Dallas oversight board hears demands for strict limits and transparency on DPD cooperation with ICE

Public commenters filled the meeting's early portion to press the Community Police Oversight Board on Dallas Police Department interactions with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Residents repeatedly asked the board to adopt a written policy that would bar voluntary cooperation with ICE unless officers have a judicial warrant, require immediate notification of family emergency contacts when DPD assists ICE, and publish real-time logs of any DPD assistance to federal immigration authorities.

"I urge you to reject cooperation with ICE," said Dr. Danielle Lemmy, a college instructor and civic engagement consultant, asking the board to publicly disclose all DPD-ICE communications and interactions. Other speakers, including Kathy Cochran and Sam Williams, described witnessing arrests in courthouse hallways, said fear of detention is reducing participation in food drives and community events, and called for quarterly public reporting of ICE contacts.

The board heard consistent requests across multiple commenters: require a judicial warrant for any DPD assistance, refuse to honor ICE detainer requests without a warrant, prohibit sharing of nonpublic information with ICE unless legally compelled, and create an accessible public dashboard logging incidents where DPD assisted federal immigration officers.

Director Andre and staff said OCPO has been pursuing clarity on the department's policies and will request a return appearance by Dallas Police Chief Como so board members can press him directly. Board members debated format and legal risk; several said the board should not operate "out of fear" and must hold the department publicly accountable. The director said she will send a formal invitation and prepare a focused agenda with specific questions and legal context.

The board did not take formal policy action on ICE cooperation at the meeting but agreed to press for answers from the chief at a subsequent meeting and to consider follow-up steps based on his responses or counsel advice. Public commenters said they will continue to press the board and the City Council until policy changes or formal clarifications are published.

The board's planned next procedural step is for the director to schedule a meeting with Chief Como and prepare an agenda that clarifies what the chief can and cannot answer in public. The board also discussed a smaller preparatory session with the chief and city attorneys to avoid procedural roadblocks in a public forum.