior
conviction for a violent felony, is about to be released. This language
does not permit law enforcement to communicate about persons
convicted of felonies and who are in jail custody or persons alleged to
have committed a criminal offense. Precluding communication with
ICE about, and prohibiting ICE access to, jail inmates of interest to ICE
is likely to push ICE apprehension efforts out to communities, where
collateral impacts on the family members of those wanted persons are
likely.
SB 54 stands to further separate people from their families and their
communities by precluding the detention of persons for immigration
purposes as currently happens in some California counties pursuant to a
federal contract. The bill may keep these persons from being held in
California jails, but they will still be detained somewhere, and it is
likely that their detention will take place much further from their
communities, networks, and families, and possibly even out of state. In
seeking to solve a perceived problem, SB 54 creates significant new
family issues.
SB 54
Page 14
Prepared by: Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /
3/30/17 15:34:00
**** END ****
Attachment 5
rF"OLICE CHIE
P.O. Box 255745 Sacramento, California 95865-5745 Telephone (916) 481-8000 FAX (916) 481-8008
E-mail: Imegill@californiapolicechiefs.org • Website; californiapolicechiefs.org
EXECUTIVE BOARD
March 13, 2017
President
KEN CORNEY
Ventura
The California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) regrets to inform you of our
1st Vice President
opposition to Senate Bill SB 54 which would limit California law enforcement
pr"
ED MEDRANO
from using agency or department moneys, facilities, property, equipment, or
Gardena
Honorable Kevin de Leon
2nd Vice President
enforcement purposes. Although immigration enforcement is not the duty of state or
DAVIDSWING
California State Senate
Morgan Hill
local law enforcement, these restrictions will have negative consequences and
3rd Vice President
California State Capitol
RON LAWRENCE
Citrus Heights
Sacramento, CA 95814
Immediate Past President
Public safety is the primary concern of local law enforcement, not immigration.
DAVID BEJARANO EJARANO
Legally, California's law enforcement agencies lack the authority and jurisdiction to
JOE GARZA. Reedley
Region 11
enforce federal immigration law. Beyond the legal limitations, any attempt by local
oaer�mat
Senate Bill 54 (Oppose as amended 3/6/17)
ROB HANDY
Huntington Beach
public trust and curtail the ability of our departments to carry out their primary
DIRECTORS
Senate President Pro Tempore de Leon:
Region 1
ANDREW MILLS, Eureka
D
DEAN P
DEANPRICE, Gddley-Biggs
The California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) regrets to inform you of our
Regions
opposition to Senate Bill SB 54 which would limit California law enforcement
pr"
JEFF WEAVER. Sebastopol
Region
from using agency or department moneys, facilities, property, equipment, or
TOO SOCKMAN, Galt
Regions
personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration
AARON EASSTON, MarysvilleRegi
enforcement purposes. Although immigration enforcement is not the duty of state or
JM LEAL, Newark
local law enforcement, these restrictions will have negative consequences and
Region i
SCOTT HELLER.Oakdale
threaten to create safety concerns within our communities.
Region 8
MAX BOSEL, Mountain View
Region g
Public safety is the primary concern of local law enforcement, not immigration.
AMY CHRISTEY, Pacific Grove
Region 10
Legally, California's law enforcement agencies lack the authority and jurisdiction to
JOE GARZA. Reedley
Region 11
enforce federal immigration law. Beyond the legal limitations, any attempt by local
sTlc, Faersville
O zmt
law enforcement to target non -criminals for immigration violations would only erode
Regio
PAT WALSH, Lompoc
public trust and curtail the ability of our departments to carry out their primary
REGION 13
JIM SMITH, Monterey Park
mission. Because community relationships are so important, CPCA has a track record
Region 14
ROB HANDY, Huntington Beach
of standing behind California's large immigrant community, which includes
Region 15
MARK GARCIA, Redlands
supporting legislation to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain a driver license,
Region 16
and shield victims of human trafficking from deportation. However, there are
FRANK MCCOY, Oceanside
TOM CHAPLIN
instances when providing public safety entails partnering with federal law
Walnut Creak
DAN DeSMIDT
enforcement agencies, including immigration enforcement.
