Dozens of residents urged Chaffee County elected officials on Tuesday to adopt stronger protections for people in county buildings after an August 19 interaction between county deputies and federal immigration agents that led to the detention of a local resident and left her child behind.

The comments, made during the meetings public-comment period, centered on two demands: (1) that county-managed facilities bar civil immigration enforcement from nonpublic areas in the absence of a judge-signed warrant, and (2) that the county improve transparency around law-enforcement requests and body-worn camera release procedures.

The demands drew repeated, impassioned testimony from community members. "There is clear evidence of this in the Sheriff Andy recorded comments on his body cam," Lily Peters, who identified herself as the town childrens librarian, told the commissioners. "We are here today to hold him accountable and his team." Peters asked the board to adopt a policy that would deny enforcement access to nonpublic areas without a court order and require posted signage.

Laura Hansen, who gave a legal citation during her remarks, said Colorado law limits local participation in civil immigration enforcement. "Colorado House Bill 19 1 1 2 4 now codified as CRS 20 four-76.6-one 102 is clear, deputies may not detain or assist federal immigration agents in civil enforcement unless there is a valid judicial warrant," Hansen said. She said deputies should not use county resources to act as an extension of ICE and that leaving a child without a plan was "heartbreaking." (Speakerprovided statute language and cited it in public comment.)

Speakers from immigrant-protection groups and other residents asked the board to take several specific steps: post signage at public entrances directing federal officers to county attorneys for warrant verification; require logging of all federal requests (date, agent, process shown); adopt a centralized gatekeeper for law-enforcement data requests; implement annual training for staff; and publish body-worn-camera standard operating procedures consistent with the statute cited by speakers.

"We respectfully ask you to direct staff to bring back the resolution, the intergovernmental agreement, and a standard operating procedure, for you to move forward," said a member of the Immigrant Protection Team (public comment). Multiple speakers repeated similar requests and asked the board to pursue intergovernmental agreements with the local judicial district and the sheriffs office to standardize courthouse access and notice.

Commissioners acknowledged residents concerns and described conversations with the state attorney generals office and the sheriffs office. Commissioner Gina (identified in the meeting by her first name) said county authority is constrained by federal and state law but that the board would look for steps it can take locally: "We are trying to find out what we can do. We've talked to the AG's office a number of times. What are our options? Right now, no one knows. We're not getting good direction."

Commissioner PT (first-name identification in the meeting) echoed frustration with federal policy that prompted the incident and said the county had some existing protections in place for ICE entering nonpublic spaces. "We do have a policy about ICE entering nonpublic spaces in our buildings. They are not allowed. Sheriff does not honor the Civil detainers," PT said. Commissioners said they would review the list of requested actions and would follow up.

No formal motion, ordinance, or resolution related to the public demands was introduced or voted on at the meeting. Commissioners directed staff, informally, to review the specific recommendations from public commenters, to consult further with the attorney generals office, and to return with options and recommended language (signage, SOPs, intergovernmental agreement) for the boards consideration.

Why this matters: Speakers said the event harmed community trust in local law enforcement and produced child trauma. Several citizens cited Colorado statutory language and asked the county to use its authority over county-managed buildings and data practices to reduce future harm.

What to watch for next: Staff follow-up memos or a future agenda item presenting a draft county policy, an intergovernmental agreement for courthouse protections, or a proposed standard operating procedure for body-worn-camera release.