Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Trust Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff reports 12 ICE transfers in 2025; public forum draws hours of criticism, calls to end voluntary cooperation
Summary
At the Truth Act forum, Sheriff Brown reported 221 ICE information requests in 2025, 28 qualifying under SB54 and 12 completed transfers to federal custody (plus 33 judicial‑warrant transfers); a long public comment period pressed the sheriff for more transparency and urged ending voluntary cooperation with ICE.
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office presented its annual Truth Act (SB54) report at a June 23 public forum, reporting that in calendar 2025 the department received 221 requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), found 28 of those requests met statutory exceptions, and completed 12 transfers to federal custody. Sheriff Bill Brown and custody staff also reported 33 judicial‑warrant transfers executed pursuant to federal orders.
Sheriff's staff explained procedures: ICE may request release dates or interviews; custody records staff review each request against SB54 exceptions (serious or violent felonies within statutory look‑back periods) and notify inmates and their counsel if the file meets those criteria. If ICE intends to transfer a qualifying person, the agency must be present to conduct the transfer; in 2025 ICE did not appear for all requests and 12 transfers were completed.
Community reaction: More than 60 speakers filled the forum's public‑comment period, many urging the sheriff to end voluntary cooperation with ICE, to stop sharing release dates, and to provide clearer data on arrests made by ICE in or near jail property. Speakers described family separations and alleged instances where ICE made arrests in jail lobbies or parking areas; advocates urged the board to consider limiting coordination to judicial warrants only and to require greater public reporting on ICE activity near county facilities.
Sheriff's response and clarifications: Sheriff Brown emphasized the office does not ask immigration status during booking, does not hold anyone past release without a judge-signed warrant, and follows the legal review required by SB54. He acknowledged media reporting alleging higher counts of arrests around jails and said those numbers derive from other records and that the sheriff's office cannot unilaterally validate arrests made by a separate federal agency. The sheriff described procedural changes in response to specific incidents (for example, installing SCRAM ankle devices inside secure custody areas rather than in public lobbies) and said he would discuss procedural improvements with local partners.
Why it matters: The forum highlighted a gap between community concerns about ICE activity adjacent to county jails and the sheriff's statutory duties and operational constraints. County staff and advocates proposed several next steps—improving notice to defense counsel, reviewing whether county policy can limit or condition access to county property by federal authorities, and more transparent reporting on arrests that happen proximate to county facilities. The board received and filed the report.
Next steps: The board voted to receive and file the report. Several supervisors asked county staff to explore options and to continue outreach with community groups and criminal-justice partners about improved notification, data-sharing, and feasible policy changes.
