Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Probation Sanctuary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors Hear Hours of Testimony on Juvenile Probation's Handling of Immigrant Youth; Hearing Continued
Summary
After hours of testimony from probation officials, legal experts and dozens of family- and immigrant-rights advocates, the Rules Committee continued its hearing on whether the Juvenile Probation Department will implement Ordinance No. 228-09 limiting inquiries into juveniles' immigration status. The chief said federal legal constraints and an ongoing federal investigation prevent policy changes now.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Rules Committee spent the bulk of its March 4 meeting on Item 5, a hearing on the Juvenile Probation Department's compliance with Ordinance No. 228-09, the Board's amendment to the city's sanctuary policy that restricts inquiries into juveniles' immigration status.
Chair David Campos opened the hearing by saying the purpose was to review compliance, not to launch a partisan attack, and asked the department for details on its current practice and any legal obstacles to implementing the ordinance. Chief Sifferman told the committee the department had reviewed the ordinance with the city attorney and outside counsel and concluded it could not modify its policies "until these issues of federal, civil, and criminal law are resolved, are resolved by the courts" and while a federal grand jury investigation was underway. He said federal authorities had referred the department to Title 8, section 1373 of the U.S. Code and had asserted that employees could be exposed to criminal liability for harboring or transporting undocumented juveniles.
Why the hearing mattered: supporters of the ordinance, including immigration attorneys, child-advocacy organizations and many parents, said local practice had led to family separations and traumatic outcomes for children, sometimes before a juvenile court adjudication. Professor Bill Hing and civil-rights attorneys argued that federal law does not prevent San Francisco from instructing city employees not to assist federal immigration enforcement and that the ordinance can be implemented consistent with federal law. "It's a complete invitation for racial profiling," Professor Hing testified of criteria that allow officials to infer immigration status from vague neighborhood indicators.
What the department said: Chief Sifferman provided operational numbers to justify the department's caution. He said that since July 1, 2008, the department had released 107 unduplicated juveniles to ICE a total of 125 times (some youth were released more than once), that about 92% of those releases followed a felony-level adjudication or finding, and that monthly average releases fell from about 10 early in the policy period to about 5 more recently. He described the department's policy (labeled 8.12, effective Aug. 26, 2008) as using a combination of objective factors to establish reasonable belief and said the department had not performed a time study of staff interactions with ICE but would provide a more detailed analysis at the committee's request.
Community testimony: Nearly two dozen organizations and scores of residents, including family members directly affected, urged immediate implementation of the Board's ordinance, more training of probation staff, and elimination of policy language that could permit profiling. Charles Washington, whose family drew widespread attention after his son was reported to immigration authorities over a 46-cent incident, told the committee the policy "doesn't allow for due process" and described the stress his family endured.
Mayor's office and legal disagreement: Star Terrell, a mayoral representative, told the committee the mayor supports San Francisco's sanctuary tradition but had in 2008 clarified that city policy should permit reporting juveniles arrested on felony charges. The mayor's office warned of legal and criminal risks if the city restricted reporting, citing 8 U.S.C. '1373 and an ongoing federal inquiry. Civil-rights groups and immigration attorneys countered that routine nonreporting does not equate to harboring and that California courts have upheld local "don't ask" policies in many contexts.
Outcome and next steps: Faced with detailed, often emotional testimony and contrasting legal interpretations, Chair Campos asked the department to produce the specific data his office and the committee had requested and continued the hearing to the call of the chair for further deliberation and follow-up. No formal change to department policy was adopted at the meeting.
What remains unresolved: The committee wants a breakdown of staff time and other resources tied to JPD's interactions with ICE, a clearer articulation of when and how policy factor(s) like "presence of undocumented persons in the same area" are used, and a negotiated implementation or training plan the department can adopt without exposing officers to legal risk. Advocates said they will press for timely training and oversight; probation leaders said they will continue to review the testimony and consult with counsel.
The committee continued the hearing to the call of the chair; supervisors said the requested operational data will inform upcoming budget and oversight decisions.
