Dunn County sheriff defends 287(g)-style warrant-service agreement as board and residents raise civil-rights concerns

Sheriff Kevin delivered a detailed presentation to the Dunn County Board of Supervisors on March 18 about immigration detainers and options for the sheriff's office to limit liability, arguing that a warrant-service officer (287(g)) program would allow trained staff to legally serve federal detainers only for people already in the county jail.

The sheriff said the program would not turn his office into an ICE task force and would not authorize enforcement outside the jail. "It authorizes trained Dunn County staff to serve a federal detainer on individuals already in the custody of the jail only," he said, adding that the arrangement "provides additional liability protection with legal representation from the federal government if sued for allegedly detaining someone illegally." He stressed the public-safety rationale: "Public safety over politics."

The presentation followed public comment from two residents. Matthew Simpson asked the board to ensure detainees receive "due process and a habeas corpus hearing" locally, while Jod Sloum said she was "very concerned about the optics" of the sheriff's agreement with ICE and urged continued public engagement.

Supervisors pressed the sheriff on several points: whether local officers might be recruited by ICE, whether citizens who report suspected immigration status must be investigated locally, and how escalation would be handled if federal agents operated in the county. The sheriff said local officers have no authority to investigate immigration status on their own and that ICE is not required to notify the sheriff if agents enter the county. On recruitment he said he had not heard of local staff being poached recently.

The sheriff also noted legal risks cited by his liability counsel, including ACLU litigation against other Wisconsin sheriffs over detainers, and said he would decide on continuing or modifying any agreement after the pending state supreme court decision expected by the end of June. County staff clarified the sheriff can sign intergovernmental agreements but the county board does not control that decision.

Board members expressed mixed views. Some backed the sheriff's approach as a way to manage federal legal exposure and protect public safety; others raised concerns about civil‑liberties implications, possible unintended harms to residents (including citizens who feel targeted), and conflicts of interest in legal advice. Several supervisors urged the sheriff to keep the judiciary and law committee informed and to pursue transparency with the public.

The sheriff also announced a sheriff's office app (funded by a behavioral-health grant) that will include a jail roster, inmate-account access and links to behavioral-health resources. He said the county sees roughly one ICE detainer a year on average and described the 287(g) option as a narrower, jail-limited tool to address liability when ICE issues detainers.

The board did not vote on any formal action at the March 18 meeting. The sheriff said he would make decisions about agreements after the state supreme court ruling and that he will report to the judiciary and law committee when incidents involving detainers occur.