Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 04122018 - PPC Agenda Pkt       PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE ***SPECIAL MEETING*** April 12, 2018 9:00 A.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor John Gioia, Chair Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee         1.Introductions   2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).   3. APPROVE Record of Action from the February 5, 2018 meeting. (Page 4)   4. CONSIDER accepting a report on the refunding of juvenile cost of care fees and review of juvenile electronic monitoring fees related to the juvenile justice system. (Todd Billeci, County Probation Officer) (Page 8)   5. CONSIDER accepting an introductory report on the County's Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan and Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and PROVIDE direction to staff. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff) (Page 11)   6. CONSIDER accepting reports from staff related to various immigration related issues, including compliance with state and federal law, status of federal litigation and correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice related to federal grants. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff) (Page 29)   7.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, May 7, 2018 at 10:30am.   8.Adjourn   The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353 timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:04/12/2018   Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - February 5, 2018 Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - February 5, 2018  Presenter: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036 Referral History: County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting. Referral Update: Attached for the Committee's consideration is the Record of Action for its February 5, 2018 meeting. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): APPROVE Record of Action from the February 5, 2018 meeting. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impart. This item is informational only. Attachments February 2018 - Record of Action Page 4 of 241 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE ***RECORD OF ACTION*** February 5, 2018 10:30 A.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor John Gioia, Chair Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee Present: John Gioia, Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair 1. Introductions Convene - 10:33 AM 2. Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). The Committee received public comment 3. APPROVE Record of Action from the December 7, 2017 meeting. Approved as presented Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Passed 4. REVIEW and APPROVE a fiscal year 2017/18 AB 109 budget proposal, as recommended by the Community Corrections Partnership-Executive Committee. Page 5 of 241 Approved as presented with the following direction to staff: 1. Integrate into the FY 2018/19 Recommended Budget for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. Vice Chair Federal D. Glover, Chair John Gioia AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Passed 5. ACCEPT update from the Office of Reentry and Justice on the Racial Justice Task Force. Approved as presented with the following direction to staff: 1. Schedule a follow up discussion for the June or July 2018 meeting. Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Passed 6. 1. ACCEPT reports from staff related to various immigration related issues, including implementation of Senate Bill 54 (Chapter 475, Statutes of 2017), status of federal litigation and correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice related to federal grants. 2. PROVIDE direction to staff on next steps. Approved as presented with the following direction to staff: 1. Provide follow up information related to the potential public forum related to the Truth Act. 2. Return with a litigation update at the next meeting. Page 6 of 241 7. The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, March 5, 2018 at 10:30 am. 8. Adjourn Adjourned - 12:46 pm The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353 timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us Page 7 of 241 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:04/12/2018   Subject:REFERRAL ON JUVENILE FEES CHARGED BY THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: REFERRAL ON JUVENILE FEES CHARGED BY THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT  Presenter: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036 Referral History: On July 19, 2016, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Public Protection Committee a review of fees assessed for services provided while a minor is in the custody of the Probation Department. Welfare and Institutions Code 903 et seq. provides that the County may assess a fee for the provision of services to a minor in the custody of its Probation Department. This request was following a statewide discussion as to whether or not these fees should be imposed by counties on the parents or legal guardians of minors in the custody of the County. The Public Protection Committee heard this item on September 26, 2016 and forwarded the issue to the Board of Supervisors for discussion. Ultimately, on October 25, 2016 the Board adopted Resolution No. 2016/606, which established a moratorium on the assessment and collection of juvenile fees. Concurrently, the Board directed staff to return to the Public Protection Committee and forward a recommendation back to the Board by May 31, 2017. On March 6, 2017, the Committee received an update from the County Probation Officer on the status of juvenile fees and the current moratorium. At that time the Committee recommended that the juvenile fees subject to the temporary moratorium be permanently repealed and directed staff to return to the Committee with a recommendation as to how to refund certain juvenile justice fees that were erroneously charged by the County. On July 10, 2017, the Committee received an update from the Probation Department. Specifically, the Probation Department reviewed four years (11/1/12-11/1/16) of information and examined 5,497 Juvenile Hall administrative fee accounts. Of the 5,497 accounts, the department received full or partial payments on 1,652 accounts, which is a 30% collection rate. The Probation Department reviewed all 1,652 accounts to determine if there were any overpayments for minors in custody at Juvenile Hall where payments were made even though there was not a sustained petition. This included minors who were charged as adults but were housed in Juvenile Hall, regardless of the final disposition. Of the 1,652 accounts, Probation determined there were 224 Page 8 of 241 accounts, which is 14% of the accounts, where an overpayment was made for a total of $58,172. It should be noted that of the 224 accounts, 17 accounts involved minors who were charged as adults. 15 of the 17 adult files matters resulted in convictions, while the other 2 matters were eventually referred to juvenile court and the petitions were sustained. The total dollar amount for the 17 adult file accounts is $33,033. The 3 largest overpayments, one for $6,000 and two for $8,000, totaling roughly $22,000, were adult file matters, which eventually resulted in convictions. Following discussion, the Committee directed staff to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to permanently repeal the Juvenile Cost of Care and Electronic Surveillance of Minors fees. Subsequently, the Board of Supervisors considered the Committee's recommendation on Tuesday, September 19, 2017. The Board approved the immediate repeal of the Juvenile Cost of Care fee and introduced an ordinance to effectuate the repeal of the Electronic Surveillance of Minors fee and scheduled adoption for the September 26, 2017 Board meeting. The ordinance was adopted by the Board, as scheduled, on September 26th and takes effect 30 days following passage. On October 2, 2017, the Probation Department updated the Committee on its review of potential refunds of juvenile cost of care fees. The Committee directed staff to forward the issue to the full Board with a recommendation to refund fees paid on behalf of certain minors in custody at the Juvenile Hall, specifically for minors without a sustained petition, including minors charged as adults and convicted of the adult charges. In addition, the Committee directed staff to return with an update on review of juvenile electronic monitoring fee charges and return at a future Committee date. On December 12, 2017, the Board of Supervisors authorized a refund process to be commenced by the Probation Department, including the notification of impacted individuals and those that may have been impacted. Referral Update: Juvenile Electronic Monitoring (JEM) Fee Update: From September 2010 through August 2016, there were 1,308 accounts where a full or partial payment was made. Of those 1,308 accounts, there were 5 accounts totaling $4,352 where a petitioned was not sustained, the single highest being $1,530.  Juvenile Cost of Care Fee Refunding Update: Following the Board of Supervisors authorizing a refund process, the Probation Department sent letters to all 520 accounts that were identified as being owed an overpayment refund. The Probation Department has been contacted by 150 of the 520 accounts, with refund principal amounts totaling $41,461.02. There are also 2 accounts from the outreach letters sent to other accounts, which were determined to be owed a refund (specifically, these petitions were sustained, but the family was the victim). Those two accounts total $282. County staff is preparing the first batch of refunds to be distributed to the account holders identified above, including statutorily authorized interest, for estimated distribution by the end of April.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Page 9 of 241 1. ACCEPT a report on the refunding of juvenile cost of care fees and review of juvenile electronic monitoring fees related to the juvenile justice system 2. PROVIDE any additional direction to staff. Fiscal Impact (if any): No immediate fiscal impact. Attachments No file(s) attached. Page 10 of 241 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:04/12/2018   Subject:REFERRAL ON JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: REFERRAL ON JUVENILE JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL  Presenter: Timothy Ewell, 5-1036 Contact: Timothy Ewell, 5-1036 Referral History: On February 13, 2018, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Committee a review of the production of the County's Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan. The plan is due to the state on May 1 of each year, as a condition of Contra Costa’s annual funding through the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) and Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG). For Contra Costa County, this amounts to over $8 million in annual funding specifically for juvenile justice activities.  Subsequent to the referral, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) met on March 6, 2018 to discussed the revised, consolidated Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan. Referral Update: On February 13, 2018, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Committee a review of the production of the County's Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan. Subsequent to the referral, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) met on March 6, 2018 to discussed the revised, consolidated Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan. The JJCC is staffed by the Probation Department and is composed of the following individuals:  Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, (Current BOS Chair rotates annually)1. Karen Moghtader, Public Defender’s Office2. Dan Cabral, District Attorney’s Office3. Brian Vanderlind, Office of the Sheriff4. Lynn Mackey, Contra Costa Office of Education5. Eric Ghisletta, Martinez Police Department6. Shirley Lorenz, Juvenile Justice-Delinquency Prevention Commission7. Dan Batiuchok, Behavior Health-Health Services Department8. Kathy Marsh, Employment and Human Services Department - Children and Family Services9. Mickie Marchetti, REACH Project10. Ruth Barajas-Cardona, Bay Area Community Resources (BACR)11. Fatima Matal Sol, County Alcohol and Other Drugs Director12. Page 11 of 241 A copy of the Plan, which was presented to and approved by the JJCC in March is attached to this staff report for reference. Given the May 1st deadline for the current funding cycle, staff recommends that any potential changes to the development of the Plan or composition of the JJCC be considered for future years - not the current funding cycle, since the FY 2018-19 Recommended Budget balances using funds from both JJCPA and YOBG. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 1. ACCEPT introductory report on the County's Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan and Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. 2. PROVIDE direction to staff on next steps. Fiscal Impact (if any): No impact. Attachments Board of Supervisors' Referral JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Plan 2018 Page 12 of 241 RECOMMENDATION(S): REFER to the Public Protection Committee consideration of producing a Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Multi-Agency Plan is Contra Costa’s sole opportunity to produce a robust and well-informed justice plan for our county’s children. It is due to the state on May 1, as a condition of Contra Costa’s annual funding through the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA). For more the a decade, Contra Costa has made minimal changes in its plan. This state-mandated annual multi-agency plan provides singular opportunities for truly meaningful progress to support young people (including, for example, systemic issues related to immigrant youth, disabled youth, cross-over youth, children of incarcerated parents, school push-out, and racial justice). It is recommended that the item be referred to the Public Protection Committee. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 02/13/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Timothy Ewell (925) 335-1036 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: February 13, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Timothy Ewell, Chief Assistant County Administrator C. 66 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:February 13, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:REFER to the Public Protection Committee Page 13 of 241 Page 14 of 241 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act & Youthful Offender Block Grant (JJCPA-YOBG) Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Contact: Lesha Roth Assistant Chief Probation Officer Lesha.Roth@prob.cccounty.us 925-313-4149 Page 15 of 241 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 2 CONTENTS Part I: Countywide Service Needs, Priorities and Strategy Page Assessment of existing services 3 Identifying and prioritizing focus area 6 Juvenile Justice action strategy 7 Part II: Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act Page Information sharing and data 9 JJCPA Funded Programs, strategies and/or system enhancements 9 Part III: Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) Page Strategy for non-707(b) offenders 11 Regional agreements 12 Funded programs, placements, services, strategies and or systems enhancements 12 Page 16 of 241 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 3 Part I: Countywide Service Needs, Priorities and Strategy Assessment of Existing Services: Contra Costa County offers a wide variety of resources to at risk and justice system involved youth and their families within the community. These resources are provided by city, county and state agencies as well as community based organizations. Law Enforcement: Contra Costa County is unique in that the county is comprised of 22 distinct law enforcement agencies which include city police, county sheriff, the District Attorney and the Probation Department. Early intervention and prevention services such as education, parenting, counseling, treatment and restorative justice are provided through diversion in some jurisdictions. Examples of diversion programs are: The Reach project in Antioch, RYSE in Richmond, and Community Court is utilized in the cities of Pittsburg, Concord, and San Ramon. The Contra Costa County Probation Department offers opportunities for informal supervision, Deferred Entry of Justice in collaboration with the court, and service referrals to youth and their families prior to entry into the justice system as well as youth who are new to the justice system. In addition to early interventions the Probation Department offers a continuum of supervision and treatment services for youth who have become justice system involved. Youth and Family Service Agencies: Services are offered to youth and their families by both county agencies and community based organizations.  The Children and Family Services Department (CFS) in Contra Costa County offers programs that include services such as Family Finding, Family Maintenance, Family Preservation, Family Reunification and Safe and Stable Families. Foster care is provided to justice involved youth collaboratively with the Probation Department. Youth in foster care also become eligible for Extended Foster Care services (AB-12) after their 18 th birthday and into young adulthood. For youth who are aged out or unable to return home to their families, CFS provides an Independent Living Skills Program (ILSP). ILSP works with youth to develop life skills, money management, preparation for college applications, and housing, cooking and other skills necessary to succeed after leaving the foster care system.  The John F. Kennedy University Community Center provides mental health services for parent issues and child-parent conflicts, school related problems, abuse and trauma, and anxiety and depression.  Community Violence Solutions (CVS) is part of the County wide Commercially Exploited Youth (CSEY) steering committee and provides services for children and adults who are victims of sexual abuse, including evaluation and therapy. CVS provides CSEY counseling within the Juvenile Hall.  The Reach Project provides counseling, age appropriate support and peer groups, teen and adult drug and alcohol treatment, and supports parents and grandparents. Page 17 of 241 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 4  The Center for Human development offers mediation for families in conflict as well as a spectrum of services for at-risk youth. Services are provided in the school and in the community.  The Counseling Options Parent Education (C.O.P.E) program offers parenting classes and counseling services.  Community Options for Families and Youth (COFY) offers therapeutic behavioral services, educational mental health management, trauma therapy, parent education, Multi-Systemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy (FFT). COFY partners with the County Mental Health Department and the Probation Department to offer FFT though the MIOCR grant.  