Public speakers press Board of Supervisors to end ICE transfers; sheriff defends transfers as public‑safety tool

The Orange County Board of Supervisors held its annual Truth Act public forum on March 25, 2025, to review 2024 data on transfers from county custody to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Seventeen members of the public urged the board to stop all ICE transfers, citing fear in immigrant communities and asking for better transparency and services for people released from custody.

Supporters of an end to transfers — including representatives from Latino Health Access, Resilience Orange County and the Orange County Rapid Response Network — described heightened fear, family separations, and a chilling effect on reporting crimes. “We strongly urge you to take a stand against this practice and put an end to ICE transfer in our county,” Anna Charco of Latino Health Access told supervisors, citing a reported “1,200% increase in ICE transfer by the Orange County Sheriff’s [Department] from 02/2022 to 02/2023.”

The forum included multiple personal accounts of families avoiding work, school and normal daily activities because of immigration enforcement activity. Speakers also called for the forum to be held at a more accessible time and for the sheriff to provide more detailed advance data, including counts of ICE interview requests and outcomes.

Sheriff Don Barnes responded with a line‑by‑line summary of the department’s 2024 screenings and custody outcomes, saying OCSD does not perform immigration enforcement in the field and that his deputies “never ask the immigration status of suspects, witnesses, or those who report crime.” He said the department screened 733 instances in 2024 where ICE had expressed an interest, and that of those 733: 456 screenings were prohibited from notification by state law, and 277 met the statutory thresholds that permit notification. Of those 277, he said, 228 individuals were released to ICE custody while 49 were not picked up by ICE and were released back to the community. Barnes also provided examples of individuals who had been released and later rearrested for new offenses.

Advocates disputed the public‑safety justification and urged the board to use its budget and oversight authority to expand post‑release supports. “We demand oversight of the sheriff in light of a history of SB 54 violations in Orange County,” Fabi Jacome of the Orange County Justice Fund said, referring to California’s sanctuary law (commonly called SB 54) that limits local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Supervisors acknowledged the public concern but described limits to their authority. Chair Doug Chaffee and others reiterated that the board controls budget and policy but does not set the sheriff’s operational discretion; the sheriff is an independently elected official. Supervisor Katrina Foley and others asked for more timely data sharing — she said the board’s offices had not always received the sheriff’s underlying records in advance and asked that key data be provided about 30 days before future forums so supervisors and the public can review it.

Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento said the forum’s statutory purpose is to review the previous year’s access and to “provide the public with information,” and he called for outreach so the forum is available to working residents. Supervisor Doug Wagner noted the small share of overall bookings involved: Sheriff Barnes reported roughly 48,000 bookings in 2024 and the screened pool was a small fraction of that total; Wagner said that, in his view, the department was focused on the most serious repeat offenders.

The board did not take action to change the sheriff’s detention policies at the hearing. Supervisors and advocates discussed next steps including: improved public notice and timing for the forum, earlier data disclosure for supervisors and the public, expanded post‑release reentry services and legal representation, and continued dialogue between the sheriff, the DA’s office, community groups and consular offices.

Ending the hearing, Chaffee said the forum would continue to be used to gather public input and to request clearer data from the sheriff for future meetings. No vote or policy change was adopted at the March 25 forum; the item was a required annual public hearing under Government Code section 7283.1 to receive and file information about access to individuals in county custody by ICE during the preceding year.