Belmont
CHRIS DEWEY
Ulaah
Consistent with existing state laws and current department procedures, we strongly
DANA AGGARD, Retired
Irvine
Irvine
believe that undocumented immigrants who commit violent and serious offenses
ERIC laNEZ
against members of our community should be subject to the immigration laws of this
Los Alamitos
SAL ROSANO, Retired
country. By doing so, we dangerous individuals from creating more victims —
Santa Rosa
JENNIFER TEJADA
prevent
including within our own immigrant communities. As such, our departments
Emeryville
Associate Member
routinely engage with federal law enforcement agencies — including Immigration and
PON Captain
Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) — for the
Pittsburgurg
Associate Member
purpose of eliminating drugs, violence, and crime from our streets.
RICK ARMENOARIZ, Assistant Chief
Modesto
le Member
AssocMICHEOORE, Assistant Chief
MICHEL M
Currently, local law enforcement a ies have the discretion to partner with ICE or
y� agencies
Los Angetes
HSI, and do so through targeted operations to apprehend identified criminals. For
LESLIE MCGILL. CAE
Executive Director
example, ICE may request tactical support from a local police department during an
Ex -Officio
Honorable Kevin De Leon
March 13, 2017
Page two
operation to arrest members of a gang or drug cartel for civil or criminal immigration violations.
Additionally, local law enforcement also engages in federal joint task forces with various federal
law enforcement agencies, including ICE and HSI. These task forces all focus on organized
crime, human trafficking and national security; however, immigration enforcement often plays a
role in carrying out those missions. For instance, if during a joint investigation into a drug
trafficking operation, HSI or ICE identifies one of the suspects as an individual with an
immigration violation, the task force may use that violation to apprehend that suspect. In those
such instances, it is typical for local law enforcement to supply information, resources, or even
manpower to physically assist in making the arrest. In every case, these are fluid and dynamic
partnerships that require constant communication.
SB 54 creates roadblocks, hurdles, and ambiguity when it comes to local law enforcement's
participation in any of the examples above. Under the proposed Government Code Section
7284.6(b)(2), SB 54 does appear to exempt local law enforcement agencies who
are "(p)articipating in a joint law enforcement task force, so long as the purpose of the joint law
enforcement task force is not immigration enforcement." However, what this section does not
clearly elucidate what "the purpose" of the task force would be considered.
The intent of SB 54 is to prevent local law enforcement from ANY immigration enforcement, so
it is unclear whether 7284.6(b)(2) distinguishes the overall purpose of the federal -state
collaboration from the incidental operations that may be utilized to achieve that purpose. In the
task force example from above, it is unclear whether "the purpose" would be considered
reducing drug trafficking (the overall mission), or immigration enforcement (the operation). If
the latter, it is also unclear what reduced role local law enforcement would have to take in the
task force — would we be forced to simply recuse ourselves from making the physical arrest, or
would we be forced to sever all ties with the operation at that point, including blocking any
information sharing? Moreover, during a collaboration with ICE to serve a criminal warrant,
local police should not be liable if ICE makes any additional detentions after the discovery of an
immigration violation. Again, in this example, it would be unclear how local law enforcement
should limit their participation. In total, the task force exemption does not adequately protect our
ability to maintain these partnerships, even when the focus is on major crimes.
An equal, if not greater concern, is the unintended consequence SB 54 will have by preventing
ICE from conducting immigration enforcement operations in our jail facilities. Currently, jails in
California may allow ICE access to specified inmates, but the state agency overseeing the jail
must provide those inmates with a notification of their rights. Under SB 54, ICE will no longer
be allowed access to our jails for immigration enforcement purposes. As a result, ICE will be
forced to carry out more field operations in our communities. Even during targeted immigration
operations, this will result in more collateral detentions — where undocumented individuals at the
scene of an arrest and were not the initial targets are detained by ICE. These collateral detentions
often cause the most confusion and fear amongst our immigrant communities, and any increase
is likely to cause additional problems. Furthermore, forcing ICE to make public arrests does not
actually prevent detentions, but instead only increases the likelihood of escalated situations that
may lead to dangerous encounters in our neighborhoods. Although SB 54 does allow state
prisons and jails to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigations of the release date of violent
felons, or those in custody with violent felony priors, that does not include those who may have
multiple significant misdemeanors — such as spousal abuse or child endangerment — and it still
limits our ability to make the transfer in a safe custodial setting. Clearly, the cost of removing
Honorable Kevin De Leon
March 13, 2017
Page three
ICE from our jails, where they can focus solely on convicted criminals, does not outweigh any
perceived benefits to our immigrant communities.
