Human Relations Commission forwards sanctuary principles after debate over notification and reporting

The Davis Human Relations Commission voted unanimously to forward a set of committee-drafted sanctuary ordinance principles to the City Council after an extended meeting that featured a staff presentation, a legal framing of state law, and more than an hour of public comment.

The commission's subcommittee presented 10 proposed principles it said would strengthen the city's sanctuary status, including prohibiting city resources from assisting immigration enforcement, limiting collection and sharing of immigration-related data, banning city contracts that transmit location or citizenship information to federal agencies, and establishing community-notification procedures when immigration authorities operate in Davis. The commission amended one phrase (changing a reference from "court decision" to "court order") before the vote.

City Attorney Andrew Kulsa told the commission that staff based its draft ordinance on the California Values Act (SB54) and aimed to expand protections only where the law and operational realities allow. "Davis is a sanctuary city and has been a sanctuary city since 1986," Kulsa said, adding that SB54 "prohibits the use of local resources and local law enforcement to further federal immigration enforcement" while also creating legal boundaries the city must respect. Kulsa said staff removed a mandatory citywide notification requirement and an annual reporting mandate from the draft ordinance because of concerns about preemption, operational burden and potential loss of federal deconfliction notices.

Chief of Police Todd Henry described practical safety concerns tied to a community-notification rule. He said federal agencies sometimes notify local dispatch to avoid dangerous cross-encounters and argued that making notification mandatory could prompt federal partners to stop deconfliction. "If they became aware that, hey, we're going to disclose this information, they would just simply stop notifying us," he said, adding that such a change could create risks for officers and the public.

Members of the public and immigrant-rights advocates pressed for stronger measures. Professor Natalia Bibosa urged the commission to require prompt notification to communities, saying, "We must be notified promptly when the city knows or believes that immigration authorities are or will be present for the purpose of immigration enforcement." Several commenters recommended banning the transfer of camera data to federal immigration agencies, expanding legal-defense funding, and making language access and tenant/labor protections a core part of city policy.

Several legal commenters disagreed about the extent of legal risk. Immigration defense attorney Anne Block noted litigation history in other jurisdictions and argued that many protections cities have adopted are legally defensible. Staff responded that while some protections are anchored in law, the city attorney's office prefers a conservative approach for any ordinance because the city must bear the cost and uncertainty of litigation if a provision is challenged.

The commission's motion to forward its principles to City Council passed by voice vote. Commissioners and staff agreed the ordinance and the principles would move forward in parallel: the HRC's principles will go to council as a statement of priorities and staff will consider which of those principles can be incorporated into a legally defensible ordinance.

Next steps: the commission forwarded the principles to City Council for consideration; staff said it will prepare a staff report and potential ordinance language for council review.