Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cotati council and police advisory committee direct staff to draft resolution on local response to immigration enforcement
Summary
After community testimony and a staff review of other cities and California law, Cotati councilors instructed staff to prepare a draft resolution reaffirming existing non-cooperation with civil immigration enforcement, restricting use of city resources for enforcement purposes, and coordinating an operational response with Sonoma County.
Cotati’s City Council and the Community Police Advisory Committee met jointly on March 24 to consider local policy options to protect community safety during federal immigration enforcement actions. After a staff presentation reviewing legal constraints and examples from other cities, council members gave staff consensus direction to prepare a draft resolution reaffirming current practices and laying out an operational framework for county coordination.
Staff summarized the state legal landscape—including the Values Act and the Truth Act—and described other jurisdictions’ approaches (resolutions, ordinances, signage and reporting). Staff cautioned that ordinances that attempt to bar federal agencies from public spaces raise unresolved legal questions and could require costly litigation to enforce. As an example of practical safeguards, staff and the police chief explained Cotati’s existing constraints: local police are restricted by state law from participating in civil immigration enforcement, officers do not collect immigration status, and the department’s automatic license-plate reader (Flock) has its national/federal lookup functionality disabled for California agencies.
Community members and faith‑based groups urged stronger, clear protections: prohibiting use of city facilities for civil immigration enforcement, posting signage in city lobbies, establishing notification and reporting procedures if federal agents arrive, designating an immigrant‑affairs liaison, improving multilingual outreach and funding or coordinating legal aid resources.
Council members generally favored two near‑term actions: (1) a staff‑drafted resolution reaffirming Cotati’s adherence to state law and existing policies that prevent local cooperation with civil immigration enforcement and explicitly directing that city resources not be used for civil immigration enforcement absent legal obligation; and (2) development of a concept‑of‑operations coordinated with Sonoma County to guide communications and public‑safety response should large‑scale enforcement actions occur. Staff said it would return with draft language and options (resolution vs. ordinance) for council consideration.
Council and staff also discussed operational practices for officers: responding to 911 calls regardless of the presence of federal agents, documenting interactions (body cameras), using on‑scene supervisory contact to clarify authority, and the duty to intercede and report if officers witness excessive force. Several council members emphasized prioritizing public safety and interagency coordination rather than immediate litigation against federal agencies.
Staff will prepare draft resolution language and options for council review that reflect council direction to align with county planning, clarify staffing responsibilities, and outline reporting/communication protocols.
