Large public turnout pushes council to scrutinize proposed 287(g) jail‑to‑ICE arrangement

A packed public comment period Oct. 7 focused on a proposed local agreement related to the federal 287(g) program that would permit local detention staff to assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with certain warrant‑service activities. Speakers — including clergy, immigrant leaders, lawyers and dozens of residents — urged the council to block or closely constrain any county cooperation with ICE, while some speakers supported the proposal as a law‑enforcement tool.

County and ICE officials described the specific model under consideration as the “warrant‑service officer” (WSO) model, not a neighborhood enforcement program. County executive staff and the sheriff’s office said the WSO model would apply to people already in the county detention center: corrections staff or deputized personnel would serve administrative immigration detainers on people being released from local custody, then hold them for up to 48 hours so ICE can take custody following its own vetting. County officials said the proposal is intended to cover only persons already in the local corrections system, not routine street enforcement.

Public comment was emphatic and sustained. Dozens of residents testified over more than two hours. Several speakers who identified as Haitian community members and church leaders said the program would instill fear and harm families; others highlighted risks to crime victims and public‑safety cooperation if immigrants are afraid to report crimes. The Maryland Office of the Public Defender’s immigration‑services director said national data show 287(g) detainers are disproportionately placed on people with no conviction or only minor convictions, and urged the council to at least delay and investigate the local proposal. A county resident recounted an episode he described as intimidation by a person identifying as enforcement, and others described national examples of aggressive ICE tactics.

County executive staff said the initial announcement in July prompted confusion because the earlier, more aggressive “jail‑enforcement model” (JEM) was not feasible for Wicomico due to limited staffing; instead the county pursued the WSO model, which staff and sheriff’s office leaders said is similar to the county’s current practice in some respects but adds an explicit MOA to allow a 48‑hour hold after a verified ICE detainer is served. Peter Mercurio, ICE’s Baltimore field‑office 287(g) manager, told the council ICE would accept nominations of personnel from the county and that the agency’s template MOA names the corrections agency as the law‑enforcement partner; ICE said it could accept county nominations for personnel (including deputized sheriff’s deputies) but the federal MOA template historically names the jail/corrections entity. County counsel and the county executive discussed whether the charter requires council approval for an open‑ended MOA; the county attorney advised that because the draft MOA has no end date, council review and action were appropriate. The council asked for a subsequent work session and a formal resolution or draft MOA to review.

County leaders committed to follow‑up. County attorney staff said they would work with the sheriff’s office, department of corrections and ICE to prepare a draft MOA and a legal memorandum describing whether and how council approval is required, and the county executive said staff would return with the MOA, insurance and liability clarifications, and a clear statement of how the arrangement would or would not change day‑to‑day operations. ICE and local officials said they expect training and logistical details to be worked out as part of the implementation process.

Why it matters: The proposed arrangement touches on the county’s role in federal immigration enforcement, the separation of duties among the sheriff and corrections, potential legal exposure and community trust in law enforcement. The council did not vote on the agreement Oct. 7; council members told staff they expect to see a draft MOA, legal analysis and specifics on insurance, liability and operational details before making a policy decision.