Shasta Sheriff’s Office to conduct public forum about ICE cooperation at supervisors meeting
California law allows law enforcement agencies to assist in federal immigration enforcement but only under specific circumstances. The sheriff’s office will present about how many times that occurred last year during tomorrow’s board of supervisors meeting.
The Shasta County Sheriff’s Office is scheduled to present about its cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Tuesday’s board of supervisors meeting.
California prohibits most law enforcement cooperation with ICE under the Values Act, but it allows for certain exceptions. Those exceptions allow law enforcement agencies to provide ICE access to individuals being held by law enforcement either through a transfer or notification request.
Annual reporting to the public about how many times law enforcement provided this kind of access to ICE is required by California’s TRUTH Act. Law enforcement agencies are also required to report this information to the California Department of Justice each year.
A staff report provided to supervisors before Tuesday’s meeting explains that the sheriff’s office may provide data it maintains regarding the number and demographic characteristics of those who the agency provided ICE access to, the date access was provided and whether access was provided through a hold, transfer or notification request.
A “hold request” is defined as a request from ICE for a local law enforcement agency to maintain custody of an individual past the time they would be eligible for release to transfer the individual into ICE’s custody. A “notification request” is when ICE requests a local law enforcement agency inform ICE of the release date and time of an individual in custody. A “transfer request” is ICE’s request to transfer an individual from the local agency’s custody to ICE. Only notification and transfer requests are allowed to be honored by law enforcement agencies, and only for qualifying individuals, such as those who have a judicial warrant or are convicted of certain crimes.
A similar public report was shared locally last year in February, indicating that 39 individuals arrested by the Shasta Sheriff’s Office in 2024 were subjects of interest to ICE. Undersheriff Gene Randall said the jail assisted ICE in only one of those cases, in which the jail notified ICE of an individual who was wanted under a federal warrant. Randall added that the individual had been previously deported and returned to the country illegally.
Shasta Scout recently reported that Sheriff Michael Johnson attempted to enter an agreement with ICE last year that would’ve given officers immigration enforcement authority, a more extensive form of collaboration than the simple notice or transfer process allowed in some circumstances. The sheriff’s attempt was halted after a federal ICE official informed the sheriff’s office that it would likely be against state law to do so.
The presentation is scheduled to take place on April 21 as part of the Shasta board of supervisors meeting, which begins at 9 a.m.
Do you have information or a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Comments (2)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
Lao, Thai, Cambodian New Year draws crowd of hundreds in Redding
Shasta County’s Southeast Asian community has been celebrating the traditional new year for decades. This year, for the first time, the spring-time festivities were held at a Buddhist temple in Redding.
Shasta Superior Court swears in youngest-ever judge in lighthearted ceremony
Judge Ryan H. Birss, who’s 38 years old, became the court’s youngest judge last Friday. His swearing ceremony was full of jokes and heartwarming stories.
Volunteer dismissed from poll training after pushing back on political commentary by Shasta election official Clint Curtis
Two women say they were told to leave a poll worker training session Thursday after expressing discontent with political commentary made by Shasta’s chief election official. A third poll worker made it through her training earlier in the week but was left with significant concerns.
Thank you, Madison, for this reporting.
.
Of interest to me is your report that “Sheriff Michael Johnson attempted to enter an agreement with ICE last year that would’ve given officers immigration enforcement authority, a more extensive form of collaboration than the simple notice or transfer process allowed in some circumstances. The sheriff’s attempt was halted after a federal ICE official informed the sheriff’s office that it would likely be against state law to do so.” Here are my questions:
.
Does anyone at Shasta Scout know if any other official, say a current Shasta County Supervisor, a City of Redding official, or a citizen, like past supervisor Patrick Jones, was working with the Sheriff and ICE to sign this deal, and do you know who instigated the referenced attempt? Also, is there a copy of the proposed agreement that citizens can reference?
.
I wish I could be at the SCBOS Meeting to ask, but I cannot.
.
Thanks
There should be zero negative consequences for the sheriff’s dept. There is no crime in two patriots figuring out what they are allowed to do based on the ridiculous sanctuary state initiatives. Im not a big fan of local cops generally– as they can be so bumbling and corrupt, but it’s all we have to assist with the important work ICE is doing.