Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Law Enforcement Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges commissioners to challenge sheriff's detainer policy cited by America First Legal
Summary
John Domler criticized the St. Mary's County Sheriff's policy directive 413 and the county's listing in ICE's detainer tracker, urged commissioners to use budget authority to change the policy and warned of potential litigation and public-safety implications.
John Domler told St. Mary’s County Commissioners that America First Legal Foundation had sent a letter to the commissioner president identifying the county as a “sanctuary jurisdiction” that the group said violated federal law.
Domler said the county’s listing in what he described as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement “detainer acceptance tracker” stems from the sheriff’s office’s policy directive 413, specifically section 4, which addresses how the office handles criminal activity in relation to immigration status. “So it is the sheriff's office that is responsible for this undesired attention,” Domler said.
Domler acknowledged the sheriff is an elected official outside the commissioners’ direct control but urged the commissioners to use “every lever you have within your legislative and executive authority to get this policy overturned,” including budget authority. He said litigation could be costly and argued enforcement policy should prioritize turning noncitizen criminal suspects over to federal authorities.
Domler also referenced the America First Legal Foundation letter and said the group’s leadership will soon hold a senior White House position, a point he used to suggest the letter may presage federal policy changes. He said the “president of this organization will be president Trump's White House deputy chief of staff for policy in less than 1 week.”
No sheriff’s office representative spoke at the forum and no formal county action was recorded during the public comments.
Why it matters: Domler’s remarks raise questions about local criminal-immigration policy, possible legal exposure and whether county officials will take fiscal or policy steps to influence an independently elected law-enforcement office.