Big Brothers/ Big Sisters of the East Bay offer mentoring services for youth through the age of 18 or graduation from High School.  The Contra Costa County Youth Continuum of Services (Heath Services) offers emergency shelter, meals, showers, laundry facilities, mail service, health care, transitional and permanent housing, case management, counseling, family reunification, employment assistance, peer support groups, substance abuse education, links to substance abuse and mental health treatment, school enrollment and transportation assistance. The Youth Continuum currently partners with the Probation Department to provide a bed at Pomona Street for a homeless youth and also will provide a bed for a DJJ returnee in the future.  The RYSE Youth Center offers Richmond and West county youth ages 13-24 assistance with education and justice, community health programming (case management, counseling, Restorative Pathways Project), youth organizing and leadership through the Richmond Youth Organizing team, as well as providing access to media, arts, and culture. The RYSE Center also offers workforce development and job attainment supports.  Community Works West provides Family Services and Restorative Community Conferences.  The West Contra Costa Youth Services Bureau offers coordinated services to youth and families that include Wraparound, kinship support for relative care givers, family preservation support and youth development.  Bay Area Community Resources (BACR) provides assistance to youth, adults and families in need. Services include: After school programs, workforce and education programs, alcohol and other drug programs, national service through AmeriCorps, tobacco cessation classes and education, counseling and mental health services, and school based counseling.  One Day at a Time provides direct mentoring at the elementary, middle school and high school levels, artistic outlets, educational and recreational field trips, community service opportunities, home visits, and youth employment referrals.  Rubicon programs serve youth and their families by removing barriers to help teach financial literacy including credit repair and household budgeting, help in finding immediate employment, as well as on the job training and internships. Rubicon also Page 18 of 241 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 5 provides adult education and literacy, wellness, community connections and restorative circles.  Boys and Girls Clubs of Contra Costa County offer programs in sports and recreation, education, the arts, health and wellness, career development, and character and leadership.  The Rainbow Community Center focuses on serving the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer/questioning community. The center offers a youth advocacy collaborative, LBGT and friends NA meetings, mixed AA meetings, counseling services, HIV testing, a transgender group, men’s HIV support group, a discussion group on gender identity, and youth programs.  The Congress of Neutrals (VORP) Victim Offender Reconciliation program applies restorative justice techniques to juveniles without prior records. VORP receives referrals from the Probation Department as part of the intake/informal process in an effort to divert them from the juvenile justice system.  Community Health for Asian Americans (CHAA) provides programs in behavioral health, community engagement, youth leadership, music programs, and early and periodic screening, diagnostic and treatment for substance abuse in collaboration with mental health. Health, Mental Health, and Substance Use Disorder Programs : Contra Costa County Health Services acts as the overall umbrella agency for Health, Mental Health and Alcohol and Other Drug Programs.  Health services include, but are not limited to the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, dental clinics, the Teenage Program (T.A.P), Head Start, specialized services for children with disabilities, public health clinics, and the Child Health and Disability Prevention program.  Mental Health Services include but are not limited to: a 24 hour hotline for crisis and suicide, a 24 hour behavioral health access line for mental health services, clinic services for youth and their families, Wraparound services, evidence based practices provided through programs such as Functional Family Therapy, Multi- Systemic Therapy and Multi-Dimensional Family Therapy, Positive Parenting Program (Triple P), and the Mobile Response Team.  Alcohol and other Drug Services include a youth crisis line, Behavioral Health Access Line for screening and referrals to substance use disorder prevention and treatment, Alateen and 12 step meetings, and minimal outpatient and residential treatment programs. Prevention services are also offered in collaboration with community based organizations. Education Partners and Programs: The Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE) delivers education and services to more than 176,000 students in Contra Costa County. CCCOE offers afterschool education and safety programs, bullying prevention, services for expelled students, a coordinating council that provides active coordination local school districts and the Page 19 of 241 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 6 CCCOE, English learner support, Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics education (STEAM). CCCOE also provides adult correctional education, career technical education, court and community schools, and special education and youth development services. Youth Development Services specifically include the following programs: Education for Homeless Children and Youth, Foster Youth Services, and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity program. Additionally, CCCOE offers the following services to justice system involved youth: Job Tech classes for post disposition students, school staff participate in Bridge/Multidisciplinary Referral Team (MRT)meetings, Transition and Assessment specialists meet with students to complete Independent Learning Plans, Tutors provide intervention, Data Technicians and Principals review credits earned and the graduation plan of each student, students are screened for AB 167 eligibility, Special Education teachers provide transition planning, community college liaisons provide workshops regarding financial aid and conduct orientations, and students are given continuous positive feedback about their behavior and receive Behavior Intervention Plans (BIP) to address needs. Contra Costa County facilitates the dissemination of information regarding services that are available through “211 Contra Costa” and through a published “Surviving Parenthood” resource directory that is prepared by the Child Abuse Prevention Council. Many of the services listed above are referenced in the 211 database which contains social service and health information available 24 hours per day, seven days per week just by calling “211” from any phone. In addition to the telephone, information regarding services can be accessed through a website. As indicted on the list above, Contra Costa County offers a variety of services to youth and families county-wide; however, improvements can be made to increase the ability of youth and families to navigate and access the resources available. Collaboration of services is a challenge that the Probation Department would like to address in the next year. Approaches to collaboration include an increase in the use of multi- disciplinary team meetings, as well as Child and Family team meetings, and transitional meetings for re-entry youth. The Probation Department will work towards building stronger relationships with local law enforcement diversion programs, community based organizations and our county agency partners to insure that appropriate and effective services are provided. Identifying and Prioritizing Focus Areas: The Probation Department and county agencies provide core services and supervision for youth and families that are already justice involved. Improvements can be made on the front and back end of the local justice system, as well as by increasing the very limited Substance Use Disorder (SUD) treatment services. Most recently, the west (Richmond) and central (Concord/ Martinez) areas of the county have experienced loss of outpatient SUD services for youth. It is the hope that by addressing the insufficient outpatient and intensive outpatient SUD treatment options as well as enhancing diversion and re-entry/aftercare services many youth will not Page 20 of 241 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 7 enter the system at all and of those who do, juvenile recidivism and later entry into the adult system will be significantly reduced. According to the Juvenile Court and Probation Statistical System (JCPSS) the five Contra Costa County Law Enforcement Jurisdictions with the most referrals to the Probation Department over the last several years include Antioch, Concord, Richmond, Brentwood, and Sheriff’s Office/Martinez. However, it should be noted that referrals from these agencies significantly reduced in 2017. Overall referrals from all of the agencies have decreased from almost 800 in 2016 to roughly 500 in 2017. In order to continue the trend of decreased referrals, diversion, re-entry services, and SUD treatment have been identified as priority moving forward. The Probation Department utilizes JJCPA funds to work collaboratively with the schools and police departments, and as such, infusion of Probation services in the areas of the community with the most need has and continues to be a primary focus. Juvenile Justice Action Strategy: The Contra Costa County Probation Department offers a continuum of services to at risk and justice involved youth and their families. Services have varying levels of intensity ranging from informal probation to commitment to a custodial treatment program. Most juvenile services include referrals to county agencies and community based organizations as treatment needs are identified through the Department’s use of evidence based risk/needs assessment tools, the OYAS (Ohio Youth Assessment System) and the JAIS (Juvenile Assessment and Intervention System). The Probation Department is currently developing a Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (DRAI) to allow for more equitable, objective, and informed intake decision making at the Juvenile Hall. Current Probation services include:  Referral/citation closed at intake, no action taken.  Referral to resources and referral/citation closed at intake.  Referral to a diversion program or placement on non-court involved Informal Probation for six months.  Filing of a petition with the Juvenile Court and working with the court and the family to recommend a disposition if the petition is sustained.  Maintaining a youth in custody at the Juvenile Hall pending court. While the youth is housed at the Juvenile Hall services such as medical, dental, mental health care, recreational activities, education, and evidence based programming are offered.  Home supervision with the aid of electronic monitoring that allows the youth to remain in the community and receive services pre and post disposition. Page 21 of 241 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 8  Community Supervision post disposition that includes Deputy Probation officers in schools, at police departments, and providing community supervision based on geographic location.  Non-wardship supervision for youth determined to be dependents per W&I 300.  Juvenile Placement (foster care) and re-entry supervision.  Non-Minor Dependent services and supervision post placement (AB-12).  Commitment to the Girls in Motion rehabilitative program in the Juvenile Hall and re- entry supervision.  Commitment to the Orin Allen Youth Ranch Rehabilitation Facility for boys and re-entry supervision.  Commitment to the Youthful Offender Treatment Program for boys at the Juvenile Hall and re-entry supervision.  Re-entry supervision for youth who have completed their commitment to the California Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The Probation Department is providing services primarily to youth who have entered into the justice system. A priority moving forward and a recommendation of the Contra County Racial Justice Task Force is to develop new and enhanced diversion services. Although juvenile detention and probation supervision populations continue to be on the decline, more work needs to be done to continue this trend by providing non-justice system evidence based interventions and services to youth and their families. The Probation Department will work with other justice partners to increase the capacity of city and county agencies, as well as community based organizations to deliver early intervention diversion services, re-entry services to youth who are returning to the community from custodial programs, and outpatient SUD treatment. Probation will work with CBOs and other justice partners to offer the following: Diversion services: 1) An evaluation of current services and how they can be enhanced 2) Delivery of best practice and evidence based programs that include restorative justice, intensive family therapy and services 3) Development of a methodology for tracking and reporting outcomes Re-entry/after care services: 1) Staffing of re-entry specialists that will: a. Actively participate in transitional or “bridge” meetings in the custodial programs between Probation, School, Mental Health, families, youth and other necessary providers. b. Serve as education advocates to insure youth are properly enrolled in their school district and receive all services due to them. c. Provide services to all three areas of the county and during non- traditional working hours. Page 22 of 241 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 9 d. Provide services to families in their homes e. Help youth and families navigate and receive the county wide services to include housing and health. f. Work collaboratively with the Probation Department 2) A coordinated approach across service systems to address youth’s needs Substance Use Disorder Outpatient Treatment. Combining SUD and Probation resources to: 1) Create outpatient and intensive outpatient programs in Central and West County that may include collaboration with existing community based organizations and local schools. a. If needed the Probation Department may provide training to our partners on the use of Cognitive- Behavioral Interventions for Substance Abuse (CBI-SA) In addition to enhancing diversion services at the point of entry into the system, and SUD treatment, the Probation Department will prioritize working with community based organizations to build upon the concept of the re-entry network established by the Youth Justice Initiative which included re-entry case management, systems navigation, and bridge meetings narrowing the gap between custody and community release. Part II: Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) was created to provide a stable funding source for local juvenile justice programs aimed at curbing criminal delinquency among at risk youth. Information sharing and data: Contra Costa County Probation and Courts operate on a “main frame” computer case management system. Information is shared from the mainframe in accordance with Welfare and Institutions Code section 827.12 and with authorization from the court. Aggregate data is provided to the Department of Justice Juvenile Court and Probation Statistical System. The Probation Department currently utilizes in house Access databases and Excel spreadsheets to collect data and evaluate programs. A comprehensive case management system is currently in development and it is anticipated to be fully functional in FY2019/2020. JJCPA Funded Programs, Strategy, and/or System Enhancements: FUNCTIONAL FAMILY THERAPY (FFT) The FFT program is offered to youth who are transitioning back into the community after a custodial commitment. FFT is a resource that will enhance the ability for Deputy Probation Officers to insure that the transitioning youth will receive the necessary services to successfully reintegrate into their community. Page 23 of 241 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 10 Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is an empirically-grounded, strengths and family based intervention program for youth. FFT is an evidence based practice known to be effective for treating youth with conduct disorder and delinquency (Henggler and Sheidow, 2012, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy). The goal of FFT is to improve family communication through engagement, motivation, relational assessment, behavior change and generalization. This intervention program that can be conducted in the home is facilitated by a clinician during 12- 14 intensive sessions over three to five months. FFT is an essential resource that the Probation and Mental Health Department offers to youth who often find the transition from a detention setting back into their home challenging. FFT was funded previously by the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program (MIOCR) which sunsets in June of 2018. Recognized as one of the most effective programs currently offered, collaboration was agreed upon between Health Services- Mental Health and the Probation Department to continue to fund FFT utilizing Med-Cal, Mental Health funds and JJCPA funds. DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICERS IN HIGH SCHOOLS Contra Costa County Probation utilizes JJCPA funds to staff Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) at public high schools within several communities in the county. This collaboration between Probation and local schools employs a variety of preventative strategies designed to keep youth from entering or re-entering the juvenile justice system. DPOs provide supervision for youth on informal probation or who have been adjudged wards who attend their assigned school and provide referrals for supportive community resources to the youth and their families. DPOs are trained to facilitate evidence based practice programs, utilize risk assessments to identify criminogenic needs, develop case plans, complete court reports, provide services to victims and participate in collaborative operations and projects. School specific services are also made available by the DPOs that include the facilitation of conflict resolution to teach the youth to use non-violent communication strategies. They also participate in the School Attendance Review Board (SARB) which assists the schools in preventing truancy. General assistance is provided that includes reaching out to youth who present as high risk, but have not yet had contact with law enforcement. Many of the youth who present as high risk have been suspended on numerous occasions and exhibit behavioral issues in the classroom. It is the goal of the School DPO to facilitate early interventions which divert youth from the system using appropriate behavior modification techniques and targeted community provider referrals. Page 24 of 241 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 11 School age youth who have been in custody or foster care placement and are returning to the community receive assistance from the High School DPOs with their re-enrollment back into school. The DPO meets with the family