California law enforcement agencies have no intention, or desire, to become the primary
enforcers of federal immigration law. Even under ongoing federal changes, local police will keep
doing what local police do best — partnering with our community members to ensure everyone is
protected. CPCA does recognize that there is a balance that needs to be struck on immigration
enforcement — one that takes the focus away from those not posing a threat, and allows law
enforcement to expend resources protecting our communities from those with ill -intent.
Unfortunately, SB 54 will make it more difficult to work with our federal law enforcement
partners in apprehending dangerous criminals, and threatens to create more fear in our
communities by forcing federal immigration operations out of our jails and into our
communities. For those reasons, CPCA must oppose SB 54. If you have any questions regarding
our position, please contact Jonathan Feldman at jfeldmangcalifomianolicechiefs.ore, or call
916-822-8900. Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you,
Ken Comey
President
1�
Jonathan Feldman
Legislative Advocate
moron wnGP77,
Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 18/Monday, January 30, 2017 /Presidential Documents 8799
Presidential Documents
Executive Order 13768 of January 25, 2017
Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nation-
ality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), and in order to ensure the public
safety of the American people in communities across the United States
as well as to ensure that our Nation's immigration laws are faithfully exe-
cuted, I hereby declare the policy of the executive branch to be, and order,
as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. Interior enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws
is critically important to the national security and public safety of the
United States. Many aliens who illegally enter the United States and those
who overstay or otherwise violate the terms of their visas present a significant
threat to national security and public safety. This is particularly so for
aliens who engage in criminal conduct in the United States.
Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal
law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States.
These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people
and to the very fabric of our Republic.
Tens of thousands of removable aliens have been released into communities
across the country, solely because their home countries refuse to accept
their repatriation. Many of these aliens are criminals who have served time
in our Federal, State, and local jails. The presence of such individuals
in the United States, and the practices of foreign nations that refuse the
repatriation of their nationals, are contrary to the national interest.
Although Federal immigration law provides a framework for Federal -State
partnerships in enforcing our immigration laws to ensure the removal of
aliens who have no right to be in the United States, the Federal Government
has failed to discharge this basic sovereign responsibility. We cannot faith-
fully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes
or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. The purpose
of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies (agencies)
to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United
States.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to:
(a) Ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United
States, including the INA, against all removable aliens, consistent with Article
II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution and section 3331 of title
5, United States Code;
(b) Make use of all available systems and resources to ensure the efficient
and faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States;
(c) Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal
law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law;
(d) Ensure that aliens ordered removed from the United States are promptly
removed; and
(e) Support victims, and the families of victims, of crimes committed
by removable aliens.
Sec. 3. Definitions. The terms of this order, where applicable, shall have
the meaning provided by section 1101 of title 8, United States Code.
8800 Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 18/Monday, January 30, 2017 /Presidential Documents
Sec. 4. Enforcement of the Immigration Laws in the Interior of the United
States. In furtherance of the policy described in section 2 of this order,
I hereby direct agencies to employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful
execution of the immigration laws of the United States against all removable
aliens.
Sec. 5. Enforcement Priorities. In executing faithfully the immigration laws
of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall
prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress in sections
212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235, and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the INA (8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)), as
well as removable aliens who:
(a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
(b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge
has not been resolved;
(c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;
(d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection
with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;
(e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
(f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied
with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or
(g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to
public safety or national security.
Sec. 6. Civil Fines and Penalties. As soon as practicable, and by no later
than one year after the date of this order, the Secretary shall issue guidance
and promulgate regulations, where required by law, to ensure the assessment
and collection of all fines and penalties that the Secretary is authorized
under the law to assess and collect from aliens unlawfully present in the
United States and from those who facilitate their presence in the United
States.
Sec. 7. Additional Enforcement and Removal Officers. The Secretary, through
the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, shall, to the
extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations,
take all appropriate action to hire 10,000 additional immigration officers,
who shall complete relevant training and be authorized to perform the
law enforcement functions described in section 287 of the INA (8 U.S.C.
1357).
Sec. 8. Federal -State Agreements. It is the policy of the executive branch
to empower State and local law enforcement agencies across the country
to perform the functions of an immigration officer in the interior of the
United States to the maximum extent permitted by law.
(a) In furtherance of this policy, the Secretary shall immediately take
appropriate action to engage with the Governors of the States, as well as
local officials, for the purpose of preparing to enter into agreements under
section 287(8) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1357(8)).
