Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter presses county on ICE cooperation; sheriff describes 287(g) warrant-service practice
Summary
At the April 20 McMinn County Commission meeting, a public commenter raised concerns about local cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Sheriff Guy said the county has a 287(g) MOU for a warrant-service officer model and typically holds detainees up to 48 hours while ICE is notified.
Bill Freeman, who identified himself as representing a group called Southern Progressives, urged the McMinn County Commission on April 20 to answer a list of questions about any agreements or operations involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
"What is your response to our questions we submitted to you last month?" Freeman asked, asserting community concern about ICE operations and whether local law enforcement is supporting ICE in ways that could overstep legal boundaries.
Chairman Scott Curtis said the commission had not taken action on ICE and that any operational agreements would be handled through the sheriff's department. Sheriff Guy then addressed Freeman's questions and described the county's current practice under the 287(g) program.
"We have a memorandum of understanding agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to do under the 287(g) program to do the Warrant Service Officer Program model," Sheriff Guy said. He explained that historically, when someone is arrested and citizenship cannot be confirmed, the jail notifies ICE; if ICE determines the person is unlawfully present, it typically takes custody. Sheriff Guy said the county has generally honored a 48-hour hold to give ICE time to pick up a detainee but that the county does not hold people beyond legal processes.
Sheriff Guy also described a newer 287(g) component in which a small number of corrections staff would be trained and sworn to serve federal warrants; he said the county had signed MOUs but had not yet been trained or actively performing warrant service under that model.
Freeman asked whether McMinn County received any of the state grants tied to centralized immigration enforcement; Sheriff Guy said he was not aware of any such grants to the county and that had there been funding exchanged he would have informed the commission.
Freeman raised a legal concern, saying he believed ICE had shifted to using administrative rather than judicial warrants and that "apparently that's against the law, according to the Supreme Court." Sheriff Guy replied that he was not familiar with that specific finding and limited his remarks to the county's practices.
Chairman Curtis and Sheriff Guy said they were unaware of any plans for an ICE detention facility in McMinn County and that any such proposal would require county and sheriff department involvement and likely come before the commission.
The exchange reflects community concern about ICE activity and clarifies that, per the sheriff's account, McMinn County's current practice is a 287(g) MOU focusing on warrant service and use of a 48-hour hold while ICE is contacted; it does not reflect a formal county decision to expand or host detention operations.