to identify any needs that they may have and develop strategies to ensure their successful reintegration. COMMUNITY PROBATION Contra Costa County currently utilizes JJCPA funds to provide Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) to community police agencies throughout the county that focus on high risk youth and at risk chronic youthful offenders. Similar to the DPOs in High Schools program, DPOs assigned to police agencies provide supervision and referrals for youth and their families, are trained to facilitate EBP programs and conduct risk assessments, develop case plans, complete reports for the court, provide services to victims, and participate in collaborative operations and projects. DPOs in police agencies work on the front end at the time of arrest or citation and are a valuable resource for an arresting officer when determining if a youth should receive diversion services, informal probation services, or formal probation interventions. The DPOs communicate with victims, schools, parents and the youth to inform the best course of action to address at risk behaviors. The vetting process provided by the DPO to the police agency is a preventative tool to keep youth out of the juvenile justice system whenever possible. ORIN ALLEN YOUTH REHABILITATION FACILITY DEPUTIES JJCPA funds are utilized to pay for Deputy Probation Officers to provide aftercare and re-entry services to male youth who have successfully completed a commitment at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF). The OAYRF is an open setting ranch/camp facility that houses youth whose risk and needs indicate that placement in such a setting would aid in their rehabilitation. The OAYRF provides services for youth who have committed less serious offenses than the youth committed to the Juvenile Hall residential program, YOTP. OAYRF DPOs allow for continuity of care as young men reintegrate into the community. The DPOs begin supervision during the custodial phase of the program and continue to provide service during transition and after release. Similar to other Contra County treatment program re-entry models, case plans are developed with the youth and their family or support system that identify resources that continue to target the criminogenic needs identified earlier in the youth's program. DPOs also insure that basic needs such as housing, food, ongoing education, and employment services are met. Youth that complete the OAYRF program are connected to Page 25 of 241 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 12 county providers such as mental health and substance use disorder services to increase their opportunities for success. Part III: Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) Youthful Offender Block Grant funds are used to enhance the capacity of county probation, mental health, drug and alcohol services, and other county departments to provide appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services to youthful offenders. Strategy for Non 707 (b) Offenders: The Contra Costa County Probation Department delivers services to justice system involved youth utilizing a continuum of proactive responses that include the use of evidence based risk assessment tools and varying levels of supervision, out of home placements and custodial rehabilitative programs. Case plans are developed and recommendations are formulated for the court that takes into account prevention and intervention strategies which focus on criminogenic needs and community safety. Youthful offenders who are not eligible for a commitment to DJJ that may have been committed in the past are now provided an opportunity to remain locally in the Youthful Offender Treatment Program. While in the program rehabilitative services are provided to empower the youth to have a positive outcome upon release. Regional Agreements: The Probation Department and County Health Services/Mental Health have an ongoing contract which utilizes YOBG funds to provide a full time mental health clinician for the Youthful Offender Treatment Program. YOBG Funded Programs, Placements, Services, Strategies and/or System Enhancements: GIRLS IN MOTION (GIM) The Girls in Motion program (GIM) is a residential program housed in the Juvenile Hall in which staffing is partially supported with YOBG funds. GIM provides a safe and structured environment in which adolescent females can achieve positive change and personal growth. As they move through a phase system, that normally requires a five to six month commitment; the youth benefit from individualized treatment plans, individual counseling, and evidence based group programming focused on strengthening pro-social values/attitudes and restructuring anti-social behaviors. Probation staff have received gender specific training and lead many of the girl’s groups. Counseling is also provided by mental health therapists as well as community based organizations that offer specialized services for youth on the topics of trauma, relationship development, anger management/conflict resolution and substance abuse. Treatment is also provided for youth who have been identified as a victim of commercial sexual exploitation and abuse. Specific programming includes, but is not limited to, Aggression Page 26 of 241 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 13 Replacement Training (ART), Thinking For a Change (T4C), Girl's Circle, Job Tech/Life Skills, AA/NA, Alateen, Cognitive Behavior Intervention Substance Abuse (CBI-SA), and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT). In 2016, the GIM treatment dosage was enhanced with the introduction of the CBI-SA and Advanced Practice treatment programs. The GIM youth also received enhanced services through a Multi-Disciplinary team consisting of Mental Health, Education, Medical and Probation staff. The team worked collaboratively on difficult cases and created individualized behavioral intervention plans for severely aggressive and violent youth. Enhancements and increased collaboration with our county partners allowed the GIM program to improve targeted individualized services. YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAM (YOTP) The Youthful Offender Treatment Program (YOTP) is a residential commitment program, housed in the Juvenile Hall, in which staffing and mental health services are funded by YOBG. The program's mission is to serve young males by providing them with cognitive behavioral programming and the life skills necessary to transition back into the community. The YOTP program is a local alternative to a commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice for youth who have committed serious and possibly violent offenses, but can be treated at the local level. The YOTP is a best practice model involving a four phase system. Youth committed to the YOTP can expect to stay in the program for a minimum of nine months or longer depending on their level of progress through each phase. While in the program youth receive Aggression Replacement Training (ART), Thinking for a Change (T4C), The Council, Impact of Crimes on Victims, Phoenix Gang Program, Job Tech/Life Skills, Substance Abuse Counseling that includes Cognitive Behavior Intervention Substance Abuse (CBI-SA) treatment, and Work Experience (wood working). All treatment is provided by trained Probation staff, County Mental Health staff and community providers. In addition to the cognitive behavioral programming, youth also attend school and many achieve their High School diploma. For youth who have attained their High School diploma, the Probation Department worked collaboratively with the Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE) and Los Medanos Community College to allow the YOTP students to enroll in online college courses. The Contra Costa Community College District also allows qualified 12 th grade seniors the opportunity to enroll in college courses and earn college credits prior to graduation from High School. In 2016, YOTP treatment dosage was enhanced with the introduction of the CBI-SA and Advanced Practice treatment programs. The YOTP youth also received enhanced services through a Multi-Disciplinary team consisting of Mental Health, Education, Medical and Probation staff. The team worked collaboratively on difficult cases and created individualized behavioral intervention plans for severely aggressive and violent youth. Enhancements and Page 27 of 241 Contra Costa County JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan 2018 Page 14 increased collaboration with our county partners allowed the YOTP to improve targeted individualized services. During the residential treatment phase and after re-entry into the community, youth in the YOTP consistently receive collaborative supervision and services from Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) specifically assigned to the program. The DPOs work to insure that the youth receive the necessary assistance for a smooth transition out of the program and back into their community. YOBG funds partially provide for YOTP Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) who begin providing services to YOTP youth in the institutional setting and continue to supervise and provide for aftercare in the community. After completion of three phases, youth are released to the community on electronic monitoring (phase four). Prior to and after release, DPOs coordinate re-entry and ongoing transition with the youth, the youth's family and/or community support system. The DPO creates a case plan that utilizes community resources to target the youth's criminogenic needs to insure that the appropriate community services are in place and that the youth has a smooth transition home, as well as the best possible chance at success. To foster a productive transitional environment, referrals are made to existing mental health and county programs for continuity of care. Youth are also connected to services that assist with basic needs such as housing, food, ongoing education, and employment services. Probation supervision is provided to assist youth with compliance to court ordered terms and conditions in order to increase their chance of success, provide for the safety of victims and mitigate risk to the community. Page 28 of 241 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:04/12/2018   Subject:COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTICIPATION AND INTERACTION WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTICIPATION AND INTERACTION WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES  Presenter: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036 Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036 Referral History: On February 7, 2017, the Board of Supervisors referral to the Public Protection Committee the topic of law enforcement participation and interaction with Federal immigration authorities. A copy of the Board's referral is attached for reference. Subsequently, the PPC introduced this referral at it's March 2017 meeting, primarily to discuss Senate Bill 54 (De Leon), which at the time was newly introduced in the Legislature. The Committee directed the County Probation Department to have County Counsel review the current policy on immigration (including cooperation with the federal government and serving clients that are undocumented residents of the County) and return to the Committee with an update. In addition, the Committee requested a review of the Sheriff's Office contract with the US Marshal service, which is also used by the Department of Homeland Security - Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to house undocumented individuals who are in the custody of the federal government. The Committee had not heard an update on this issue, pending the outcome of SB 54, which ultimately was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown earlier this year. Following its passage and enrollment, the Probation Department and Sheriff's Office have worked with County Counsel proactively to ensure that the County is in compliance with the requirements of the new law. Federal Grant Requirements and Related Legal Challenges Following the March 2017 meeting of the Committee, the US Department of Justice began conditioning certain federal grant awards to state and local governments on the cooperation with federal immigration authorities. This has been rolled out in the form of 1) requesting the jurisdictions receiving grants to self certify (under penalty of perjury by the Chief Legal Officer, in our case County Counsel) that the jurisdiction is in compliance with the conditions of 8 USC Page 29 of 241 1373, and 2) that the jurisdiction would honor 48-hour detainer requests for undocumented individuals already in local custody for separate criminal law violations. Neither the Probation Department nor the Sheriff's Office honor detainer requests from the federal government and have not done so for several years. There have been several legal challenges to the Administration's various actions on immigration. Most notably with regard to the withholding of funding from state and local governments is City of Chicago vs. Sessions III, where a nationwide injunction has been ordered against the new regulations sought to be imposed by the USDOJ. An article from the Chicago Tribune has been included in today's packet for additional information. Also, a coalition of local jurisdictions nationwide, including cities and counties, filed an amicus brief in City of Philadelphia vs. Sessions III on October 19th of this year in support of the City's motion for preliminary injunction. In this case, the City is largely requesting an injunction very similar to that ordered in the Chicago case. A copy of the brief is included in today's packet for reference. Potential for Financial Impact to the County As the legal challenges described above progress, the County will continue to be mindful of the potential impacts to County programs. At first glance, it may be easy to determine that any financial impact from the change in federal policy would only impact law enforcement activities; however, several County departments receive funding from USDOJ and DHS. The summary below illustrates a worst case scenario to the County - that is, that all grant funds from both federal agencies are discontinued. The federal government has been choosing certain grants to apply the new regulations to, but there generally does not seem to be a specific criteria used to determine what grants the regulations may be applied to. For this reason, it is highly unlikely that the entire $24.7 million could be impacted, but in the interest of proactively understanding the portfolio of grants maintained by the County, staff prepared this chart as a tool for discussion purposes. On November 6, 2017, the Committee received an update on this referral and directed staff to schedule a special meeting in December for followup. Specifically, staff presented a report on how the County is working proactively to ensure smooth implementation of the requirements of SB 54, to the extent that the County does not already meet those requirements. This included an analysis by County Counsel of the current policies for each department against the new Page 30 of 241 requirements of SB 54 for easy reference. The Committee asked for an updated version of the analysis for the December meeting, which is included in today's packet. Also, the actual policies from both the Sheriff's Office and the Probation Department (draft) were included for reference. In addition, Committee staff provided a brief overview on the issues related to the potential financial impacts from US DOJ and DHS grant conditions on certain federal grant awards. The Committee also discussed the Sheriff's Office contract with the US Marshal services, which is used by ICE to house detainees currently in the custody of the federal government and requested a copy of the contract be included in the December packet for reference. On December 7, 2017, the Committee received an update on various, ongoing litigation items across the country and the status of updates to the immigration policies of the Sheriff's Office and Probation Department. In addition, County Counsel prepared an updated analysis of existing policies and Committee staff included a copy of the interagency agreement between the US Marshal Service and the Sheriff's Office for review. The US Marshal contract is used by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency to house undocumented detainees that are already in the custody of the federal government in County jail facilities. The Committee requested that the issue return at the February 5, 2018 Committee meeting for an update. On February 5, 2018, staff updated the Committee on various litigation related to immigration across the nation and reported on the County's compliance with SB 54 following the January 1, 2018 effective date. In addition, staff reported that the U.S. Department of Justice appears to be satisfied with the County's revised immigration policy in the Sheriff's Office, which strikes a balance with complying with both federal and state law. Also, the Public Defender's Office provided an update on efforts to launch the County's Stand Together Contra Costa program, which provide various services to undocumented residents in the County seeking assistance. Following discussion, the Committee directed staff to return to return to the next meeting with information related to the public forum required under the Truth Act and a litigation update. Referral Update: Staff will be present to provide an update on the following items: 1. Various litigation items being tracked by the Committee related to immigration. 2. Update on the County's compliance with the Truth Act public forum review process required by Government Code section 7283.1(d). For reference, a copy of the relevant code section is included below: (d) Beginning January 1, 2018, the local governing body of any county, city, or city and county in which a local law enforcement agency has provided ICE access to an individual during the last year shall hold at least one community forum during the following year, that is open to the public, in an accessible location, and with at least 30 days' notice to provide information to the public about ICE's access to individuals and to receive and consider public comment. As part of this forum, the local law enforcement agency may provide the governing body with data it maintains regarding the number and demographic characteristics of individuals to whom the agency has provided ICE access, the date ICE access was provided, and whether the ICE access was provided through a hold, transfer, or notification request or through other means. Data may be provided in the form of statistics or, if statistics are not maintained, individual records, provided that personally identifiable information shall be redacted. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Page 31 of 241 1. ACCEPT accept reports from staff related to various immigration related issues, including compliance with state and federal law, status of federal litigation and correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice related to federal grants. 