Residents criticize county detention center ties with ICE; sheriff says Oldham County has no 287(g) agreement

Public comment at Oldham County Fiscal Court included extended criticism of the county’s role in detaining immigrants and alleged cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Several speakers urged the fiscal court to halt or defund arrangements they described as creating perverse incentives to detain people for profit.

Michael Slider, speaking for Kentucky Citizens for Democracy, described the county’s detention operation and contracts with federal agencies as "a money-making operation" and said the county’s detention center appeared on ICE’s website as an ICE detention center. Slider urged the court to reconsider agreements that he said risked bypassing due process. He added that local procurement of a new van and bus for prisoner transport raised questions about the county’s role in moving detainees regionally.

Sheriff Tim Wakefield responded in public comment to these concerns. "The Oldham County Sheriff's Office has never had an agreement with the ICE ever," Wakefield said. He described the listing on ICE’s website as an error that was corrected after he raised it with ICE and reiterated that state law and the separation between the sheriff’s office and the detention center mean the sheriff does not control all detention agreements. He said deputies serving administrative warrants in partnership with federal agents would have a narrow role: to serve administrative detainers on NCIC hits and transport those persons to the county jail.

Speakers raised the 287(g) program specifically; one commenter cited legal challenges to 287(g)-style arrangements and noted Maryland had legislation restricting such agreements. Michael Slider and other speakers raised constitutional concerns, citing federal court rulings and high-profile ICE enforcement actions nationwide as reasons the county should avoid participating in such programs.

Alex LeBlanc and other community members called for transparent, public explanations of what agreements exist, who signed them and what the sheriff’s office, jailer and county’s roles are. LeBlanc noted changes on ICE’s public listing and said the county should hold a town-hall or focused follow-up meeting so residents can review documents and timelines.

Sheriff Wakefield and county officials said they would continue to describe the county’s position publicly and answered questions about how deputization and administrative transfers would be handled in practice. No formal fiscal-court action was taken during the meeting on ICE or detention-center contracts during the session.

Speakers called for further transparency, third-party review and public briefings so residents could assess whether local resources and personnel are being used in ways consistent with county policy and constitutional protections. Several asked for the court to consider policy or budgetary steps to limit local participation should legal or human-rights concerns warrant it.