Carlisle council discusses "Community Trust and Local Autonomy" ordinance after police disclosure of ICE contact

Deputy Mayor (unnamed) opened discussion at the Borough of Carlisle workshop on Oct. 1, 2025, on a proposed "Community Trust and Local Autonomy" resolution or ordinance that would limit local police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and affirm local handling of community-police interactions. Police Chief Landis told council and the public that Carlisle officers generally do not contact U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for immigration enforcement but disclosed that on April 28 officers did call ICE in one case involving a juvenile detained for an alleged violation of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code; ICE ultimately took custody of the juvenile.

Why it matters: the proposal would change or formalize how local officers interact with federal immigration authorities, affecting immigrant residents' willingness to report crimes or seek help and prompting debate over home-rule authority and legal risk. Council did not vote Oct. 1; members discussed next steps (adopt a resolution at the next meeting or advertise an ordinance that requires public notice and a later formal vote).

Chief Landis told the council, "Over the past 9 months, I've stated that the Carlisle Police does not call immigration customs enforcement, and I meant that," and acknowledged the April 28 call, saying he first learned of that call Sept. 18 during processing of a Right-to-Know request. He described immediate procedural changes: "We will be instructing all officers that going forward, all unanticipated interaction with federal, state, and law enforcement will require them to check with department command staff. There's 3 of us, the lieutenant, myself, and the staff sergeant, prior to making those arrangements." He also said the department's post-incident debrief recommended closer local interagency coordination, and that children and youth services and juvenile probation will "work together to address these issues collectively at a local level where possible." (Chief Landis, Carlisle Police Department)

Public comment was extensive and divided. Marvin Salzman (600 Noble Boulevard) told the council he opposes a welcoming- or sanctuary-style ordinance, saying, "I do not support any resolution or ordinance that will make Carlisle a sanctuary community," and arguing local officers must enforce federal laws. John Werner (157 South Pitt Street), one of the residents who first brought the draft ordinance to council, said the measure would "free local law enforcement's hands to pursue one justice system for everyone" and that the ordinance would protect community members by keeping immigration status separate from local policing. Jesse Sherborne (537 North Hanover), a veteran, rebutted claims that similar ordinances lead to legal or practical problems and cited Allentown's March ordinance as precedent. Amanda Smith (6 Buchanan Drive, 7 Gables) framed the issue in economic terms and stated figures she said reflect immigrants' local spending and tax contributions. Other speakers—Hannah Roman (613 N. Hanover St.), Jen McDuffie (702 N. Pitt St.), Karl Moll (804 Hillside Drive), Jeff Englard (218 S. West St.), Holden Burkholder (60 W. Pompford St.), and Ayanna Gutema (155 E. North St.)—spoke in support of measures intended to protect immigrant community members and encourage reporting to police without fear of immigration enforcement.

Council considered procedural options. Deputy Mayor (unnamed) explained that the resolution and the ordinance contain identical text but follow different processes: a resolution can be adopted in a single meeting, while an ordinance must be advertised in the newspaper with approximately a 10-day public-notice period before final adoption, meaning an ordinance adopted by advertisement would likely be voted on at a later regular meeting (November, as described by staff). A resident-submitted letter from Bert Lennon, read aloud by a council member, urged a "no" vote and cited the borough Home Rule Charter's Section 7 (the citizen initiative and referendum provisions) as a reason the issue should go to voters.

Council did not take a formal vote on the ordinance or resolution during the Oct. 1 workshop. Deputy Mayor (unnamed) said the council will accept written comments, has received emails and letters, and that next week's regular meeting could include either: (1) taking no action, (2) enacting the resolution that is already drafted, or (3) voting to advertise the ordinance for a later formal adoption vote. If the council votes to advertise as an ordinance, the newspaper-notification requirement will delay final adoption and also make repeal a longer process because repeal would require the same public-notice procedure.

The discussion repeatedly distinguished policy questions from personnel- or criminal-investigation details. Chief Landis and borough legal counsel said they cannot comment further on matters that remain the subject of an ongoing personnel or criminal investigation; Chief Landis limited public remarks to the facts he presented and to the policy changes the department will implement.

Next steps: the council said it expects to revisit the item at its regular meeting next week, when members may choose to adopt the resolution, advertise an ordinance for later vote, or take no action. The council invited further written comments and confirmed the draft text is available publicly and was vetted by borough legal counsel.