2. PROVIDE direction to staff on next steps. Attachments Board of Supervisors' Referral Senate Bill 54 (De León), Chapter 495 Statutes of 2017 Senate Bill 54 (De León) - Redline of Existing Law Senate Bill 54 Analysis - County Counsel  Chicago Tribune Article, October 13, 2017 Brief of Amici Curiae - City of Philadelphia vs Sessions III, filed October 19, 2017 Letter from USDOJ to Contra Costa re: 8 USC 1373 Compliance  Interagency Service Agreement ICE w/ Amendments Probation Department Immigration Policy Sheriff's Office Immigration Policy Stand Together CoCo - Partner Advisory Letter Page 32 of 241 RECOMMENDATION(S): REFER the issue of Contra Costa County law enforcement participation and interaction with federal immigration authorities to the Public Protection Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: There has been growing public concern around the county, especially among immigrant communities, about the nature of local law enforcement interaction with federal immigration authorities. This concern has been increasing due to the current political environment and has impacted the willingness of residents of immigrant communities to access certain health and social services provided by community-based organizations. For example, the Executive Director of Early Childhood Mental Health has reported that a number of Latino families have canceled mental health appointments for their children due to concerns over APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 02/07/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Supervisor John Gioia (510) 231-8686 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: February 7, 2017 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 97 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:February 7, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:REFERRAL TO PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE OF COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTICIPATION AND INTERACTION WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES Page 33 of 241 being deported. It is timely and in the public interest to refer this issue to the Public Protection Committee. Page 34 of 241 Senate Bill No. 54 CHAPTER 495 An act to amend Sections 7282 and 7282.5 of, and to add Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284) to Division 7 of Title 1 of, the Government Code, and to repeal Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to law enforcement. [Approved by Governor October 5, 2017. Filed with Secretary of State October 5, 2017.] legislative counsel’s digest SB 54, De León. Law enforcement: sharing data. Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters. This bill would repeal those provisions. Existing law provides that whenever an individual who is a victim of or witness to a hate crime, or who otherwise can give evidence in a hate crime investigation, is not charged with or convicted of committing any crime under state law, a peace officer may not detain the individual exclusively for any actual or suspected immigration violation or report or turn the individual over to federal immigration authorities. This bill would, among other things and subject to exceptions, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from using money or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, as specified, and would, subject to exceptions, proscribe other activities or conduct in connection with immigration enforcement by law enforcement agencies. The bill would apply those provisions to the circumstances in which a law enforcement official has discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities. The bill would require, by October 1, 2018, the Attorney General, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible for use by public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses, among others. The bill would require, among others, all public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses to implement the model policy, or an equivalent policy. The bill would state that, among others, all other organizations and entities that provide services related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the University of California, are encouraged to adopt the model policy. The bill would require 90 Page 35 of 241 that a law enforcement agency that chooses to participate in a joint law enforcement task force, as defined, submit a report annually pertaining to task force operations to the Department of Justice, as specified. The bill would require the Attorney General, by March 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, to report on the types and frequency of joint law enforcement task forces, and other information, as specified, and to post those reports on the Attorney General’s Internet Web site. The bill would require law enforcement agencies to report to the department annually regarding transfers of persons to immigration authorities. The bill would require the Attorney General to publish guidance, audit criteria, and training recommendations regarding state and local law enforcement databases, for purposes of limiting the availability of information for immigration enforcement, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide a specified written consent form in advance of any interview between a person in department custody and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding civil immigration violations. This bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to these provisions. By imposing additional duties on public schools and local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 7282 of the Government Code is amended to read: 7282. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings: (a)  “Conviction” shall have the same meaning as subdivision (d) of Section 667 of the Penal Code. (b)  “Eligible for release from custody” means that the individual may be released from custody because one of the following conditions has occurred: (1)  All criminal charges against the individual have been dropped or dismissed. (2)  The individual has been acquitted of all criminal charges filed against him or her. (3)  The individual has served all the time required for his or her sentence. (4)  The individual has posted a bond. (5)  The individual is otherwise eligible for release under state or local law, or local policy. 90 — 2 —Ch. 495 Page 36 of 241 (c)  “Hold request,” “notification request,” and “transfer request” have the same meanings as provided in Section 7283. Hold, notification, and transfer requests include requests issued by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the United States Customs and Border Protection as well as any other immigration authorities. (d)  “Law enforcement official” means any local agency or officer of a local agency authorized to enforce criminal statutes, regulations, or local ordinances or to operate jails or to maintain custody of individuals in jails, and any person or local agency authorized to operate juvenile detention facilities or to maintain custody of individuals in juvenile detention facilities. (e)  “Local agency” means any city, county, city and county, special district, or other political subdivision of the state. (f)  “Serious felony” means any of the offenses listed in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of the Penal Code and any offense committed in another state which, if committed in California, would be punishable as a serious felony as defined by subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of the Penal Code. (g)  “Violent felony” means any of the offenses listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code and any offense committed in another state which, if committed in California, would be punishable as a violent felony as defined by subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code. SEC. 2. Section 7282.5 of the Government Code is amended to read: 7282.5. (a)  A law enforcement official shall have discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities only if doing so would not violate any federal, state, or local law, or local policy, and where permitted by the California Values Act (Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284)). Additionally, the specific activities described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of, and in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of, Section 7284.6 shall only occur under the following circumstances: (1)  The individual has been convicted of a serious or violent felony identified in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of, or subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of, the Penal Code. (2)  The individual has been convicted of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison. (3)  The individual has been convicted within the past five years of a misdemeanor for a crime that is punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony for, or has been convicted within the last 15 years of a felony for, any of the following offenses: (A)  Assault, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 217.1, 220, 240, 241.1, 241.4, 241.7, 244, 244.5, 245, 245.2, 245.3, 245.5, 4500, and 4501 of the Penal Code. (B)  Battery, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 242, 243.1, 243.3, 243.4, 243.6, 243.7, 243.9, 273.5, 347, 4501.1, and 4501.5 of the Penal Code. (C)  Use of threats, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 71, 76, 139, 140, 422, 601, and 11418.5 of the Penal Code. (D)  Sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or crimes endangering children, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266d, 90 Ch. 495— 3 — Page 37 of 241 266f, 266g, 266h, 266i, 266j, 267, 269, 288, 288.5, 311.1, 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11, and 647.6 of the Penal Code. (E)  Child abuse or endangerment, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 270, 271, 271a, 273a, 273ab, 273d, 273.4, and 278 of the Penal Code. (F)  Burglary, robbery, theft, fraud, forgery, or embezzlement, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 211, 215, 459, 463, 470, 476, 487, 496, 503, 518, 530.5, 532, and 550 of the Penal Code. (G)  Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but only for a conviction that is a felony. (H)  Obstruction of justice, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 69, 95, 95.1, 136.1, and 148.10 of the Penal Code. (I)  Bribery, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 67, 67.5, 68, 74, 85, 86, 92, 93, 137, 138, and 165 of the Penal Code. (J)  Escape, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 107, 109, 110, 4530, 4530.5, 4532, 4533, 4534, 4535, and 4536 of the Penal Code. (K)  Unlawful possession or use of a weapon, firearm, explosive device, or weapon of mass destruction, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 171b, 171c, 171d, 246, 246.3, 247, 417, 417.3, 417.6, 417.8, 4574, 11418, 11418.1, 12021.5, 12022, 12022.2, 12022.3, 12022.4, 12022.5, 12022.53, 12022.55, 18745, 18750, and 18755 of, and subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 26100 of, the Penal Code. (L)  Possession of an unlawful deadly weapon, under the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 16000) of the Penal Code). (M)  An offense involving the felony possession, sale, distribution, manufacture, or trafficking of controlled substances. (N)  Vandalism with prior convictions, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 594.7 of the Penal Code. (O)  Gang-related offenses, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 186.22, 186.26, and 186.28 of the Penal Code. (P)  An attempt, as defined in Section 664 of, or a conspiracy, as defined in Section 182 of, the Penal Code, to commit an offense specified in this section. (Q)  A crime resulting in death, or involving the personal infliction of great bodily injury, as specified in, but not limited to, subdivision (d) of Section 245.6 of, and Sections 187, 191.5, 192, 192.5, 12022.7, 12022.8, and 12022.9 of, the Penal Code. (R)  Possession or use of a firearm in the commission of an offense. (S)  An offense that would require the individual to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290, 290.002, or 290.006 of the Penal Code. (T)  False imprisonment, slavery, and human trafficking, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 181, 210.5, 236, 236.1, and 4503 of the Penal Code. (U)  Criminal profiteering and money laundering, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 186.2, 186.9, and 186.10 of the Penal Code. 90 — 4 —Ch. 495 Page 38 of 241 (V)  Torture and mayhem, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 203 of the Penal Code. (W)  A crime threatening the public safety, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 219, 219.1, 219.2, 247.5, 404, 404.6, 405a, 451, and 11413 of the Penal Code. (X)  Elder and dependent adult abuse, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 368 of the Penal Code. (Y)  A hate crime, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 422.55 of the Penal Code. (Z)  Stalking, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 646.9 of the Penal Code. (AA)  Soliciting the commission of a crime, as specified in, but not limited to, subdivision (c) of Section 286 of, and Sections 653j and 653.23 of, the Penal Code. (AB)  An offense committed while on bail or released on his or her own recognizance, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 12022.1 of the Penal Code. (AC)  Rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual penetration, as specified in, but not limited to, paragraphs (2) and (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261 of, paragraphs (1) and (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 262 of, Section 264.1 of, subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 286 of, subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 288a of, and subdivisions (a) and (j) of Section 289 of, the Penal Code. (AD)  Kidnapping, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 207, 209, and 209.5 of the Penal Code. (AE)  A violation of subdivision (c) of Section 20001 of the Vehicle Code. (4)  The individual is a current registrant on the California Sex and Arson Registry. (5)  The individual has been convicted of a federal crime that meets the definition of an aggravated felony as set forth in subparagraphs (A) to (P), inclusive, of paragraph (43) of subsection (a) of Section 101 of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101), or is identified by the United States Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement as the subject of an outstanding federal felony arrest warrant. (6)  In no case shall cooperation occur pursuant to this section for individuals arrested, detained, or convicted of misdemeanors that were previously felonies, or were previously crimes punishable as either misdemeanors or felonies, prior to passage of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014 as it amended the Penal Code. (b)  In cases in which the individual is arrested and taken before a magistrate on a charge involving a serious or violent felony, as identified in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 or subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code, respectively, or a felony that is punishable by imprisonment in state prison, and the magistrate makes a finding of probable cause as to that charge pursuant to Section 872 of the Penal Code, a law enforcement official shall additionally have discretion to cooperate with immigration 90 Ch. 495— 5 — Page 39 of 241 officials pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 7284.6. SEC. 3. Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284) is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read: Chapter 17.25. Cooperation with Immigration Authorities 7284. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Values Act. 7284.2. The Legislature finds and declares the following: (a)  Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the California community. Almost one in three Californians is foreign born and one in two children in California has at least one immigrant parent. (b)  A relationship of trust between California’s immigrant community and state and local agencies is central to the public safety of the people of California. (c)  This trust is threatened when state and local agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health services, or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and the well-being of all Californians. (d)  Entangling state and local agencies with federal immigration enforcement programs diverts already limited resources and blurs the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal governments. (e)  State and local participation in federal immigration enforcement programs also raises constitutional concerns, including the prospect that California residents could be detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, targeted on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or denied access to education based on immigration status. See Sanchez Ochoa v. Campbell, et al. (E.D. Wash. 2017) 2017 WL 3476777; Trujillo Santoya v. United States, et al. (W.D. Tex. 2017) 2017 WL 2896021; Moreno v. Napolitano (N.D. Ill. 2016) 213 F. Supp. 3d 999; Morales v. Chadbourne (1st Cir. 2015) 793 F.3d 208; Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County (D. Or. 2014) 2014 WL 1414305; Galarza v. Szalczyk (3d Cir. 2014) 745 F.3d 634. (f)  This chapter seeks to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of the people of California, and to direct the state’s limited resources to matters of greatest concern to state and local governments. (g)  It is the intent of the Legislature that this chapter shall not be construed as providing, expanding, or ratifying any legal authority for any state or local law enforcement agency to participate in immigration enforcement. 7284.4. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings: (a)  “California law enforcement agency” means a state or local law enforcement agency, including school police or security departments. 90 — 6 —Ch. 495 Page 40 of 241 “California law enforcement agency” does not include the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (b)  “Civil immigration warrant” means any warrant for a violation of federal civil immigration law, and includes civil immigration warrants entered in the National Crime Information Center database. (c)  “Immigration authority” means any federal, state, or local officer, employee, or person performing immigration enforcement functions. (d)  “Health facility” includes health facilities as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code, clinics as defined in Sections 1200 and 1200.1 of the Health and Safety Code, and substance abuse treatment facilities. (e)  “Hold request,” “notification request,” “transfer request,” and “local law enforcement agency” have the same meaning as provided in Section 7283. Hold, notification, and transfer requests include requests issued by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or United States Customs and Border Protection as well as any other immigration authorities. (f)  “Immigration enforcement” includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and also includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person’s presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States. (g)  “Joint law enforcement task force” means at least one California law enforcement agency collaborating, engaging, or partnering with at least one federal law enforcement agency in investigating federal or state crimes. (h)  “Judicial probable cause determination” means a determination made by a federal judge or federal magistrate judge that probable cause exists that an individual has violated federal criminal immigration law and that authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest and take into custody the individual. (i)  “Judicial warrant” means a warrant based on probable cause for a violation of federal criminal immigration law and issued by a federal judge or a federal magistrate judge that authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest and take into custody the person who is the subject of the warrant. (j)  “Public schools” means all public elementary and secondary schools under the jurisdiction of local governing boards or a charter school board, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges. (k)  “School police and security departments” includes police and security departments of the California State University, the California Community Colleges, charter schools, county offices of education, schools, and school districts. 