(b) To the extent permitted by law and with the consent of State or
local officials, as appropriate, the Secretary shall take appropriate action,
through agreements under section 287(g) of the INA, or otherwise, to author-
ize State and local law enforcement officials, as the Secretary determines
are qualified and appropriate, to perform the functions of immigration officers
in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in
the United States under the direction and the supervision of the Secretary.
Such authorization shall be in addition to, rather than in place of, Federal
performance of these duties.
(c) To the extent permitted by law, the Secretary may structure each
agreement under section 287(g) of the INA in a manner that provides the
most effective model for enforcing Federal immigration laws for that jurisdic-
tion.
Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 18/Monday, January 30, 2017 /Presidential Documents 8801
Sec. 9. Sanctuary Jurisdictions. It is the policy of the executive branch
to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a political subdivi-
sion of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373.
(a) In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary,
in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that
jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary
jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed
necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the
Secretary. The Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion
and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdic-
tion. The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against
any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute,
policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal
law.
(b) To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated
with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer
Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public
a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any juris-
diction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect
to such aliens.
(c) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is directed
to obtain and provide relevant and responsive information on all Federal
grant money that currently is received by any sanctuary jurisdiction.
Sec. 10. Review of Previous Immigration Actions and Policies. (a) The Sec-
retary shall immediately take all appropriate action to terminate the Priority
Enforcement Program (PEP) described in the memorandum issued by the
Secretary on November 20, 2014, and to reinstitute the immigration program
known as "Secure Communities" referenced in that memorandum.
(b) The Secretary shall review agency regulations, policies, and procedures
for consistency with this order and, if required, publish for notice and
comment proposed regulations rescinding or revising any regulations incon-
sistent with this order and shall consider whether to withdraw or modify
any inconsistent policies and procedures, as appropriate and consistent with
the law.
(c) To protect our communities and better facilitate the identification,
detention, and removal of criminal aliens within constitutional and statutory
parameters, the Secretary shall consolidate and revise any applicable forms
to more effectively communicate with recipient law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 11. Department of Justice Prosecutions of Immigration Violators. The
Attorney General and the Secretary shall work together to develop and
implement a program that ensures that adequate resources are devoted to
the prosecution of criminal immigration offenses in the United States, and
to develop cooperative strategies to reduce violent crime and the reach
of transnational criminal organizations into the United States.
Sec. 12. Recalcitrant Countries. The Secretary of Homeland Security and
the Secretary of State shall cooperate to effectively implement the sanctions
provided by section 243(d) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1253(d)), as appropriate.
The Secretary of State shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law,
ensure that diplomatic efforts and negotiations with foreign states include
as a condition precedent the acceptance by those foreign states of their
nationals who are subject to removal from the United States.
Sec. 13. Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens. The
Secretary shall direct the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforce-
ment to take all appropriate and lawful action to establish within U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement an office to provide proactive, timely,
adequate, and professional services to victims of crimes committed by remov-
able aliens and the family members of such victims. This office shall provide
quarterly reports studying the effects of the victimization by criminal aliens
present in the United States.
8802 Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 18/Monday, January 30, 2017 /Presidential Documents
Sec. 14. Privacy Act. Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable
law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United
States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the
Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.
Sec. 15. Reporting. Except as otherwise provided in this order, the Secretary
and the Attorney General shall each submit to the President a report on
the progress of the directives contained in this order within 90 days of
the date of this order and again within 180 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 16. Transparency. To promote the transparency and situational aware-
ness of criminal aliens in the United States, the Secretary and the Attorney
General are hereby directed to collect relevant data and provide quarterly
reports on the following:
(a) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated under the supervision
of the Federal Bureau of Prisons;
(b) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated as Federal pretrial
detainees under the supervision of the United States Marshals Service; and
(c) the immigration status of all convicted aliens incarcerated in State
prisons and local detention centers throughout the United States.
Sec. 17. Personnel Actions. The Office of Personnel Management shall take
appropriate and lawful action to facilitate hiring personnel to implement
this order.
Sec. 18. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed
to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency,
or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and
subject to the availability of appropriations.
Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 18/Monday, January 30, 2017 /Presidential Documents 8803
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party
against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers,
employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 25, 2017.
[FR Doc. 2017-02102
Filed 1-27-17; 11:15 am]
Billing code 3295—F7—P