Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement Clarification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff says local law enforcement does not conduct immigration enforcement, warns about optics of federal operations
Summary
Sheriff Jeff Dirkse told the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors that local agencies do not enforce immigration law under California law and SB 54, and cautioned that federal immigration actions in the region could create confusing optics if local officers must respond to crimes encountered by federal agents.
Sheriff Jeff Dirkse told the Board of Supervisors on Jan. 14 that local law enforcement in Stanislaus County has no role in immigration enforcement and reiterated that the county is bound by state law restricting such activity.
Dirkse addressed recent news reports and social posts about U.S. Border Patrol activity in the valley, saying those reports referred to federal operations in Kern County and that the department had no information that federal immigration agents were operating in Stanislaus County with local assistance. "We do not have any reason to believe that they were actually here in Stanislaus County," Dirkse said, and added the county “certainly [gave] no assistance from any local law enforcement agency in our county.”
Dirkse cited state restrictions under Senate Bill 54 and told the board that his office is “in most ways prohibited from working with ICE or any other federal agency around immigration specifically.” He described the distinction between federal authority and local responsibility, saying that federal agents can exercise their authority but local agencies have no statutory authority to arrest based on immigration status.
The sheriff also warned that if federal immigration agents operate in the county and encounter crimes or public-safety threats, local agencies could be asked to respond for public-safety reasons. "If that is the case ... that does not mean that local law enforcement is assisting with immigration enforcement," Dirkse said, adding local responses to threats or state-law violations would be limited to those state-law matters. He asked the public to avoid drawing immediate conclusions from images or social media if local officers respond to threats while federal agents are present, because the local response may be to a public-safety incident rather than immigration enforcement.
Dirkse said the sheriff’s office posted a video and coordinated with neighboring agencies to clarify the matter and offered to return for further discussion if the board desired. He closed by saying the subject is likely to reappear as federal immigration enforcement priorities change.
No formal action or policy change was taken by the board during Dirkse’s remarks; supervisors asked to continue public communication to avoid misinformation.
