On Tuesday, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors provided directions on a non-cooperation policy with ICE that will return at a future meeting. The item had been worked on…
The post Contra Costa County Non-Cooperation Policy With ICE on Hold, For Now appeared first on Contra Costa News.
On Tuesday, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors provided directions on a non-cooperation policy with ICE that will return at a future meeting.
The item had been worked on the past year in the equity committee, however, the Attorney General’s Office issued new guidance for SB 580 which conflicts with portions of the policy brought forward. In 4-1 vote, with Carlson dissenting, county legal counsel will compared and contract to clean up the policy — it should be noted, most of what is required under SB 580 the county is already doing, its just not in a single document.
Meeting Recap
According to the recommendation:
ADOPT Resolution No. 2026-279 establishing a Non-Cooperation Policy that limits the use of County funds or resources to cooperate with immigration authorities, restricts the use of County-owned or controlled properties by immigration authorities, prohibits County employees from disclosing certain information to immigration authorities unless required by law, addresses access to County services, establishes a Sheriff’s Office reporting requirement, and establishes related restrictions; and consider providing direction to staff
While the equity committee, who met several times over the past year, they wanted input from the full County Board of Supervisors on a policy/ordinance. However, Attorney General Rob Bonta recently issued guidance after the agenda had been published.
Supervisor John Gioia pointed out the efforts of the equity committee was done before the Attorney General issued his guidelines under SB 580 which were to be implemented by Jan 1, 2027 – see guidelines.
Tom Geiger, County counsel, said a model policy will need to be in place by January 1, 2027 – the model policy came out on July 1 and requires local agencies to implement the model policy or equivalent policy on or before January 1, 2027. The question before the Board was if the policy provided by the equity committee was equivalent to the AG – which they haven’t gone line by line, but noted there were some differences.
Supervisor Diane Burgis said the policy was released just 6 days ago and not something the equity committee was not able to incorporate into their discussion. Burgis also confirmed regardless of what they do today, there were some missing pieces to the policy.
Geiger confirmed and they would likely come back to the Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor Ken Carlson said the committee had discussions on making this a policy or an ordinance – noting the public for the most part wanted an ordinance.
Supervisor Candace Andersen said much of the policy is already being done in the county – with departments having things in place and almost appeared duplicative.
Burgis shared whatever they decided to do under the current proposed policy/ordinance, it would not meet the requirements of SB 580 at this point in time. She also said funding is being threatened if they do not follow the law—even retroactive.
Gioia said under SB 580, the county needs to adopt a policy and the policy must be consistent or equivalent with Attorney General Guideilnes. Meanwhile, the Federal Government may cherry pick counties to go after, but the AG requirement is for all 58 counties in the state, cities, and public agencies to adopt a policy.
“If the Trump administration is going to go after a jurisdiction, it’s going to have to go after all jurisdictions in the state, not just Contra Costa County,” said Gioia. “We are not doing this alone, we are not an outlier, there are county’s that already adopted policies. Now we have to figure out a policy that is consistent with state law.”
Andersen questioned since they already have policies in place couldn’t they just provide them in an overview document of each department or if they needed an actual new policy. She again said they are already doing what is in this proposed policy.
Geiger said some departments should remain separate policies based off the AG direction – they are seeking a model policy regarding access to facilities and policies regarding immigration enforcement demands.
Carlson said they were already doing most of the policy already, but you cannot find it in one single place but wanted to send a message to the community that is divided and afraid, it reaffirms our commitments—not cooperating with ICE.
Supervisor Shanelle Scales-Preston shared this was about supporting the community and making people feel safe in county buildings, going to the hospital, going to HEAD START programs, etc.
“When we talk about our county’s having a target on our backs, California already has a target on our back,” said Scales-Preston and grants have been taken away. “The threats are already happening, and they will continue over the next couple of years… I hope we can pass something forward.”
Carlson said the community has asked for something and they had waited a year for this—noting the AG issued something this week – he called it a reaffirmation for commitments made and processes they were already doing.
After public comments, which advocated moving forward with a policy, the Board entered discussion
Andersen shared her biggest concern was after public comment, the public thinks this is going to do a lot more than it actually is – its codifying what the county is already doing to protect the immigrant population.
She urged this to go back to county counsel to reconcile what is in the policy with what the AG is requesting, then bring it back to the Board. She also questioned why there was a clause requesting an agency to identify themselves because there is nothing enforceable with that.
Calrson said all they can do is ask, but typical law enforcement does identify themselves. He said based on the policy; they will track the contacts.
