At Truth Act forum, Sonoma County residents press sheriff to end voluntary cooperation with ICE; sheriff defends limited policy

Santa Rosa ' At a public Truth Act forum, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors heard a presentation from Sheriff Ingram on the sheriff's office handling of immigration-related requests and then listened to more than an hour of public comment urging the county to end voluntary cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Sheriff Ingram told the board that in 2025 the sheriff's office processed 14,541 bookings, received roughly 601 requests for information from ICE and returned information on 69 individuals; the department reported one transfer to ICE. "We do not honor immigration detainers," Ingram said, adding that the department does not conduct deportations or initiate immigration enforcement operations and that recent policy changes limit notifications to cases involving convicted serious and violent felons as defined by the penal code.

Why it matters: The forum brought into focus a long-standing tension in Sonoma County between residents who say any voluntary sharing of release dates or booking information undermines trust and public safety in immigrant communities, and county officials who say the sheriff can lawfully and reasonably share information in limited circumstances to protect public safety.

Many of the forum's public speakers urged the board to take a stronger stance. "By coordinating with ICE, you damage the trust of our community and cause victims and witnesses of crime to be afraid to call the police," said Elana Feldman, a nurse and member of the Sonoma County Sanctuary Coalition, who asked the sheriff to "end your partnership with ICE today." Several commenters called for a comprehensive sanctuary ordinance and asked the board to demand an accounting of any county resources used to support ICE communications.

Labor and community groups raised training and cost questions. "These folks need constant training while ICE is terrorizing our community," said Travis Balzarini of SEIU, who also asked the board to press the sheriff to follow his own policies. Speakers representing unions and sanctuary organizations urged no cooperation except where judicial warrants exist.

Not all public comment opposed the sheriff. "This policy reflects compliance with state law, appreciates our immigrant population and provides public safety from those convicted of serious and violent felonies," said Mike Martini, who identified himself as speaking as an individual in support of the sheriff's approach.

County Counsel Josh Myers briefed the board on the legal framework for a general-law county like Sonoma, and repeatedly cautioned that the board has limited authority to direct an independently elected sheriff. "Although a county board of supervisors has authority to supervise county officers in order to ensure that they faithfully perform their duties, the board has no power to perform county officers' duties for them or to direct the manner in which those duties are performed," Myers read from an attorney general opinion cited in the meeting materials.

Supervisors questioned the sheriff about how his policy compares with other Bay Area jurisdictions and sought operational details about ICE requests. Ingram said his policy has been tightened over time and that, under the policy signed "today," the office estimated the number of notifications in 2025 would have been 20 instead of 69. He said detention specialists typically process ICE information requests (I-247 forms) and estimated the county labor cost to process a request at roughly $17 per request versus approximately $1,300 to book a person into custody.

Several supervisors, including Supervisor Hopkins, thanked the sheriff for meeting with community groups and for narrowing the scope of notifications while noting community concerns remain. County Counsel again cautioned that the board's budget power cannot be used to legally compel policy changes in the sheriff's office; the counsel cited both a 1994 California attorney general opinion and case law establishing limits on the board's authority over independently elected officers.

Outcome and next steps: There was no formal vote to change policy. The board acknowledged the volume of public comment, noted recent county actions (including a $1.5 million allocation to immigrant support programs) and said staff will continue ad hoc work and conversations with community groups. Chair Mercio closed the forum and reminded the public of a special board meeting scheduled for Friday, May 15, and the regular meeting on Tuesday, May 19.

Key quotes:

- "We do not honor immigration detainers," Sheriff Ingram said, describing departmental limits and the shift to notifying ICE only for convicted serious and violent felons as defined in the penal code.

- "By coordinating with ICE, you damage the trust of our community and cause victims and witnesses of crime to be afraid to call the police," said Elana Feldman, a nurse and Sanctuary Coalition member.

- County Counsel Josh Myers read an attorney general opinion to underscore limits on board authority: "the board has no power to perform county officers' duties for them or to direct the manner in which those duties are performed."

What to watch: Supervisors will continue ad hoc work with community stakeholders and county staff during upcoming budget hearings, where some said they will seek ways to bolster immigrant services while remaining within the legal limits on directing the sheriff.