7284.6. (a)  California law enforcement agencies shall not: (1)  Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following: (A)  Inquiring into an individual’s immigration status. (B)  Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request. 90 Ch. 495— 7 — Page 41 of 241 (C)  Providing information regarding a person’s release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public, or is in response to a notification request from immigration authorities in accordance with Section 7282.5. Responses are never required, but are permitted under this subdivision, provided that they do not violate any local law or policy. (D)  Providing personal information, as defined in Section 1798.3 of the Civil Code, about an individual, including, but not limited to, the individual’s home address or work address unless that information is available to the public. (E)  Making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants. (F)  Assisting immigration authorities in the activities described in Section 1357(a)(3) of Title 8 of the United States Code. (G)  Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal. (2)  Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies for purposes of immigration enforcement. All peace officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the policies of the employing agency. (3)  Use immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in agency or department custody. (4)  Transfer an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination, or in accordance with Section 7282.5. (5)  Provide office space exclusively dedicated for immigration authorities for use within a city or county law enforcement facility. (6)  Contract with the federal government for use of California law enforcement agency facilities to house individuals as federal detainees, except pursuant to Chapter 17.8 (commencing with Section 7310). (b)  Notwithstanding the limitations in subdivision (a), this section does not prevent any California law enforcement agency from doing any of the following that does not violate any policy of the law enforcement agency or any local law or policy of the jurisdiction in which the agency is operating: (1)  Investigating, enforcing, or detaining upon reasonable suspicion of, or arresting for a violation of, Section 1326(a) of Title 8 of the United States Code that may be subject to the enhancement specified in Section 1326(b)(2) of Title 8 of the United States Code and that is detected during an unrelated law enforcement activity. Transfers to immigration authorities are permitted under this subsection only in accordance with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a). (2)  Responding to a request from immigration authorities for information about a specific person’s criminal history, including previous criminal arrests, convictions, or similar criminal history information accessed through 90 — 8 —Ch. 495 Page 42 of 241 the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), where otherwise permitted by state law. (3)  Conducting enforcement or investigative duties associated with a joint law enforcement task force, including the sharing of confidential information with other law enforcement agencies for purposes of task force investigations, so long as the following conditions are met: (A)  The primary purpose of the joint law enforcement task force is not immigration enforcement, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 7284.4. (B)  The enforcement or investigative duties are primarily related to a violation of state or federal law unrelated to immigration enforcement. (C)  Participation in the task force by a California law enforcement agency does not violate any local law or policy to which it is otherwise subject. (4)  Making inquiries into information necessary to certify an individual who has been identified as a potential crime or trafficking victim for a T or U Visa pursuant to Section 1101(a)(15)(T) or 1101(a)(15)(U) of Title 8 of the United States Code or to comply with Section 922(d)(5) of Title 18 of the United States Code. (5)  Giving immigration authorities access to interview an individual in agency or department custody. All interview access shall comply with requirements of the TRUTH Act (Chapter 17.2 (commencing with Section 7283)). (c)  (1)  If a California law enforcement agency chooses to participate in a joint law enforcement task force, for which a California law enforcement agency has agreed to dedicate personnel or resources on an ongoing basis, it shall submit a report annually to the Department of Justice, as specified by the Attorney General. The law enforcement agency shall report the following information, if known, for each task force of which it is a member: (A)  The purpose of the task force. (B)  The federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies involved. (C)  The total number of arrests made during the reporting period. (D)  The number of people arrested for immigration enforcement purposes. (2)  All law enforcement agencies shall report annually to the Department of Justice, in a manner specified by the Attorney General, the number of transfers pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a), and the offense that allowed for the transfer, pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a). (3)  All records described in this subdivision shall be public records for purposes of the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250)), including the exemptions provided by that act and, as permitted under that act, personal identifying information may be redacted prior to public disclosure. To the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation, that information shall not be disclosed. (4)  If more than one California law enforcement agency is participating in a joint task force that meets the reporting requirement pursuant to this 90 Ch. 495— 9 — Page 43 of 241 section, the joint task force shall designate a local or state agency responsible for completing the reporting requirement. (d)  The Attorney General, by March 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, shall report on the total number of arrests made by joint law enforcement task forces, and the total number of arrests made for the purpose of immigration enforcement by all task force participants, including federal law enforcement agencies. To the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation, that information shall not be included in the Attorney General’s report. The Attorney General shall post the reports required by this subdivision on the Attorney General’s Internet Web site. (e)  This section does not prohibit or restrict any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local government entity, pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code. (f)  Nothing in this section shall prohibit a California law enforcement agency from asserting its own jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement matters. 7284.8. (a)  The Attorney General, by October 1, 2018, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, shall publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law at public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, courthouses, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement facilities, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the Division of Workers Compensation, and shelters, and ensuring that they remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of immigration status. All public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses shall implement the model policy, or an equivalent policy. The Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the Division of Workers’ Compensation, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, shelters, libraries, and all other organizations and entities that provide services related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the University of California, are encouraged to adopt the model policy. (b)  For any databases operated by state and local law enforcement agencies, including databases maintained for the agency by private vendors, the Attorney General shall, by October 1, 2018, in consultation with appropriate stakeholders, publish guidance, audit criteria, and training recommendations aimed at ensuring that those databases are governed in a manner that limits the availability of information therein to the fullest extent practicable and consistent with federal and state law, to anyone or any entity 90 — 10 —Ch. 495 Page 44 of 241 for the purpose of immigration enforcement. All state and local law enforcement agencies are encouraged to adopt necessary changes to database governance policies consistent with that guidance. (c)  Notwithstanding the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2), the Department of Justice may implement, interpret, or make specific this chapter without taking any regulatory action. 7284.10. (a)  The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall: (1)  In advance of any interview between the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and an individual in department custody regarding civil immigration violations, provide the individual with a written consent form that explains the purpose of the interview, that the interview is voluntary, and that he or she may decline to be interviewed or may choose to be interviewed only with his or her attorney present. The written consent form shall be available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Korean. (2)  Upon receiving any ICE hold, notification, or transfer request, provide a copy of the request to the individual and inform him or her whether the department intends to comply with the request. (b)  The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall not: (1)  Restrict access to any in-prison educational or rehabilitative programming, or credit-earning opportunity on the sole basis of citizenship or immigration status, including, but not limited to, whether the person is in removal proceedings, or immigration authorities have issued a hold request, transfer request, notification request, or civil immigration warrant against the individual. (2)  Consider citizenship and immigration status as a factor in determining a person’s custodial classification level, including, but not limited to, whether the person is in removal proceedings, or whether immigration authorities have issued a hold request, transfer request, notification request, or civil immigration warrant against the individual. 7284.12. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. SEC. 4. Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code is repealed. SEC. 5. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. O 90 Ch. 495— 11 — Page 45 of 241 Page 46 of 241 Page 47 of 241 Page 48 of 241 Page 49 of 241 Page 50 of 241 Page 51 of 241 Page 52 of 241 Page 53 of 241 Page 54 of 241 Page 55 of 241 Page 56 of 241 Page 57 of 241 A Judge in Chicago refuses to change ruling on sanctuary cities By Jason Meisner Chicago Tribune OCTOBER 13, 2017, 5:00 PM federal judge in Chicago on Friday refused to alter his previous ruling barring Attorney General Jeff Sessions from requiring sanctuary cities nationwide to cooperate with immigration agents in exchange for receiving public safety grant money. In granting the preliminary injunction last month, U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber said Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s administration could suffer “irreparable harm” in its relationship with the immigrant community if it were to comply with the U.S. Department of Justice’s new rules. The judge also said the attorney general overstepped his authority by imposing the special conditions, agreeing with the city’s argument that it was an attempt to usurp power from Congress over the country’s purse strings. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks about the asylum system at the Executive Office for Immigration Review in Falls Church, Va., on Oct. 12, 2017. (Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA-EFE) Support Quality Journalism Subscribe for only 99¢START NOW › Page 1 of 3Judge in Chicago refuses to change ruling on sanctuary cities -Chicago Tribune 11/1/2017http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-justice-department-sanctuary-... Page 58 of 241 In a motion filed Sept. 26, Sessions asked Leinenweber to narrow the ruling to apply only to Chicago, arguing it would unfairly punish smaller cities that depend on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants. But Leinenweber wrote in his decision Friday that the “rule of law is undermined” if he allowed Sessions to continue what is likely unconstitutional conduct in other cities while the lawsuit here is pending. “An injunction more restricted in scope would leave the Attorney General free to continue enforcing the likely invalid conditions against all other Byrne JAG applicants,” wrote Leinenweber, who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. A separate appeal of Leinenweber’s preliminary injunction is pending before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. President Donald Trump’s administration wants to require cities applying for the annual grants for public safety technology to give notice when immigrants in the country illegally are about to be released from custody and allow immigration agents access to local jails. The new regulations, announced by Sessions in July, also would require local authorities to give 48 hours’ notice “where practicable” before releasing from custody people whom federal immigration agents suspect of being in the country illegally. The Byrne grants have become a high-profile battlefield between local governments and the Trump administration over the president’s immigration policies. This week, the Justice Department announced it had sent letters contending that Chicago and Cook County violated federal immigration laws last year when they were awarded public safety grants. The letters to Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, along with a handful of other so-called sanctuary cities around the country, do not specify why the city and county are in violation, but it gives them until Oct. 27 to prove otherwise before the Justice Department reaches “its final determination” on the matter. In a statement Friday, Emanuel claimed victory but said the “battle is not over.” “This ruling is a victory for both Chicago and cities nationwide, because no city in America should be forced to abandon its values in order to get public safety funding from the federal government,” the mayor said.Support Quality Journalism Subscribe for only 99¢START NOW › Page 2 of 3Judge in Chicago refuses to change ruling on sanctuary cities -Chicago Tribune 11/1/2017http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-justice-department-sanctuary-... Page 59 of 241 jmeisner@chicagotribune.com Twitter @jmetr22b RELATED: Justice Department says Chicago violated immigration rules on earlier grant » Judge rules in city's favor on sanctuary cities, grants nationwide injunction » Copyright © 2017, Chicago Tribune This 'attr(data-c-typename)' is related to: Immigration, Jeff Sessions, U.S. Department of Justice Support Quality Journalism Subscribe for only 99¢START NOW › Page 3 of 3Judge in Chicago refuses to change ruling on sanctuary cities -Chicago Tribune 11/1/2017http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-justice-department-sanctuary-... Page 60 of 241 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendant. Case No. 2:17-cv-03894-MMB BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, 24 ADDITIONAL CITIES, COUNTIES AND MUNICIPAL AGENCIES, THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, THE INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, AND THE INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 1 of 26 Page 61 of 241 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2 III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................6 A. Local Officials Must Be Allowed to Adopt Law Enforcement Policies Tailored to the Needs and Unique Characteristics of Their Communities. .............6 B. Policies Restricting Local Immigration Enforcement Promote Public Safety. ......................................................................................................................9 C. The Byrne JAG Conditions Have Created Uncertainty and Operational Challenges. .............................................................................................................12 IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................17 Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 2 of 26 Page 62 of 241 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES City of Chicago v. Sessions 2017 WL 4081821 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2017) ............................................................... 2, 4, 5, 13 Cty. of Santa Clara v. Trump 2017 WL 1459081 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017) ........................................................................ 2, 3 Cty. of Santa Clara v. Trump 2017 WL 3086064 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2017) ............................................................................ 3 Gonzales v. Oregon 546 U.S. 243 (2006) ................................................................................................................... 6 Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr 518 U.S. 470 (1996) ................................................................................................................... 6 Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius 567 U.S. 519 (2012) ............................................................................................................... 6, 8 Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman 451 U.S. 1 (1981) ..................................................................................................................... 