“This is not about protecting only the community, but our very own employees,” said Carlson who added county staff is in compliance as long as they ask law enforcement to identify themselves. “It’s if you willfully ignore the policy or willingly provide the information.”
Scales-Preston shared other counties have similar language.
Gioia wanted county counsel to review policy to see if the equity committee policy is equitable to state requirements, plus identify things that have not yet been covered.
Scales-Preston said they received the documentation yesterday from county counsel and wanted to review it, she also preferred the item come back before the full board versus going back to the equity committee.
Carlson said could adopt the resolution and policy today, then go back to work with county counsel to see if they need to do more to be compliant as opposed to having people in limbo.
Gioia argued he couldn’t provide any direction at this time because he hadn’t heard what was consistent from county counsel.
Calrson then said they are not required to have the compliance until January 2027, but that this would send the message today that they “stand for something” and the resolution clarifies their position for the immigrant population.
Burgis wanted this item to be reviewed by county counsel and go back to the equity committee to clean up the item before it came back to the full board.
Andersen suggested the item would return in September but urged the public to remember all the polices being articulated that are policies currently in effect by the county so them delaying is not going to change interactions with ICE.
The board vote 4-1 with Carlson dissenting, that county counsel come back after seeing if this draft policy is consistent with the AG guidance and with state law. The item will return at a future meeting for further comments and substantive discussion.
Prohibition on the Use of County Funds or Resources:
Unless required by federal or state law, no County funds or resources, including, but not limited to, County personnel and County property, shall be utilized to:
(a) Assist or cooperate with requests by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or other Immigration Authorities, to hold, detain, house, transfer, or otherwise facilitate the investigation, detention, or arrest of any person in the custody of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, or any other County department, unless pursuant to a judicial warrant (as defined in California Government Code § 7284.4(i)) or otherwise required by law.
(b) Provide any Immigration Authority with access to any non-public areas of property owned or controlled by the County, including but not limited to, County jails, stations, conference rooms, and databases, for the purpose of Immigration Enforcement, unless pursuant to a judicial warrant (as defined in California Government Code section 7284.4(i)) or otherwise required by law.
(c) Make any person in County custody available to any Immigration Authority for an interview for the purpose of Immigration Enforcement.
(d) Respond to any administrative warrant from an Immigration Authority, such as a Form I-200. An administrative warrant is not a judicial warrant.
(e) Allow Immigration Authorities access to County-owned or County-controlled property, including parking lots, vacant lots, and parking garages, for purposes of staging, processing, or establishing an operational base for the purpose of Immigration Enforcement.
According to the policy, it would also require the Contra Costa County Sheriffs Office to begin monthly reporting to the Board of Supervisors its contact with any Immigration Authority for the purposes of Immigration Enforcement. This includes:
Number of ICE Form I-247 Immigration Notification requests and dates of requests received during the preceding month
Number of notifications provided in response to requests and dates of notifications during the preceding month; and
Number of people transferred to an Immigration Authority from the Sheriff’s custody during the preceding month.
The sheriffs office will also have to report out if it participates in a joint law enforcement task force—also monthly to the board of supervisors on a bi-annually basis. The Sheriff’s Office shall report this information on the regular agenda of the Board of Supervisors as a consent item and shall post the information on the Sheriff’s Office Transparency Portal on the Sheriff’s Office’s website.
See full document: click here
Bay Area Counties: Immigration-Related Responses
Alameda: Policy that prohibits the use of county property for immigration enforcement, including for use as staging areas, processing locations, or operations bases
Marin: Marin County has a “De-Escalation Response Framework”
Napa: N/A
San Francisco: Ordinance that prohibits the use of city property without Authorization. San Francisco also has a longstanding sanctuary ordinance.
San Mateo: Ordinance that restricts access to County properties and requires reporting by law enforcement.
Santa Clara: Policies that limit cooperation with immigration enforcement, restrict use of County properties, and address access to County services.
Solano: N/A
Sonoma: Ordinance that limits cooperation with and use of resources for immigration enforcement, and protects data.
Related Stories:
May 2026 – California State Assembly Passes the MELT ICE Act of 2026
May 2026- Bill to Shine Light on Ice Activity Advance in State Senate
April 2026 – Rep DeSaulnier Questions DOJ on Local Impact of Impending Closure of San Francisco Immigration Court
March 2026 – Asm. Bonta Introduces Right to Counsel Legislation for Californians in Immigration Court
The post Contra Costa County Non-Cooperation Policy With ICE on Hold, For Now appeared first on Contra Costa News.
Sunny 64°F