Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Winter Haven to review 287(g) agreement; city presents usage numbers
Summary
Multiple public speakers asked the commission to revisit the city's 287(g) immigration enforcement agreement and demanded data; city staff said Winter Haven participates in the task-force model and reported 47 queries about lawful presence since Sept. 2025, 17 of which resulted in ICE civil detainers.
Public concern about Winter Haven's 287(g) relationship with federal immigration enforcement dominated several public comments on Feb. 23.
"This body approved a policy with real implications for trust, public safety, and the relationship between residents and law enforcement," Matthew Crowley told the commission. Crowley asked the commission to "submit that decision to public review" and requested the matter be added to a future agenda.
Pam Taylor, coordinator of RAISE legal observers, working with the ACLU of Florida, urged the commission to "think about cancelling your 287(g) agreement," citing documented problems at detention centers and the program's broader community effects.
In response, the city manager and police leadership provided operational figures intended to inform the discussion. The city manager said Winter Haven participates in the 287(g) "task force" model and that, from Sept. 1, 2025, through Feb. 11, 2026, the Winter Haven Police Department responded to 38,849 calls for service and conducted 47 queries about lawful presence; 30 of those individuals were released at the scene or had no additional hold placed by ICE and 17 were the subject of ICE civil detainers. The city said it does not transport people to ICE detention facilities and that arrests requiring booking were handled through the Polk County Sheriff's Office at ICE request. City staff said the only direct city expense to date was officer time spent in required training for participation.
Residents asked for more transparency, liability assessments, and insurance input. Steven Ellis asked whether the city's insurance provider had weighed in and whether the city had assessed exposure to federal civil-rights litigation; he urged the commission to provide the numbers that would show the program's costs and risks.
What happens next: Commissioners and staff agreed to keep public records flowing and to present updated numbers periodically. Several residents asked that the commission add a review of the policy to a future agenda; the Feb. 23 meeting produced no formal vote to rescind or alter the agreement.
