Public outcry after local ICE activity pushes council to continue immigration‑policy item and request privacy audit

A lengthy public hearing March 10 focused on federal civil immigration enforcement activity in and near Santa Barbara and on how local agencies should respond. City staff opened the item with a proposed draft resolution reaffirming the city’s previous July 2025 position condemning aggressive and non‑transparent federal immigration tactics and restating compliance with the California Values Act.

Chief Kelly Gordon read a formal statement of departmental values, telling the council: “The Santa Barbara Police Department does not engage in immigration enforcement. When federal immigration actions occur in our city, our role is guided by our commitment to safety and respect for all.” Chief Gordon and senior staff emphasized that the department’s role is to protect life and maintain public safety while acting within state and federal law.

The meeting then drew sustained public testimony. Dozens of speakers, including community rapid responders and legal advocates, described recent ICE activity in the region and reported incidents they said included aggressive stops, use of chemical agents and the hospitalization of a local resident after an encounter. Commenters demanded stronger local limits on federal activity (for example, banning ICE use of city facilities), public signage, clearer city staff protocols, improved transparency about when federal agents are operating and a robust privacy review of the city’s surveillance systems.

Key concerns cited by speakers included: - Reports of alleged excessive force and a request that local officers document and refer claims to state or federal investigators; several speakers asked that the city commit to filing complaints on behalf of victims when appropriate. - Requests to prohibit ICE staging or operations on city property and to add signage on public sites clarifying that civil immigration enforcement is not permitted on city facilities. - Data‑privacy concerns about a third‑party automatic license‑plate reader vendor (Flock) and the risk that third parties might share location data with federal agencies.

Council response and actions: After extended public comment and lengthy council questions, the council voted to continue the item for additional community input and to return with a revised resolution. As part of that direction the council also asked staff to return with the most recent audit of the city’s license‑plate camera vendor and to present alternatives (including implications of terminating the contract) and recommendations for further privacy protections.

Why it matters: The discussion reflected heightened regional concern over aggressive federal enforcement actions and the practical limits local government faces when federal agencies operate in city limits. Speakers and some council members pushed for clearer, enforceable local rules, stronger community notifications and protected reporting pathways so residents harmed or threatened during federal actions can get help.

Representative quotes: Chief Kelly Gordon: “The Santa Barbara Police Department does not engage in immigration enforcement. When federal immigration actions occur in our city, our role is guided by our commitment to safety and respect for all.” Community rapid responder Anna Garcia: (paraphrase) described a March incident in which an individual was reportedly tackled and severely injured and urged the council to adopt a policy with “teeth” to prevent future harm.

Next steps: Staff will continue community engagement, revise the draft resolution with community partners and return to council with a public‑safety protocol, reporting guidance and a privacy/audit briefing on surveillance data/vendors for council consideration.