Council rejects resolution urging sheriff to comply with ICE detainers after public testimony

The St. Joseph County Council on March 11 rejected a resolution that urged Sheriff Bill Redmond to comply with federal immigration detainer requests, defeating the measure by a 5-4 vote after robust public comment and council debate.

Councilwoman Amy Drake introduced the resolution, which cited statements by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita and alleged failures to honor multiple federal detainer requests. Drake framed the resolution as a call for the sheriff to cooperate with federal authorities "for the protection of all of our citizens." The resolution text asked the sheriff to "immediately come into compliance with state law, agree to cooperate and communicate with federal law enforcement," and to expedite resolution of the attorney general's lawsuit.

Several council members questioned the timing of the resolution while litigation was pending. Councilman Mark Catanzarite and others said the council should avoid pronouncing guilt before the courts resolve the matter. "While admitting that the attorney general himself has given the sheriff time to comply beyond today's date, the petitioner then goes on to imply the sheriff's guilt... possibly putting themselves in legal jeopardy," Catanzarite said.

Public testimony was strongly split. Residents including Cheryl Nicks, Joanne Westerhausen, Fred Reinhart and others urged the council to support Sheriff Redmond and warned that cooperation with ICE could undermine trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities. Cheryl Nicks said, "He is highly respected. He is admired in this county. He keeps us safe, and I feel safe because he is the sheriff of this county." Several speakers asked why the resolution was brought before the council before the sheriff had been contacted and before the legal process concluded.

Other commenters, including the petitioner and some conservatives in the room, argued the sheriff should follow state and federal law and that noncooperation could risk state funding if pending legislation becomes law.

After discussion the council moved to defeat the resolution; the motion to defeat passed 5-4. The roll call recorded "yes to defeat" votes from Brian Tanner, Shabazz, Hess, Mark Catanzarite and one other; Councilwomen Drake and others voted to advance the resolution. The clerk recorded the final tally as 5 to 4 in favor of defeating the resolution.

Council members on both sides said they support law enforcement generally but disagreed about whether the council should weigh in while a lawsuit is pending and about the proper role of county law enforcement relative to federal immigration enforcement.

Recording of the hearing shows the attorney general's office and federal agencies have differing public statements; council members and the county attorney discussed potential statutory and ordinance-based complexities that could affect any legal interpretation.

The resolution was defeated; the council did not take further formal action on the matter at the meeting.