Sheriff defends jail-to-ICE transfers as community presses county to enforce sanctuary policy

San Diego County Sheriff Kelly Martinez told county supervisors and a packed Truth Act forum that the sheriff—s office followed state law when it provided Immigration and Customs Enforcement access to people in custody, and described procedures used to screen ICE requests. Community advocates and dozens of public commenters countered that the transfers erode trust, cause fear, and violate the county—s December 2024 Board Policy L2.

The Truth Act forum, convened by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors to meet the transparency requirement in the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds Act (AB 2792), included a presentation by the sheriff's office followed by public comment and written questions from the community. Andrew Strong, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for the county Public Safety Group, introduced the legal framework cited by the sheriff—s office, including the Trust Act (AB 4, 2013), the Truth Act (AB 2792, 2016), and the California Values Act (SB 54, 2017).

Sheriff Kelly Martinez said SB 54 limits local participation in immigration enforcement but allows transfers or notifications in limited circumstances, and that the sheriff's office reports those actions for transparency. "This year's presentation will explain the balance my agency engages in when it comes to lawfully providing ICE access to individuals who meet qualifying criminal convictions as dictated by state law," Martinez said at the dais. Detentions Processing Manager Liliana Martinez Fuentes walked the board and public through the office's written-request process for ICE contact requests and the forms used to notify people in custody.

Martinez Fuentes said ICE must submit formal written requests that are screened by the jail population management unit; if a request is denied the individual receives a J-330 form in their preferred language and no interview or contact occurs. If the request is approved, the form is presented and the person may decline an interview, agree to an interview without counsel, or request counsel and provide attorney contact information. Martinez Fuentes also said outside law enforcement, including ICE, "do not have free access to any sheriff's facilities or jails"; ICE must sign in as a professional visitor and may request notification of an inmate's release date, but the sheriff's office does not schedule, coordinate or delay releases for ICE.

On counts, the sheriff's presentation reported that 30 individuals were transferred from county custody to ICE in 2024. Of those 30, Martinez Fuentes said 11 transfers were the result of federal judicial warrants, six involved qualifying charges followed by a judicial warrant, and 13 were transfers based on qualifying convictions under state law. The office reported that those 30 individuals accounted for 108 bookings into the county jail system; one person had been booked 12 times since 2018. Of the 30 individuals transferred in 2024, Martinez Fuentes said one was female and 29 were male; self-reported countries of origin listed were Guatemala (3), Honduras (1), Mexico (20), Thailand (1) and the United States (5). Martinez Fuentes noted that the place-of-birth information is self-reported during booking.

The sheriff acknowledged a data-entry anomaly in the office's database: a declined interview was inadvertently captured in the 2024 report, and the office said no actual interviews were requested, declined or took place that year. The sheriff also said the number of written requests and transfers has varied over recent years, with a notable change after SB 54 required formal tracking of requests; 2024 returned to levels similar to 2019, pre-pandemic.

Speakers from immigrant-rights organizations, legal aid groups and many residents urged the sheriff to stop transferring people to ICE and to follow county Board Policy L2, adopted Dec. 10, 2024, which limits the use of county resources for federal immigration enforcement unless a judicial warrant is presented. Paulina Reyes Perez, managing attorney with Immigrant Defenders Law Center, told supervisors, "Continued entanglement between local law enforcement and federal immigration is not good policy. It is not making our city safer, but rather builds on hateful narrative and instills fear in our community."

Crystal Felix, an immigration attorney, said she has represented clients whom she said had no criminal history but were flagged to ICE after local custody. "When community members hear about law enforcement agencies in other states that are being deputized by the Department of Homeland Security, they are afraid that the same is true in San Diego because the sheriff continues to work with DHS," Felix said.

Speakers repeatedly called on the board to use its oversight powers to enforce L2 if the sheriff does not comply, and to redirect county funds away from transfers and toward legal and social services. Patricia Mondragon of Alliance San Diego and leaders from ACE, the ACLU and Fuerza Migra framed the issue as one of public-safety trust: several commenters said immigrants avoid police, courts and county services for fear of deportation.

Vice Chair Terra Lawson-Remer emphasized community concern about recent national incidents involving detainees and asked the sheriff whether entries labeled "federal warrant" in the transfer report represent judicial warrants; Sheriff Martinez confirmed those are judicial warrants signed by a federal judge, and said the sheriff's office reports those transfers out of transparency even when SB 54's reporting requirements do not compel all of that disclosure. Lawson-Remer and other supervisors also requested more frequent publication of statistics; the sheriff said the data in the presentation are generated from the jail population management unit and agreed to consider posting more frequent updates.

The sheriff's office answered multiple written questions submitted before the forum and agreed to post the full set of public questions and the sheriff's responses on the county website. The meeting concluded with the board requesting that remaining written answers be posted online and the chair adjourning the session.

Why this matters: The Truth Act forum is a statutorily required transparency event when local law enforcement allows federal immigration access to people in custody. The county's policy decision in December 2024 to further limit use of county resources for immigration enforcement has created a public conflict with the sheriff's office, and the recurring public testimony at the forum highlighted the community consequences advocates say flow from transfers and notifications — including fear of reporting crimes, interrupted access to services, and family separation.

The sheriff's office maintains it is operating within state law and balances public-safety concerns against statutory limits on immigration enforcement. Community groups maintain the transfers and notifications are unnecessary, harmful and inconsistent with the county's policy priorities. The board asked the sheriff to provide written answers publicly and indicated it will continue to press for transparency and accountability.