Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Detainers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners decline to adopt ICE-detainer proclamation after heated debate and public comment
Summary
A motion to adopt a proclamation supporting honoring ICE detainers for people already incarcerated failed for lack of a second. Commissioners and public commenters debated legal limits, sanctuary law history and local jail impacts.
A motion to adopt a Coos County proclamation asking the county to honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests for individuals already incarcerated for other crimes failed for lack of a second at the May 6 Board of Commissioners meeting.
Commissioner Taylor presented the proposed proclamation, saying the board intended it as a statement that individuals in county custody on probable cause for a crime should be additionally held for ICE detainer requests. Taylor emphasized the board cannot direct the sheriff’s operations and that any directive would be bound by legal limits.
The motion drew immediate public comment and pushback from multiple residents and local legal observers. Abigail Bock (public commenter) told the board that Oregon’s sanctuary status was created by the legislature in 1987, reinforced in 2021, and said detainer requests that are not signed by a magistrate are typically not lawful in Oregon; she cited a 2014 Columbia County case and noted the county’s district attorney has taken the position that unsigned detainers must be ignored to avoid legal exposure. Sarah (former sheriff quote referenced by Abigail) was cited for a similar stance; Abigail urged the board that honoring unsigned detainers could expose the county to lawsuits and costs.
Public commenters gave varied perspectives: Phil Thompson and James Bennett argued against the proclamation on political and social grounds; David Jennings and Pam Fraser urged respect for existing state law and cautioned that ICE detainers are effectively administrative requests that, without magistrate-signed warrants, do not provide lawful authority to detain. Pam Fraser and another local attorney with jail experience told the board that immigrants have not constituted a significant share of the county jail population in their experience.
Commissioners discussed the practical limits: several said ICE can detain people lawfully if ICE obtains a signed warrant from a judge, and that the board cannot order the sheriff to perform actions that are illegal under state law. The motion to adopt the proclamation was made but received no second and therefore died.
The board moved on without adopting the proclamation. Commissioners and public speakers left on record that the county’s practice is constrained by court-signed warrants and the district attorney’s legal guidance.
Ending note: Commissioners said they would not direct the sheriff’s office and that legal exposure and the state’s statutory framework are central in determining how detainer requests are handled.
