Hampstead Selectboard hears debate over Police Department’s possible 287(g) partnership with ICE

Police Chief Kelley presented details of a proposed 287(g) Field Task Force partnership with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Hampstead Selectboard meeting on June 22, saying trained officers would investigate immigration issues that arise during routine police encounters but would not conduct immigration-only traffic stops or checkpoints.

The chief told the board there are three ways to participate in 287(g) and said the department would pursue a Field Task Force model in which officers receive specialized training and would ‘‘not proactively make immigration-related traffic stops,’’ though they would be trained to determine when an immigration status inquiry is appropriate during other investigations. He described financial incentives the program can generate, including a stated one-time payment of $100,000 earmarked for a specific purpose, potential quarterly payments of about $15,000 per ICE-certified officer, and an additional one-time payment of $75,000 that the department could be eligible for if certain conditions are met.

Selectmen and members of the public pressed the chief on operational and legal details. Selectman Morse asked how the department would backfill shifts when an officer is tied up on a detainment; the chief said the program provides reimbursement for backfilling (100% for straight time and 25% for overtime). Selectman Warnock asked whether immigration concerns could be the reason for a primary stop; Chief Kelley said they would not. The chief also said an officer would need to remain with a detained person until an ICE officer responded.

Selectman Warnock, who later stepped down from the dais and spoke as a member of the public, said she opposed the program, citing local control, liability risks and erosion of community trust, and noting that the training previously lasted four weeks and has been shortened to roughly 16 hours. Chief Kelley characterized the topic as ‘‘a political hot button’’ but said he felt it was his responsibility to present the financial and operational implications to the board given budget constraints.

Several residents—including Rev. Harmon of St. Christopher’s Episcopal Church, Lisa Demeo, Julia Forbes, Fred Malcolm, Terry Malcolm, C. Shular and Maureen Didakia—expressed concerns about racial profiling risks, the potential for financial incentives to create bias, and the possibility that community trust in the department could be undermined. Board members also flagged questions about whether a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the police union would require Selectboard approval and the potential increase in Right-to-Know requests and administrative workload to manage reimbursements and quarterly reporting.

Chief Kelley told the board he would continue to investigate the 287(g) program, review training content and requirements, seek legal clarification on whether any MOU with the union must be approved by the Selectboard under RSA 106-P, and make the presentation and supporting references available to the public via the town website or other means. No formal vote on participation was taken at the meeting.

What happens next: Chief Kelley will continue the review, pursue legal guidance about MOU approval, and publish materials referenced during the presentation for public review.