Cowlitz County commissioners, sheriff debate state change allowing some noncitizens to serve in law enforcement

COWLITZ COUNTY — Commissioners and the county sheriff spent a large portion of a Tuesday meeting debating a state law that allows some noncitizens to be employed as law enforcement, with officials raising concerns about vetting, firearms access and whether the county can bar the practice locally.

The discussion began when a commissioner raised recent legislative activity and constituent questions about a bill that would clarify which noncitizen classifications can be hired by law-enforcement agencies. Sheriff Brett Thurman told the board the underlying authority allowing certain noncitizens to be employed by law enforcement first went into effect in 2018 and has been amended in subsequent sessions.

“We have the civil service commission for the Sheriff's office,” Thurman said, summarizing how hiring standards work locally. He added that the 2018 law applied to permanent residents (green-card holders) and that last year’s changes referenced DACA (deferred action for childhood arrivals); this session’s language, he said, is largely a clarification or expansion of classifications already recognized in federal law.

The commissioners and several public commenters questioned whether local agencies could or should hire noncitizens. One commissioner said, “I will stand adamantly opposed to seeing that type of thing happening here at any level of policing. There should be no noncitizens wearing a badge.” Another expressed concern about whether noncitizens could lawfully possess firearms, and how background checks for people who immigrated from other countries would be verified.

Thurman told the board that permanent-resident green-card holders can obtain a concealed-pistol license under Washington law and that local agencies are not required to hire noncitizens if finances or background-check costs are a concern. He also noted that local civil-service procedures (the “rule of 5”) give departments discretion over eligible hires.

Several commissioners urged addressing underlying recruitment and retention issues for deputies rather than changing the pool of eligible hires. “We need to address the issue,” one commissioner said, adding that officers face increased personal liability and that the county should focus on restoring support for existing staff.

Members of the public used the discussion to raise related concerns about judicial sentencing and accountability, tax increment financing and other county policy questions; commissioners directed some questions to staff for follow-up. No ordinance, code change or binding local policy was adopted during the meeting on this topic.

Why it matters: The county’s hiring policies affect public-safety staffing and local control over who enforces laws. Commissioners discussed possible nonbinding options — a resolution or exploring code changes — but did not adopt any formal restriction at the meeting.

What’s next: Commissioners asked staff to research whether a local resolution or code change is feasible and noted the civil-service commission governs hiring standards for the sheriff’s office. The board did not schedule a vote on the subject at the meeting.