Providence committee advances stronger ban on police cooperation with ICE, adds private right of action

A Providence City Council ordinance committee voted to send amendments strengthening the city’s Community Safety Act to the full council after hours of public testimony demanding clearer prohibitions on local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

The amendments, presented by the city’s chief of staff and carried as a substitution by a council sponsor, would expand the ban on Providence Police Department assistance to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal immigration entities; define and protect sensitive places such as public schools, charter schools, early‑learning programs and court facilities; restrict collection or sharing of certain demographic and surveillance data; and create a private right of action allowing qualifying civil‑rights and youth organizations to sue the city, the department or individual officers for alleged violations.

June Rose, chief of staff, told the committee the changes "are intended to better protect Providence residents by expanding prohibitions on voluntary Providence Police Department cooperation in federal immigration enforcement." Rose described five categories of changes: broader definitions of federal immigration enforcement, clarification that only judicially signed criminal warrants require compliance, protections for sensitive spaces, limits on demographic data collection and disclosure, and the creation of organizational standing to sue.

Council members and supporters said the measure responds to incidents they say exposed gaps in enforcement of the 2017 Community Safety Act (also referred to in testimony as the CPRA or CSA). Rose cited a July incident on Alverson Avenue that the Providence External Review Authority (PERA) found involved "operationally significant" assistance to ICE, and said the ordinance amendment seeks to close ambiguities that could allow indirect or informal facilitation of immigration enforcement.

"The biggest part of this ordinance is the accountability mechanism," said Councilman Sanchez, the amendment’s prime sponsor, urging the committee to adopt the changes so residents can hold the city to its own rules.

More than 100 public speakers — including immigrant‑rights groups, legal advocates, educators, students and residents — addressed the committee. Testimony repeatedly urged stronger enforcement tools, called for virtual court hearings to reduce the risk of courthouse arrests, and asked for explicit prohibitions against sharing city surveillance or license‑plate data with federal immigration authorities. Advocates representing the deportation defense network and other local groups described volunteer rapid‑response lines and said those efforts have helped deter or respond to reported ICE activity; organizers gave the network number on the record (401‑675‑1414).

Legal advocates at the hearing pressed the committee to preserve a private right of action and to consider fee‑shifting language so attorneys representing successful plaintiffs could recover fees. Attorney Shanna Kerlin told the committee that allowing organizations and individuals to sue is a practical enforcement tool because administrative review bodies such as PERA lack the power to impose binding remedies in many cases.

Speakers also raised privacy and surveillance concerns. Several witnesses asked the council to restrict use of camera analytics and other city‑operated systems that collect demographic information or could be shared with outside entities. The amendment text referenced prohibiting use of city funds, personnel or resources to provide identification, translation or other services used for immigration enforcement absent a judicial criminal warrant, and would require written agreements from third‑party partners covering those restrictions.

The committee took several procedural votes during the meeting, including entering written testimony into the record. After public comment and member discussion, the committee voted to move the amended ordinance to the full City Council for consideration. The committee vote passed with three members in favor and two abstentions; the clerk recorded the motion as passed and the item will appear on the council floor calendar for a first reading.

What happens next: if the full council approves the ordinance it would require a second passage under municipal rules before being transmitted to the mayor for signature or veto. Committee members and community advocates said they intend to press for additional measures — including permanent virtual‑hearing options at courts and clearer remedies for violations — as the item moves through the council process.

The meeting record includes dozens of individual accounts describing recent ICE activity and the perceived effect on school attendance, business activity and family stability. Several speakers urged quicker, more practical steps such as designated city officials to validate warrants presented to schools or court facilities; others asked the council to consider revising surveillance contracts and relocating bus stops away from privately owned cameras. The amendment language presented to the committee is described by staff as a substitution drafting that incorporates input from civil‑rights organizations and national experts.

Council Chair Pedro Espinal opened the hearing and thanked community partners and legal advisers who worked on the draft. Committee members said they would continue to consult with staff and legal counsel as the item moves to the full council.