Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff seeks state DWI enforcement grant; says he will not enroll county in 287(g) roundup program
Summary
Sheriff Eli briefed commissioners on traffic enforcement data and secured authorization to apply for up to $8,500 (with $2,125 match) to fund directed DWI patrols. He also told the board he will not participate in an ICE 287(g) ‘roundup’ program while sheriff but will assist on investigations targeting known criminals.
Cheshire County’s sheriff told commissioners on April 30 that his office will apply for a state highway‑safety grant to fund directed patrols for DWI, speed and distracted‑driving enforcement and to reimburse officer overtime.
The application the board authorized seeks up to $8,500 in award funds plus a $2,125 local match for the Oct. 1, 2025–Sept. 30, 2026 grant year. Commissioners voted to apply and to authorize Chris Coats to sign application and related documents if the grant is awarded.
Sheriff Eli described 2024 traffic data for the nearby jurisdiction (reported as “Treasure County” during the meeting): 1,135 motor‑vehicle accidents, 130 hit‑and‑runs and four fatalities. He said approximately 16,000 stops were made across municipalities in collaborative enforcement efforts and that the grant would expand targeted patrols where towns lack police presence.
Separately, commissioners asked the sheriff about cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Eli said he has “no intentions” of joining a 287(g) program while he is sheriff — meaning he will not enter into an agreement to deputize local officers specifically for immigration‑enforcement roundups — but he said he will work with ICE when presented with investigative evidence or to apprehend known suspects wanted for criminal conduct. He cautioned that ICE operations can produce collateral arrests of non‑targets in a group.
Commissioners and staff discussed the county’s label in public discourse (some have called it a “sanctuary” county); the sheriff and commissioners agreed the county has not adopted a formal sanctuary‑city ordinance and described any such determinations as the product of elected bodies and formal resolutions, not informal labels.
The board also pressed the sheriff for performance and reporting on deputy‑detail programs that had been paused during low staffing and for documentation about how overtime and match time would be accounted for if the grant is accepted.
