Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Latino business owners tell commissioners ICE enforcement is hurting commerce; county attorney says sheriff is independent
Summary
Several Latino business owners told the St. Lucie County commission that local enforcement cooperating with ICE is damaging businesses and frightening residents. County Attorney McIntyre reminded the public the sheriff is an independently elected constitutional officer and the county has limited authority over his actions.
Several Latino business owners urged the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners to act after describing routine traffic stops that they said escalate into immigration-status checks and drive customers away from Latino-owned businesses.
Noy Gomez, a Fort Pierce business owner and Spanish-language media operator, said stops for minor reasons — "secured license plate" or loose items — were followed by status checks, and he alleged the pattern targeted Latino storefronts. "It seems to be the color of our skin," Gomez said during public comment, and he asked commissioners where affected businesses should turn for help.
Jose Miranda, owner of La Perla Bakery, said Mexican American families in the county live in “daily threat” and asked the board, "Will you stand against 287(g)?" Miranda linked economic harm and fear of reporting crimes to local enforcement practices.
County Attorney Mike McIntyre gave a procedural response, explaining to the public that "the sheriff is really an independently elected constitutional officer. So the Board of County Commissioners cannot direct the sheriff really to do anything." Commissioners also urged residents whose concerns occur inside a city to raise the issues to city councils, which have jurisdiction over municipal police departments.
Why it matters: Commenters said the perceived targeting is harming local commerce, reducing foot traffic and deterring crime reporting. Commissioners and staff framed the matter as constrained by the county’s limited authority over the elected sheriff, and directed residents to city governments when incidents fall within municipal police jurisdiction.
Action and next steps: No formal action or ordinance was proposed at the meeting. Commissioners said they would follow up through staff (an aide, Dominic, was offered as a contact) and advised speakers where to pursue city-level review when appropriate. The county attorney’s statement that the sheriff is an independent constitutional officer was the explicit legal explanation provided to the public.
Quotes in context come from public-comment speakers and the county attorney; they were delivered during the meeting’s public comment period and were not the result of a board directive.