16 S. Dakota v. Dole 483 U.S. 203 (1987) ................................................................................................................... 8 United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995) ................................................................................................................... 6 United States v. Morrison 529 U.S. 598 (2000) ................................................................................................................... 6 STATUTES Federal 8 U.S.C. section 1373 ................................................................................................. 3, 4, 5, 15, 16 42 U.S.C. § 3751(a)(1) .................................................................................................................... 7 State Cal. Gov’t Code § 7283.1(a) ......................................................................................................... 13 D.C. Code § 24-211.07(d)(1) ........................................................................................................ 13 Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 40B Section 24 .......................................................................... 1 Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 3 of 26 Page 63 of 241 iii Local Cook County Code § 46-37(b) ...................................................................................................... 14 King County Code § 2.15.010-2.15.020 ......................................................................................... 9 Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver, § 28-252 ...................................................... 14 N.Y.C. Administrative Code 9-131(h)(1) ..................................................................................... 16 OTHER AUTHORITIES Rob Arthur, Latinos In Three Cities Are Reporting Fewer Crimes Since Trump Took Office (May 18, 2017) ..................................................................................................... 10 Border Insecurity: The Rise of MS-13 and Other Transnational Criminal Organizations, Hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the United States Senate (May 24, 2017) ....................................................................................... 10 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates in 2015 (2016) ............................................................. 12 Cato Institute, Criminal Immigrants: Their Numbers, Demographics, and Countries of Origin, 1 & n.4, 2 (Mar. 15, 2017) ................................................................. 9 Darcy Costello, “New LMPD policy: No working with immigration officials to enforce federal laws,” The Courier-Journal (Sept. 22, 2017) .................................................. 11 County of Santa Clara, Bd. of Supervisors Policy No. 3.54 ..................................................... 9, 14 Department of Justice Programs, Grants 101, Overview of OJP Grants and Funding, Types of Funding .................................................................................................. 7 Executive Order 13768 ............................................................................................................... 2, 3 H.R. Rep. No. 109-233 ................................................................................................................... 8 Houston Police Dep’t, Immigration Policy Questions and Answers .............................................. 9 Kate Howard, “Louisville Police Don’t Enforce Immigration – But Help the Feds Do It,” Ky. Ctr. for Investigative Reporting (Sept. 17, 2017) ............................................................... 11 Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Detainer Policies ..................................................................... 9 International Association of Chiefs of Police, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State, Tribal and Local Law Enforcement .............................................................. 7 Jasmine C. Lee, Ruby Omri, and Julia Preston, "What Are Sanctuary Citites," New York Times (Feb. 6, 2017) .................................................................................................. 2 Brooke A. Lewis, “HPD chief announces decrease in Hispanics reporting rape and violent crimes compared to last year,” Houston Chronicle (Apr. 6, 2017) ....................... 10 Major Cities Chiefs Ass'n, Immigration Policy (2013) .................................................................. 6 Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 4 of 26 Page 64 of 241 iv Katie Mettler, “‘This is really unprecedented’: ICE detains woman seeking domestic abuse protection at Texas courthouse,” Wash. Post (Feb. 16, 2017) ....................................... 14 James Queally, “ICE agents make arrests at courthouses, sparking backlash from attorneys and state supreme court,” Los Angeles Times (Mar. 16, 2017)................................. 14 James Queally, “Latinos are reporting fewer sexual assaults amid a climate of fear in immigrant communities, LAPD says,” Los Angeles Times (Mar. 21, 2017) ....................... 10 Nik Theodore, Dep’t of Urban Planning and Policy, University of Chicago, Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement, 5-6 (2013) ........................................................................................................... 10 Tucson Policy Dep't Gen. Orders, Gen. Order 2300 ...................................................................... 9 Transcript of Donald Trump's Immigration Speech The New York Times (Sept. 1, 2016) .......................................................................................... 2 U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Certifications of Compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 ................................................................................................................... 4 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks on Sanctuary Policies (Aug. 16, 2017) ....................................................... 15 U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, COPS Office: Immigration Cooperation Certification Process Background ............................................................................................. 4 U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Department of Justice Announces Priority Consideration Criteria for COPS Office Grants (Sept. 7, 2017) ............................................... 4 U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Justice Department Announces that Commitment to Reducing Violent Crime Stemming from Illegal Immigration will be Required for Participation in Public Safety Partnership Program (Aug. 3, 2017) ................... 4 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Justice Department Provides Last Chance for Cities to Show 1373 Compliance ................................................................... 15 Chuck Wexler, “Police chiefs across the country support sanctuary cities because they keep crime down,” Los Angeles Times (Mar. 6, 2017) ....................................................... 9 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 2/1/2017, #6 (Feb. 1, 2017) ........................................................................................................ 3 Tom K. Wong, Center for American Progress, The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy, ¶ 12 (2017) .............................................................................. 9, 11 Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 5 of 26 Page 65 of 241 1 I. INTRODUCTION Amici are 24 cities, counties, and municipal agencies,1 and four major associations of local governments and their officials: The United States Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the International Municipal Lawyers Association, and the International City/County Management Association.2 Local governments bear responsibility for protecting the safety and welfare of our communities. Our law enforcement officials patrol our streets, operate our jails, investigate and prosecute crimes, and secure justice for victims. To fulfill these responsibilities, amici cities and counties must build and maintain the trust of our residents, regardless of their immigration status, and we must be able to adopt policies which foster that trust and meet our communities’ unique needs. Since January, President Trump and his Administration have targeted local jurisdictions, like the amici cities and counties, that have determined the needs of their communities are best met, and public safety is best secured, by limiting local involvement with the enforcement of federal immigration law. In one of his first acts upon taking office, President Trump issued an Executive Order (“Order”) directing his Administration to deny federal funds to so-called 1 The Metropolitan Area Planning Council is the Regional Planning Agency serving the people who live and work in the 101 cities and towns of Metropolitan Boston. See Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 40B Section 24. The agency provides extensive technical assistance to cities and towns in the Greater Boston region, and supports the ability of cities and towns to adopt and implement best practices for maintaining a productive relationship with all residents of their communities, regardless of their immigration status. 2 The United States Conference of Mayors is the official non-partisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more. There are 1,408 such cities in the country today. Each city is represented in the Conference by its chief elected official, the mayor. The National League of Cities (“NLC”) is dedicated to helping city leaders build better communities. NLC is a resource and advocate for 19,000 cities, towns and villages, representing more than 218 million Americans. The International Municipal Lawyers Association (“IMLA”) is owned by its more than 2,500 members and serves as an international clearinghouse for legal information and cooperation on municipal legal matters. IMLA’s mission is to advance the responsible development of municipal law through education and advocacy by providing the collective viewpoint of local governments around the country on legal issues before courts nationwide. The International City/County Management Association (“ICMA”) is a non-profit professional and educational organization with more than 11,000 members, the appointed chief executives and professionals who serve local governments throughout the world. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 6 of 26 Page 66 of 241 2 “sanctuary” jurisdictions. Executive Order 13768, §§ 2(c), 9(a). Three months later, Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Section 9(a) of the Order. Cty. of Santa Clara v. Trump, No. 17-CV-00574, City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Trump, No. 17- CV-00485, 2017 WL 1459081 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017) (hereinafter Santa Clara). Despite that injunction, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is attempting yet again to deny federal funds to jurisdictions that choose to limit their participation in enforcing federal immigration law. The DOJ’s new conditions on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (“Byrne JAG”) program violate federal law, usurp local control over public safety policy, erode the community trust on which local law enforcement depends, and create uncertainty for local governments like amici. A district court in Chicago has already recognized this and preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of two of these conditions on a nationwide basis. City of Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-5720, 2017 WL 4081821, at *14 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2017). But the federal government continues to dispute the nationwide scope of this injunction, and a preliminary injunction is required from this Court to protect Philadelphia and prevent irreparable harm to its law enforcement efforts and its local residents. II. BACKGROUND Hundreds of local jurisdictions nationwide have concluded they can best promote the safety and well-being of their communities by limiting their involvement in immigration enforcement. See, e.g., Jasmine C. Lee, Rudy Omri, and Julia Preston, “What Are Sanctuary Cities,” New York Times (Feb. 6, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/02/us/ sanctuary-cities.html?mcubz=1. Although these jurisdictions are just as safe as – if not safer than, see infra at 9-11 – those that devote local resources to enforcing federal immigration law, President Trump has blamed them for “needless deaths” and promised to “end . . . [s]anctuary” jurisdictions by cutting off their federal funding. Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech, The New York Times (Sept. 1, 2016), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/ Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 7 of 26 Page 67 of 241 3 politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html. On January 25, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13768, which directed the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that “sanctuary jurisdictions” do not receive any “[f]ederal funds.” Executive Order 13768, §§ 2(c), 9(a). The White House made clear that the Order aimed to “end[] sanctuary cities” by stripping them of all federal funding. See, e.g., Press Release, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 2/1/2017, #6 (Feb. 1, 2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/01/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean- spicer-212017-6. Shortly thereafter, the County of Santa Clara and the City and County of San Francisco filed related lawsuits challenging the Order and moved for a preliminary injunction barring its enforcement. At oral argument on the motions, DOJ attempted to walk back the Order’s sweeping language by arguing the Order was merely an “exercise of the President’s ‘bully pulpit’” to exert political pressure on local government entities, and only applied narrowly to three specific federal grants (including Byrne JAG). Santa Clara, 2017 WL 1459081, at *1. The district court rejected this interpretation, finding it irreconcilable with the plain language of the Order, and issued a preliminary injunction in April prohibiting enforcement of Section 9(a)’s broad funding ban.3 Id. at *9. The Executive Order remains preliminary enjoined, and Santa Clara and San Francisco have moved for a permanent injunction. Meanwhile, the Attorney General has shifted to a grant-by-grant approach. In April 2017, as it became increasingly likely that the Executive Order would be enjoined, DOJ took action to enforce a condition on Byrne JAG funding initially imposed in 2016. See Compl. ¶¶ 69-74 (Dkt. No.1). This condition (the “certification condition”) requires recipients of Byrne JAG program funds to certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. section 1373, which prohibits 3 DOJ relied on an Attorney General memorandum purporting to reinterpret the Executive Order to seek reconsideration of the preliminary injunction, but the district court rejected that attempt. See Cty. of Santa Clara v. Trump, No. 17-CV-00574, City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Trump, No. 17-CV-00485, 2017 WL 3086064 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2017). Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 8 of 26 Page 68 of 241 4 restrictions on the sharing of citizenship and immigration status information. On April 21, 2017, the DOJ sent letters to nine jurisdictions, including Philadelphia, suggesting they did not comply with section 1373 and requiring them to submit an “official legal opinion” and supporting documentation to demonstrate their compliance by June 30, 2017. Compl. ¶ 78. Then, on July 25, 2017, the Attorney General officially announced three conditions applicable to the Byrne JAG program, including the existing certification condition and two new conditions that require recipients to (1) “permit personnel of [DHS] to access any detention facility in order to meet with an alien and inquire as to his or her right to be or remain in the United States” (“access condition”), and (2) “provide at least 48 hours advance notice to DHS regarding the scheduled release date and time of an alien in the jurisdiction’s custody when DHS requests such notice in order to take custody of the alien” (“notice condition”). Compl. ¶ 5 & Exs. 1, 15. The DOJ has indicated that these conditions may be applied to other grants, see U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Certifications of Compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/SampleCertifications-8USC1373.htm, and has made local immigration enforcement a selection criterion for other federal grant programs.4 Several jurisdictions filed suit to challenge the Byrne JAG conditions.5 After the City of 4 On August 3, 2017, the DOJ announced that to be selected for the Public Safety Partnership program, local jurisdictions must “show a commitment to reducing crime stemming from illegal immigration.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Justice Department Announces that Commitment to Reducing Violent Crime Stemming from Illegal Immigration will be Required for Participation in Public Safety Partnership Program (Aug. 3, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-commitment-reducing-violent- crime-stemming-illegal-immigration. Applicants are now required to report whether they have access and notice policies that mirror the access and notice conditions of the JAG grants and whether they honor ICE detainers. Id. On September 7, 2017, the DOJ announced that applicants for competitive Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) grants will receive priority consideration if they certify that they provide DHS access to their detention facilities and advance notice to DHS of “an illegal alien’s release date and time.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, COPS Office: Immigration Cooperation Certification Process Background, https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/‌‌‌file/995376/download (last accessed Oct. 12, 2017); see also U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Department of Justice Announces Priority Consideration Criteria for COPS Office Grants (Sept. 7, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/‌opa/pr/department-justice-announces-priority-consideration-criteria- cops-office-grants. 