Council, police and residents press for clarity on federal immigration cooperation and police drone policies

Town Manager Tim briefed the council on Feb. 11 after consulting legal counsel about recent federal executive‑order developments, potential impacts on grant funding and questions raised at a prior meeting about cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Tim said attorneys told him the novel federal directives were being litigated in federal court and that the local effect was a "wait and see" issue for funds that had already been appropriated.

Tim and Lieutenant Scott Stevens of the South Berwick Police Department told the council there is an important legal distinction between ordinary assistance to other law enforcement agencies and delegations of federal immigration enforcement authority. Lieutenant Stevens summarized the department's duty: "The Southborough Police Department will assist any local county, state, and federal law enforcement agency with any crime they are lawfully investigating that in some way involves South Berwick," he said. The transcript uses the jurisdiction name inconsistently; the council and staff referred to the South Berwick Police Department throughout the discussion.

Tim explained that a program known as 287(g) is a federal statutory delegation of immigration authority to local agencies and that it requires a memorandum of understanding between the local jurisdiction and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). "Under that program, federal law authorizes ICE to delegate to local officers whose jurisdiction voluntarily participates," Tim said, adding that the town would have to enter an MOU to accept those delegated duties.

On the department's recently purchased unmanned aircraft system (drone), Lieutenant Stevens said deployments require supervisor approval, operator documentation and a written record that includes purpose, duration and results. He also emphasized operational limits in the department's policy: drone use must be approved by an incident commander or higher, and the policy explicitly bars employing the UAS "to conduct surveillance on private citizens peacefully exercising their constitutional right of free speech and assembly."

Residents and dozens of emailed correspondences were read into the record and several residents spoke in public comment, asking why the issue had arisen and whether ICE involvement was a local concern. Councilors said the questions came from constituents and that it was appropriate for the council to seek public answers. No formal policy changes or votes were taken; the council heard the legal advice, received the lieutenant's operational summary and directed staff to keep the council and public informed if circumstances change.

Councilors and residents repeatedly emphasized respect for the police department's oath. Several councilors said the matter was not about mistrust of local officers but about public transparency and ensuring the town understands the limits of local authority and the procedures that would govern cooperation with federal agencies.