ICE pickups show supervisors must stand up to sheriff
Latinos Unidos de Marin declined to participate in the county’s recent TRUTH Act Forum, hosted by Marin officials and held annually for “transparent review of unjust transfers and holds” by local law enforcement.
LUMA was dispirited by the Board of Supervisors’ continued refusal to stop Sheriff Robert Doyle’s cooperation with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department’s detention of immigrants. In support of LUMA’s decision, the ICE Out of Marin group followed suit. True to form, the board continued its refusal to rein in the sheriff.
It is frustrating that the board continues to wrongfully assert that it has no authority to supervise the sheriff. It’s clear the board’s refusal to do so is politically driven and represents a critical lack of leadership. County counsel’s legal arguments are a smoke screen to hide that motivation.
The board should accept its authority and responsibility to supervise the sheriff, who is more and more an outlier in the state. He is handing people over to ICE who have only been charged with a crime, not convicted.
The board should require the removal of inmate release dates from the public booking log. This information conveniently helps ICE know when to appear in the public area outside the jail to detain immigrants.
During the video conference forum, the sheriff said “it’s not my job to make it difficult for ICE to find people who are undocumented.” I could not disagree more. ICE is a rogue agency which violates human and civil rights and should be strongly disavowed by our county. Doyle must stop making it easier for ICE to pick people up.
The community has asked the Board of Supervisors to pass a sanctuary ordinance, which would make it clear that this county does not hand over people for deportation who have only been arrested or who have already served their time.
In a recent article in the Pacific Sun newspaper, Supervisor Damon Connolly said, “We can’t dictate the sheriff’s actions. The sheriff has independent ability to act in these instances based on constitutional authority.” Presumably he said this in reliance on county counsel’s legal opinion providing the legal framework for the annual Truth Act Forum. County counsel cited an official Attorney General opinion stating that a Board of Supervisors has “no power to … direct the manner those (sheriff’s) duties are performed.”
This AG opinion was issued over 26 years ago and is no longer good law. Under the state Government Code Section 25303, “The board of supervisors shall supervise the official conduct of all county officers, and officers of all districts and other subdivisions of the county.”
That section’s admonition that “the board of supervisors shall not obstruct the investigative function of the sheriff of the county” is the legal hook county counsel uses to instruct the board not to supervise the duties of the sheriff. Some other California counties have made similar arguments.
While this position was arguable (though wrong) before the enactment on Nov. 18 this year of Assembly Bill 1185, it no longer has any basis in statute or the Constitution. AB 1185 created new Government Code Section 25303.7:
“The exercise of powers under this section or other investigative functions performed by a board of supervisors, sheriff oversight board, or inspector general vested with oversight responsibility for the sheriff shall not be considered to obstruct the investigative functions of the sheriff.”
Other California counties explicitly prohibit their sheriffs from doing what Doyle continues to do. San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore recently removed the “Inmates Pending Release Report” from that county’s online jail booking log.
F inally, Connolly stated in the Pacific Sun that “there is no difference between an ordinance and a resolution.” Googling “California difference between resolution and ordinance” reveals a host of documents explaining the significant difference between the two.
It is extremely disappointing that, despite its best efforts to work with supervisors on the drafting of a sanctuary ordinance, the board, on Sept. 15, once again pass a toothless resolution “in support of policies that improve the lives of all residents regardless of immigration.”