Hundreds of public commenters press Santa Barbara County supervisors to end voluntary cooperation between sheriff and ICE

Santa Maria — Hundreds of residents and advocates crowded the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors’ Truth Act forum on June 23 to press the county and Sheriff Bill Brown for clearer limits on cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Sheriff Brown and Chief Custody Deputy Ryan Sullivan presented the 2025 Truth Act report, saying the sheriff’s office received 221 requests from ICE for custody or release information last year, reviewed those requests against the exceptions in the California Values Act (SB 54), and identified 28 persons who technically qualified for notification. Of those, Brown said, ICE picked up 12 people and the U.S. government also executed 33 judicial warrants that required transfers; the sheriff characterized the documented transfers as a small fraction of total jail releases.

“ICE has access to fingerprint databases and other federal resources,” Sullivan said in the board chamber as the sheriff’s staff walked supervisors through the office’s SB 54 review process and how notification is handled. “If ICE is interested in obtaining information regarding an individual in our custody, they will notify our custody records bureau,” he said, and the bureau then researches convictions and release dates to determine whether SB 54 exceptions apply.

Community speakers said that the sheriff’s presentation did not address the larger pattern of ICE arrests in public areas around county jails. Dozens of speakers described witnessing arrests outside lobbies and in parking lots, and many urged the board to stop voluntary notifications and transfers unless there is a judicial warrant.

“Community members fear leaving their homes,” said Josue Vasquez of the Mixteco Indigena Community Organizing Project. “Please join the over 10 counties that have already ended ICE collusion.” Ivan Vega of the immigrant‑rights group urged the sheriff to decline voluntary cooperation even when state law allows it. “The sheriff has the discretion to choose whether or not to cooperate on any and all of those exceptions,” Vega said.

Advocates pressed for three concrete changes: (1) prompt notification to counsel when ICE asks for information about a person in custody, so attorneys have time to advise and act; (2) better public tracking of ICE activity near jail property (arrests in lobbies and parking lots); and (3) county policy options to limit county resources or county property use by federal immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant.

Sheriff Brown said the office does not ask people about immigration status, fingerprints every arrestee and follows AB 481’s and SB 54’s statutory steps. He told supervisors some of the widely circulated counts of “arrests at the jail” come from aggregate federal data and may include in‑community arrests near multiple county properties; he also said ICE sometimes does not show up to pick up people the office has flagged under SB 54. “There’s a certain number where they just have not showed up, and we have had to release those people into the community rather than release them to ICE,” Brown said.

Supervisors asked whether the sheriff’s office could do more to record arrests that occur on county property outside the secure area and whether earlier notice could be provided to public defenders. Public Defender representatives said earlier notice would materially help lawyers advise clients about immigration consequences.

The community urged stronger action by the board. Several speakers asked the supervisors to prohibit ICE use of county facilities for enforcement purposes without a judicial warrant, to require the sheriff to report arrests observed or captured on county property, and to use the board’s budgetary and regulatory authority to end discretionary information sharing.

After more than three hours of public comment and board deliberation, the supervisors voted to receive and file the sheriff’s Truth Act report. Chair Nelson said the conversation will continue; several supervisors asked county staff to research possible policy levers and examples from other counties that limit cooperation to transfers with judicial warrants or otherwise raise transparency.

What happens next: The board received the report. Several supervisors asked the county CEO and staff to research policy options and examples from other jurisdictions to return to the board for consideration; advocates asked the county to create accessible public data and to explore earlier notification to defense counsel.