5 See City of Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-05720 (N.D. Ill., filed Aug. 7, 2017); City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-04642-WHO (N.D.Cal., filed Aug. 11, 2017); State of Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 9 of 26 Page 69 of 241 5 Chicago moved for a preliminary injunction in its case, the DOJ again changed course and represented that the conditions announced on July 25 – and subsequently included in the Fiscal Year 2017 Byrne JAG solicitations – were not “actual” conditions, but “only advised prospective applicants regarding the general tenor of the conditions.” Def.’s Opp. To Pl.’s Mot. to Expedite Briefing Schedule, at 3 n.2, Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-05720 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 14, 2017), ECF No. 28 (emphasis added). DOJ then submitted a pair of award letters, dated August 23, 2017, that set forth what are purportedly the “actual” conditions. In these letters, the DOJ modified the condition requiring 48 hours’ notice to DHS before an inmate is released from local custody to require notice “as early as practicable.” Declaration of Alan R. Hanson (“Hanson Decl.”), Exs. A & B, ¶¶55-56, Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-5720 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 14, 2017), ECF No. 32. And DOJ modified the access condition to require a local policy or practice designed to ensure that federal agents “in fact” are given access to correctional facilities for the purpose of meeting with individuals believed to be aliens and inquiring into their right to remain in the country. Id. On September 15, 2017, Judge Harry D. Leinenweber, of the Northern District of Illinois, issued a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the notice and access conditions, but leaving in place the certification condition.6 Chicago, 2017 WL 4081821, at *14. Chicago has moved for reconsideration of the portion of the order allowing enforcement of the certification condition, and the DOJ has appealed.7 California v. Sessions No. 17-CV-4701-WHO (filed Aug. 14, 2017 N.D. Cal.); City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-03894-MMB (E.D.Pa., filed Aug. 30, 2017); City of Los Angeles v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-07215-R-JC (C.D.Cal., filed Sept. 29, 2017). 6 The DOJ moved to stay the nationwide application of the preliminary injunction, but the district court denied its motion. See Mem. Op. & Order, Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-5720 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2017), ECF No. 98. The DOJ has also moved to stay the nationwide application of the preliminary injunction in the Seventh Circuit. 7 Chicago moved for reconsideration based on a letter from DOJ, discussed infra at pages 15-16, that found Chicago to be in violation of 1373 and contradicted representations DOJ made to the district court. Chicago has moved to hold DOJ’s appeal in abeyance pending resolution of this motion. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 10 of 26 Page 70 of 241 6 III. ARGUMENT A. Local Officials Must Be Allowed to Adopt Law Enforcement Policies Tailored to the Needs and Unique Characteristics of Their Communities. Our nation’s constitutional structure is premised on the notion that states and localities, as the governments closest to the people, bear responsibility for protecting the health and safety of their residents. See Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 475 (1996) (“health and safety . . . are primarily, and historically, matters of local concern”) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Within the “structure and limitations of federalism,” state and local governments possess “great latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons.” Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). This local control ensures that matters which “concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people” are determined “by governments more local and more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy.” Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 536 (2012). The duty to protect local residents from crime lies at the heart of the police power vested in state and local jurisdictions. See United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618 (2000) (there is “no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims”). In carrying out this duty, cities and counties possess – and must be allowed to exercise – broad discretion to develop and implement law enforcement and public safety policies tailored to the needs of their communities. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561 (1995). This is a matter not only of constitutional law, but of sound law enforcement policy. Police chiefs and sheriffs nationwide have stated that “decisions related to how local law enforcement agencies allocate their resources, direct their workforce and define the duties of their employees to best serve and protect their communities must be left in the control of local governments.” Major Cities Chiefs Ass’n, Immigration Policy (2013), Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 11 of 26 Page 71 of 241 7 https://www.majorcitieschiefs.com/pdf/news/2013_immigration_policy.pdf. Local control is no less critical when policy decisions concern enforcement of federal immigration law. See id. (“The decision to have local police officers perform the function and duties of immigration agents should be left to the local government[.]”). Amici share the judgment that local participation in federal immigration enforcement can be detrimental to community safety. But one need not agree with Philadelphia’s specific policy decisions – or those of the city and county amici – to agree these decisions should rest with the local entities tasked with keeping our communities safe. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (“IACP”) has taken no position on whether local law enforcement agencies should engage in immigration enforcement. IACP, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State, Tribal and Local Law Enforcement, 1, http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/publications/ immigrationenforcementconf.pdf (hereinafter Enforcing Immigration Law). But the IACP is not neutral on who should decide whether local police do so. In its view, “local law enforcement’s participation in immigration enforcement is an inherently local decision that must be made by a police chief, working with their elected officials, community leaders and citizens.” Id. at 1 (emphasis added). Attempts to coerce participation by withholding federal funds are “unacceptable.” Id. at 5. In creating the Byrne JAG program, Congress recognized the need for local control over law enforcement policy and structured the program to maximize local discretion. As Philadelphia has explained, the Byrne JAG program is a formula grant,8 available for use in eight broad areas, including law enforcement; prosecution and courts; prevention and education; corrections and community corrections; drug treatment and enforcement; planning, evaluation, and technology improvement; crime victim and witness programs; and mental health. See 42 U.S.C. § 3751(a)(1). Congress designed the program in this manner to “give State and local governments 8 A formula grant is a non-competitive grant in which funds are allocated based upon a statutory formula, without a competitive process. Department of Justice Programs, Grants 101, Overview of OJP Grants and Funding, Types of Funding, https://ojp.gov/grants101/typesoffunding.htm. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 12 of 26 Page 72 of 241 8 more flexibility to spend money for programs that work for them rather than to impose a ‘one size fits all’ solution.” H.R. Rep. No. 109-233, at 89 (2005). Empowering states and localities to make their own policy choices is thus a central purpose of the program. Local jurisdictions, including many of the amici, put these funds to diverse uses, reflecting both the varied law enforcement needs of different communities and Congress’s intent to preserve local discretion and flexibility in Byrne JAG-funded law enforcement programs. For example:  Iowa City, Iowa (population 74,398) uses Byrne JAG funds to promote traffic safety, to establish a search and rescue program aimed at individuals at risk for wandering, to partially fund a drug task force, and to purchase equipment.  Portland, Oregon (population 639,863) has used Byrne JAG funds to support its New Options for Women (NOW) program, which provides services to women who have experienced sexual exploitation while working in the commercial sex industry.  Sacramento, California (population 493,025) uses Byrne JAG funds to support the ongoing maintenance and operation of its Police Department’s helicopter program.  San Francisco, California (population 870,887) uses Byrne JAG funds to operate a Youth Adult Court aimed at reducing recidivism for youth ages 18-25 by providing case management and other services that account for young adults’ unique developmental needs. If the Byrne JAG conditions are allowed to stand, local governments will be forced to choose between losing critical funding for these diverse programs or giving up control over inherently local law enforcement policies. Such a result would not only undermine the ability of local entities to enact policies reflecting the needs and unique characteristics of their communities – thus subverting a central purpose of the funding – but also allow the executive branch to wield powers vested exclusively in Congress. Under the Spending Clause, only Congress – whose members are elected by and accountable to local communities – can place substantive conditions on federal funds. S. Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206 (1987) (“Incident to [its Article I spending] power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds[.]”) (emphasis added). And any conditions must be germane to the purpose of the funding. Sebelius, 567 U.S. at 632. In the case of Byrne JAG funding, Congress chose to preserve local discretion, and DOJ has no authority to upend that decision. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 13 of 26 Page 73 of 241 9 B. Policies Restricting Local Immigration Enforcement Promote Public Safety. In exercising its discretion over local law enforcement policy, Philadelphia has made the considered judgment that devoting local resources to immigration enforcement would be detrimental to community safety. Compl., ¶¶ 2-3, 27-30. Philadelphia is not alone in this judgment. More than 600 counties and numerous cities – including many of the amici – have opted to limit their engagement in federal immigration enforcement efforts. Tom K. Wong, Center for American Progress, The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy, ¶ 12 (2017) (hereinafter “Effects of Sanctuary Policies”) (identifying 608 counties coded by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) as limiting involvement with immigration enforcement), https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2017/01/26/297366/ the-effects-of-sanctuary-policies-on-crime-and-the-economy/; Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Detainer Policies, https://www.ilrc.org/detainer-policies (listing city and county policies to decline detainer requests). The policies of these counties and cities are themselves diverse, reflecting the varied needs and judgments of each jurisdiction.9 Policies that restrict local entanglement with ICE reflect the judgment of local governments and law enforcement agencies that community trust in local law enforcement is vital to the work of public safety. Local law enforcement agencies rely upon all community members – regardless of immigration status – to report crimes, serve as witnesses, and assist in investigations and prosecutions. See, e.g., Chuck Wexler, “Police chiefs across the country support sanctuary cities because they keep crime down,” Los Angeles Times (Mar. 6, 2017), http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-wexler-sanctuary-cities-immigration-crime- 20170306-story.html. Immigrants – again, regardless of immigration status – are less likely to commit crimes than native U.S. citizens. See, e.g., Cato Institute, Criminal Immigrants: Their 9 See, e.g., County of Santa Clara, Bd. of Supervisors Policy No. 3.54, https://www.sccgov.org/ ‌sites/bos/Legislation/BOS-Policy-Manual/Documents/BOSPolicyCHAP3.pdf; Houston Police Dep’t, Immigration Policy Questions and Answers, http://www.houstontx.gov/‌‌‌‌‌police/pdfs/ immigration_facts.pdf; King County Code § 2.15.010-2.15.020, http://aqua.kingcounty.gov/ council/clerk/code/05_Title_2.pdf ; Tucson Police Dep’t Gen. Orders, Gen. Order 2300, https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/police/general-orders/‌‌2300IMMIGRATION.pdf. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 14 of 26 Page 74 of 241 10 Numbers, Demographics, and Countries of Origin, 1 & n.4, 2 (Mar. 15, 2017), https://object. cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/immigration_brief-1.pdf. But “[t]he moment [immigrant] victims and witnesses begin to fear that their local police will deport them, cooperation with their police then ceases.” Border Insecurity: The Rise of MS-13 and Other Transnational Criminal Organizations, Hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the United States Senate (May 24, 2017) (statement of J. Thomas Manger, Chief of Police, Montgomery County, Maryland). Indeed, in the experience of amici, even the perception that local law enforcement is assisting in immigration enforcement can erode trust, disrupt lines of communication, and make law enforcement’s job much more difficult. Recent data bear this out. Since President Trump took office and promised to ramp up deportations, Latinos have reported fewer crimes relative to reports by non-Latinos. Rob Arthur, Latinos In Three Cities Are Reporting Fewer Crimes Since Trump Took Office (May 18, 2017) (analyzing data from Dallas, Denver, and Philadelphia), https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ latinos-report-fewer-crimes-in-three-cities-amid-fears-of-deportation/. Disturbingly, some jurisdictions have identified declines specifically in reports of sexual assault and domestic violence. Id. 10 Local police chiefs have attributed these declines to community members’ increased fear that interactions with law enforcement could lead to their deportation, or the deportation of a family member. Id.; see also supra at 10 n.10. Indeed, 50% of foreign-born individuals and 67% of undocumented individuals surveyed reported being less likely to offer information about crimes to law enforcement for fear that officers will inquire about their or others’ immigration status. Nik Theodore, Dep’t of Urban Planning and Policy, University of Chicago, Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration 10 See also Brooke A. Lewis, “HPD chief announces decrease in Hispanics reporting rape and violent crimes compared to last year,” Houston Chronicle (Apr. 6, 2017), http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/HPD-chief-announces-decrease-in- Hispanics-11053829.php; James Queally, “Latinos are reporting fewer sexual assaults amid a climate of fear in immigrant communities, LAPD says,” Los Angeles Times (Mar. 21, 2017), http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-immigrant-crime-reporting-drops-20170321- story.html. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 15 of 26 Page 75 of 241 11 Enforcement, 5-6 (2013), http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/INSECURE_ COMMUNITIES_REPORT_FINAL.PDF. Local policies that limit entanglement with ICE help mitigate these fears, facilitate engagement with immigrant communities, and ultimately improve public safety by ensuring that those who commit crimes are brought to justice. Contrary to President Trump and Attorney General Sessions’ unsupported rhetoric, research has shown that policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities are associated with lower crime rates – on average, 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people. Effects of Sanctuary Policies, ¶ 16. The association is even stronger in large metropolitan areas: counties with large, urban centers that limit local involvement with ICE experience 65.4 fewer crimes per 10,000 people than similar counties that do not limit such involvement. Id., ¶ 15. Indeed, Philadelphia has experienced these effects first-hand. See Compl. ¶¶ 28, 37 (describing decrease in crime in Philadelphia following adoption of policies to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts). Even localities that previously engaged in extensive cooperation with ICE enforcement efforts, such as the City of Louisville, Kentucky, have since determined that having local police assist with immigration enforcement undermines community trust to the detriment of local public safety, and have discontinued the practice except in limited circumstances. See Kate Howard, “Louisville Police Don’t Enforce Immigration – But Help the Feds Do It,” Ky. Ctr. for Investigative Reporting (Sept. 17, 2017), http://kycir.org/2017/09/07/louisville-police-dont- enforce-immigration-but-they-help-ice-do-it/?_ga=2.181999650.449997577.1505784164- 179920009.1505784164; Darcy Costello, “New LMPD policy: No working with immigration officials to enforce federal laws,” The Courier-Journal (Sept. 22, 2017). If the new Byrne JAG conditions are not enjoined, jurisdictions like Philadelphia and some of the amici will be compelled to make choices that undermine public safety: either abandon non-entanglement policies that increase community trust and lower crime rates, or lose funding for critical law enforcement programs. This is not a choice that cities and counties should have to make; it is not a choice that can be imposed consistent with the purpose of the Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 16 of 26 Page 76 of 241 12 Byrne JAG program; and, as Philadelphia has demonstrated, it is not a choice that DOJ has the legal authority to require. C. The Byrne JAG Conditions Have Created Uncertainty and Operational Challenges. Since President Trump’s Executive Order punishing sanctuary jurisdictions was issued, the DOJ’s position on immigration-related funding conditions has become a constantly moving target. See supra at 3-5. The new Byrne JAG conditions are surrounded by an untenable level of uncertainty and pose operational challenges for jurisdictions that rely on this funding. Notice Condition. As announced by the Attorney General and described in the FY 2017 solicitations, the new notice condition required Byrne JAG recipients to “provide at least 48 hours’ advance notice to DHS regarding the scheduled release date and time of an alien in the jurisdiction’s custody.” Compl., Ex. 1 (emphasis added). This created significant uncertainty and operational concerns for local jurisdictions, including some amici, that operate detention facilities whose populations are primarily – or exclusively – unsentenced individuals held in custody pending resolution of criminal charges or transfer to another facility. See Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates in 2015, at 5 tbl. 4 (2016), https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ ji15.pdf (63% of jail inmates nationwide are unsentenced). Unsentenced inmates typically do not have a “scheduled release date and time” that can be determined 48 hours in advance, and many are in custody for less than 48 hours before they post bail or are ordered released. For this reason, the Attorney General’s announcement and the FY 2017 solicitation created confusion and concern that the notice condition may have been intended to require local jurisdictions to continue to detain unsentenced inmates after they would otherwise be released in order to provide sufficient notice to DHS.11 DOJ now represents that this condition requires notice only “as early as practicable,” and does not require any locality to hold an inmate beyond the time he or she would otherwise be released. Def.’s Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. 