Residents press Bradford police on 287(g) ICE task‑force agreement; chief fields questions on supervision, profiling and reimbursements

Multiple Bradford residents pressed city leaders about a proposed 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, focusing on how the program would operate, whether it creates incentives to make arrests for immigration purposes, and what safeguards would protect civil liberties.

David Service asked whether Bradford had entered a 287(g) agreement and what the community should expect. Chief Ward explained the task‑force model: four local officers would be federally deputized with authority limited to immigration status issues encountered during criminal investigations. "We're not going to be out setting roadblocks or patrolling specifically for immigration offenses," Ward said, adding that deputized officers would not use federal authority for unrelated crimes.

Ward described specific incidents that prompted the move, including what he called a coordinated ATM theft scheme local officials have linked to out‑of‑area suspects. He said the department recorded "somewhere between 10 to 15 contacts of illegal immigrants over 2025," and that those incidents and a couple of serious assaults influenced the decision to pursue deputization to speed response and humane transfers to detention centers when necessary.

On resources, Ward said ICE program materials provide reimbursements of up to $7,500 per officer for equipment and described a program line that references a potential vehicle reimbursement; he emphasized the city had not received federal money yet and would front any purchases pending reimbursement. Ward said he had not approved equipment purchases and that training had just completed; operational deployments had not begun.

Community members raised an apparent memo describing quarterly monetary performance awards tied to locating people on ICE lists. A resident summarized a passage that described tiered quarterly payments; Ward said he had not seen language like that in the 287(g) materials he reviewed and that he would investigate further, adding he would be uncomfortable with monetary incentives tied to locating people.

On routine traffic stops and profiling, a resident asked whether stops for common offenses could trigger immigration enforcement. Ward said speeding enforcement is for public safety and that federal authority would apply only "if we come in contact with the suspect of that investigation" and learn immigration status issues may be present. "I would never allow something like that," he said in response to profiling concerns, and he stressed adherence to law and department policy.

Questions about detainee processing focused on access to counsel and translation during transfers. Ward said detainees should have the opportunity to request counsel once at detention centers and that translation services are generally available at those facilities. He also said the police department would record incidents in its report management system and publish anonymized statistics quarterly or annually.

Officials told residents the 287(g) agreement can be ended if the city determines the arrangement is inappropriate. Ward said he would consult the mayor and city solicitor if ethical or legal concerns arose and that he would recommend terminating participation if necessary. The meeting did not include a formal vote on the agreement; council proceeded to other agenda items after closing public comment.

"If I'm at any point feeling that something's unethical, inappropriate, I give you my word that I'm gonna go to the mayor and real counsel, and I'll be the first one to stand here with you and say we need to get out of this," Ward said.

The council did not take immediate action on the 287(g) agreement during the meeting; citizens asked for more information and documentation about program language and incentives.