Livingston County approves resolution to track sheriff contacts with suspected undocumented migrants after heated public debate

The Livingston County Board of Commissioners voted Sept. 23 to adopt Resolution 2024-09-128, a measure directing the Livingston County Sheriff’s Office to monitor and document contacts with individuals suspected of unlawful entry into the United States. The motion, moved by Commissioner Wes Nakagiri and seconded by Commissioner Fiani, passed by voice vote reported as 8–0 with one commissioner absent.

The measure prompted the meeting’s longest public-comment period, with more than a dozen speakers both for and against the resolution. Supporters, including Tim Quinn and Colleen Quinn, said the county needs local data to spot trends and prepare services, citing examples of municipalities that scaled suddenly and experienced strain on housing and public health. “We don’t know what we don’t know,” Tim Quinn said, calling the resolution a proactive step to protect county services.

Opponents included Reverend Rudra Dunzula, Ellie Jordan of the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center and multiple residents who told commissioners the resolution would encourage racial profiling, be impractical to implement at the local level and could deter immigrant victims and witnesses from contacting police. “If the resolution passes, immigrant witnesses and victims will be less likely to report crimes,” said Ellie Jordan, who noted law-enforcement guidance discouraging immigration-status inquiries when they are not needed for criminal investigations.

During discussion, Commissioner Nakagiri framed the proposal as data collection intended to reveal trends that might otherwise overwhelm local services, referencing population growth figures and concerns he said were documented in other jurisdictions. He told colleagues that keeping statistics could identify early warning signs on issues ranging from traffic incidents to public-health needs.

Multiple speakers raised legal and operational questions: citizens and attorneys warned the policy could conflict with Michigan State Police guidance and federal case law on profiling and detention; others asked who would hold the data, how it would be stored, whether it would be publicly available, and how deputies would determine legal status in field encounters. Commissioner Paul Geisner asked for estimates of the annual taxpayer cost and for clarity on how deputies would implement the resolution without violating civil-rights protections.

County legal counsel and commissioners acknowledged the concerns but also noted legal counsel had not identified a statutory prohibition on the county collecting such data when performed by the sheriff’s office; several commissioners said the courts or the state could be the forum for testing legal boundaries if challenges arise. Commissioners additionally emphasized that the resolution’s operative word, in their view, is “illegal,” and that the proposal did not, in their view, direct deputies to detain people solely on suspicion of immigration status.

The vote ends local debate in the board chamber on the resolution, but opponents have warned they will consider legal options. The board did not adopt a detailed implementation plan during the meeting; several commissioners said they expect the sheriff’s office to present operational details and reporting procedures in follow-up meetings.

The board took other business before and after the vote, including appointments and contracts unrelated to immigration policy; those measures were approved by separate votes during the same meeting.

The resolution text and the sheriff’s plan for implementing any new documentation procedures had not been completed and published at the time of the meeting. The board recorded the passage of the resolution and adjourned later the same evening.