11 In its response to Philadelphia’s motion for preliminary injunction, the DOJ represents that the access condition applies to any immigrant detained in local custody for whom ICE requests notification, regardless of whether the immigrant is sentenced or unsentenced or has a scheduled release date. See Mem. in Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (“Opp.”) at 31-32, ECF No. 28. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 17 of 26 Page 77 of 241 13 for Preliminary Injunction, 20, Chicago, No. 17-CV-5720 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 24, 2017), ECF No. 32; Hanson Decl., Exs. A & B, ¶¶55-56, Chicago, No. 17-CV-5720 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 24, 2017), ECF No. 32. Even assuming DOJ adheres to this latest articulation of the condition, it nonetheless presents operational concerns: for agencies that detain arrestees and unsentenced individuals, there are likely to be many instances in which giving any advance notice is impracticable. It also conflicts with the local laws or policies of some amici, which have limited their responses to ICE notification requests for the reasons discussed in Section II, supra. Moreover, given DOJ’s inconsistent position, amici remain concerned about how this condition will be enforced in practice. Access Condition. The award letters submitted by DOJ with its opposition to Chicago’s preliminary injunction motion require Byrne JAG recipients to have a policy or practice in place to ensure that federal agents “in fact are given access” to a local “correctional facility for the purpose of permitting such agents to meet with individuals who are (or are believed by such agents to be) aliens and to inquire as to such individuals’ right to be or remain in the United States.” Hanson Decl., Exs. A & B, ¶ 56(1)(A), Chicago, No. 17-CV-5720 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 24, 2017), ECF No. 32. The award letter does not explain what “access” “in fact” means, leaving jurisdictions to guess at what they must do to comply and, in some cases, whether compliance is consistent with state law. In California, state law requires local agencies to provide a consent form prior to any interview with ICE that explains the purpose of the interview, that the interview is voluntary, and that the inmate may decline to be interviewed or choose to be interviewed only with his or her attorney present. Cal. Gov’t Code § 7283.1(a). Other jurisdictions require an inmate’s written consent prior to allowing any interview with ICE, see Compl. ¶¶ 50-51 (describing Philadelphia policy), or provide that inmates must be permitted to have an attorney present during ICE interviews, see D.C. Code § 24-211.07(d)(1). The DOJ has represented in this litigation that the access condition requires Byrne JAG recipients to permit ICE interviews even if the inmate does not consent to the interview or declines to answer questions. (Opp. at 32.) If DOJ in fact maintains that position, some jurisdictions may be forced Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 18 of 26 Page 78 of 241 14 to forego Byrne JAG funds to comply with state or local laws. For other jurisdictions, ambiguity surrounding how DOJ will ultimately enforce the condition continues to cause confusion and concern. Whether to allow ICE to operate inside city and county detention facilities is an inherently local decision that should be left to local governments and local law enforcement officials. See Enforcing Immigration Law at 1. Local agencies are responsible for maintaining order and security within jails and other detention facilities, and they must retain the discretion to decide how that responsibility is best fulfilled. Some jurisdictions have made the judgment that permitting ICE to operate in local detention facilities interferes with correctional operations – for example, by increasing fear among inmates and decreasing their trust of correctional staff – and is not in the best interests of staff, inmates, or the broader community. See, e.g., Cook County Code § 46-37(b); County of Santa Clara, Bd. of Supervisors Policy No. 3.54, https://www.sccgov.org/sites/bos/Legislation/BOS-Policy-Manual/Documents/ BOSPolicyCHAP3.pdf; Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver, § 28-252. Moreover, local officials have already expressed concern that ICE’s practice of arresting immigrants at courthouses – including crime victims – deters immigrants both from pursuing justice for crimes committed against them, and from appearing in court to answer any charges they may be facing, thereby endangering local prosecutions. See, e.g., Katie Mettler, “‘This is really unprecedented’: ICE detains woman seeking domestic abuse protection at Texas courthouse,” Wash. Post (Feb. 16, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/ wp/2017/02/16/this-is-really-unprecedented-ice-detains-woman-seeking-domestic-abuse- protection-at-texas-courthouse/?utm_term=.b1c3c0902b1b; James Queally, “ICE agents make arrests at courthouses, sparking backlash from attorneys and state supreme court,” Los Angeles Times (Mar. 16, 2017), http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ice-courthouse-arrests- 20170315-story.html. Immigrant inmates who see ICE operating in local jails or detention facilities may assume that ICE is permitted in other government buildings, such as courthouses, and may be more likely to abscond, denying victims the opportunity for justice. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 19 of 26 Page 79 of 241 15 Certification Condition. Finally, the Trump Administration has created significant uncertainty and concern over how it intends to enforce requirements that federal grant recipients comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. On its face, section 1373 addresses only state and local restrictions on the sharing of information on citizenship or immigration status with ICE or other governmental entities; the statute does not mandate that state and local governments collect this information, nor does it impose any additional requirements. See 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Nonetheless, the Administration has repeatedly suggested that a broad range of local policies – including policies limiting compliance with ICE detainer requests – violate section 1373. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks on Sanctuary Policies (Aug. 16, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers- remarks-sanctuary-policies (suggesting that Miami-Dade County is “now in full compliance” following its decision to begin honoring detainer requests); Compl., Ex. 1 (section 1373 “generally bars restrictions on communications” between local agencies and DHS). On October 12, 2017, the DOJ completed a preliminary review of the legal opinions and supporting documentation it demanded from nine jurisdictions, and sent letters to five jurisdictions – including Philadelphia and amici Chicago, Cook County, and New York City – stating that they “have preliminarily been found to have laws, policies, or practices that may violate 8 U.S.C. 1373.” See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Justice Department Provides Last Chance for Cities to Show 1373 Compliance, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ justice-department-provides-last-chance-cities-show-1373-compliance.12 These letters only add 12 See also Letter from Alan Hanson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice to the Honorable Jim Kenney, Mayor of Philadelphia (Oct. 11, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1003046/download (“Philadelphia Letter”); Letter from Alan Hanson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice to Eddie T. Johnson, Chicago Superintendent of Police (Oct. 11, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/press- release/file/1003016/download (“Chicago Letter”); Letter from Alan Hanson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice to Toni Preckwinkle, President, Cook County Board of Commissioners (Oct. 11, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/press- release/file/1003026/download (“Cook County Letter”); Letter from Alan Hanson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice to the Honorable Mitchel Landieu, City of New Orleans Criminal Justice Coordination (Oct. 11, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/press- release/file/1003036/download (“New Orleans Letter”); Letter from Alan Hanson, Acting Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 20 of 26 Page 80 of 241 16 to the uncertainty surrounding the certification condition and confirm that DOJ intends to enforce an insupportably broad interpretation of the statute. For example, several of the letters indicate that policies limiting sharing of information about custody status or release dates violate section 1373.13 See Philadelphia Letter at 1; Chicago Letter at 1; Cook County Letter at 1; New York Letter at 2-3. But DOJ provides no explanation of how such policies “prohibit, or in any way restrict” what section 1373 addresses: the sharing of information about immigration status.14 Some of the letters also state, without further explanation, that DOJ “is not relying on” policies limiting compliance with ICE detainer requests in its “preliminary assessment[s].” Philadelphia Letter at 1 n.1; New York Letter at 2 n.1. This cryptic language could suggest that DOJ is leaving open the possibility that such policies may violate section 1373 – leaving jurisdictions to wonder whether DOJ will “rely[] on” such policies in the future and, if so, what position it will take. DOJ’s failure to provide a clear and lawful interpretation of section 1373 has created uncertainty and forces jurisdictions to guess at how DOJ will view their policies – or what policy changes DOJ would view as sufficient – when it begins enforcing this condition. Local jurisdictions may not lawfully be placed in this position. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17 (1981) (even where Congress imposes conditions on receipt of Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice to Elizabeth Glazer, Director, New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice (Oct. 11, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/press- release/file/1003041/download (“New York Letter”). 13 New York City law permits Department of Correction personnel to provide federal immigration authorities with information related to a person’s citizenship or immigration status, but prohibits the sharing of information about incarceration status and release dates unless an enumerated exception applies. N.Y.C. Administrative Code 9-131(h)(1). The New York Letter states that to comply with section 1373, New York would need to certify that it interprets this ordinance to “not restrict New York officers from sharing information regarding immigration status with federal immigration officers, including information regarding an alien’s incarceration status and release date and time.” New York Letter at 2-3 (emphasis added). 14 In a footnote in its opposition brief, the DOJ takes the position that section 1373 covers “information that assists the federal government in carrying out its statutory responsibilities under the [Immigration and Nationality Act.” Opp. at 39 n.11. This statement only increases confusion about the range of information DOJ believes local officials must be able to share with ICE in order to certify compliance and receive Byrne JAG funds. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 21 of 26 Page 81 of 241 17 federal funds, “it must do so unambiguously” and cannot leave a grant recipient “unable to ascertain what is expected of it”). IV. CONCLUSION By structuring the Byrne JAG program as a broad formula grant, Congress recognized the need for local discretion over law enforcement programs, and created a (non-competitive) source of funding on which local jurisdictions should be able to rely. The new conditions imposed by Attorney General Sessions upend congressional intent. Instead of preserving flexibility for local operations, the new conditions constrain local choices and require localities to adopt federally mandated policies that will make their communities less safe. Instead of preserving a reliable stream of funding, DOJ’s shifting positions force localities to guess at whether DOJ will deem them eligible for funding – and whether they will be able to comply with the conditions on that funding if they accept it. An injunction is needed to halt DOJ’s unlawful effort to impose these conditions and to protect the safety of local communities. Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 22 of 26 Page 82 of 241 18 Dated: October 19, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JAMES R. WILLIAMS, County Counsel By: /s Laura S. Trice Laura S. Trice Lead Deputy County Counsel Laura S. Trice (pro hac vice) Kavita Narayan (pro hac vice) OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor San Jose, CA 95110-1770 (408) 299-5900 By: /s John C. Grugan John C. Grugan Associate Counsel for the County of Santa Clara John C. Grugan (Attorney No. 83148) Jason A. Leckerman (Attorney No. 87915) Emilia McKee Vassallo (Attorney No. 318428) BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 665-8500 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae County of Santa Clara Full List of Amici Curiae and Additional Counsel for Amici Curiae Provided Below Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 23 of 26 Page 83 of 241 19 List of Amici Curiae The County of Santa Clara, California; the City of Austin, Texas; the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts; the City of Chelsea, Massachusetts; the City of Chicago, Illinois; Cook County, Illinois; the City and County of Denver, Colorado; the District of Columbia; the International City/County Management Association; the International Municipal Lawyers Association; the City of Iowa City, Iowa; King County, Washington; the City of Los Angeles, California; the City of Madison, Wisconsin; the Metropolitan Area Planning Council; the National League of Cities; the City of New York, New York; the City of Oakland, California; the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; the City of Portland, Oregon; the City of Providence, Rhode Island; the City of Rochester, New York; the City of Sacramento, California; the City and County of San Francisco, California; the County of Santa Cruz, California; the City of Seattle, Washington; the City of Somerville, Massachusetts; The United States Conference of Mayors; and the City of West Hollywood, California. Additional Counsel for Amici Curiae Anne L. Morgan City Attorney, City of Austin P.O. Box 1546 Austin, TX 78767-1546 Attorney for the City of Austin, Texas Nancy E. Glowa City Solicitor, City of Cambridge City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Attorney for the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts Cheryl Watson Fisher City Solicitor City of Chelsea Law Department 500 Broadway, Room 307 Chelsea, MA 02150 Attorney for the City of Chelsea, Massachusetts Edward N. Siskel Corporation Counsel of the City of Chicago 30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60602 Attorney for the City of Chicago, Illinois Kimberly M. Foxx States Attorney for Cook County 69 W. Washington, 32nd Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Attorney for Cook County Kristin M. Bronson City Attorney, City and County of Denver 1437 Bannock Street, Room 353 Denver, CO 80202 Attorney for the City and County of Denver, Colorado Karl A. Racine Attorney General, District of Columbia One Judiciary Square 441 4th Street NW, Suite 1100 South Washington, DC 20001 Attorney for the District of Columbia Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director, General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association 51 Monroe Street, Suite 404 Rockville, MD 20850 Attorney for the International Municipal Lawyers Association Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 24 of 26 Page 84 of 241 20 Eleanor M. Dilkes City Attorney, City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Attorney for the City of Iowa City, Iowa Dan Satterberg King County Prosecuting Attorney 516 Third Avenue, W400 Seattle, WA 98104 Attorney for King County, Washington Michael N. Feuer City Attorney, City of Los Angeles 200 N. Main Street, 800 CHE Los Angeles, CA 90012 Attorney for the City of Los Angeles, California Michael P. May City Attorney, City of Madison 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Room 401 Madison, WI 53703 Attorney for the City of Madison, Wisconsin Jennifer R. García General Counsel 60 Temple Place, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02111 Attorney for the Metropolitan Area Planning Council Zachary W. Carter Corporation Counsel of the City of New York 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Attorney for the City of New York, New York Barbara J. Parker City Attorney, City of Oakland One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Sixth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Attorney for the City of Oakland, California Lourdes Sánchez Ridge City Solicitor & Chief Legal Officer, City of Pittsburgh 313 City-County Building 414 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Attorney for the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Tracy Reeve City Attorney, City of Portland 430 City Hall 1221 SW 4th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Attorney for the City of Portland, Oregon Jeffrey Dana City Solicitor, City of Providence 444 Westminster Street, Suite 220 Providence, RI 02903 Attorney for the City of Providence, Rhode Island Brian F. Curran Corporation Counsel, City of Rochester 30 Church St., Room 400A Rochester, NY 14614 Attorney for the City of Rochester, New York Matthew Ruyak Interim City Attorney, City of Sacramento 915 I Street, Fourth Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Attorney for the City of Sacramento, California Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 25 of 26 Page 85 of 241 21 Dennis J. Herrera City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco City Hall Room 234 One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl. San Francisco, CA 94102 Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, California Dana McRae County Counsel, County of Santa Cruz 701 Ocean Street, Room 505 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Attorney for the County of Santa Cruz, California Peter S. Holmes City Attorney, City of Seattle 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 Attorney for the City of Seattle, Washington Francis X. Wright, Jr. City Solicitor, City of Somerville 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Attorney for the City of Somerville, Massachusetts Michael Jenkins City Attorney, City of West Hollywood JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP Manhattan Towers 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Attorney for the City of West Hollywood, California Case 2:17-cv-03894-MMB Document 45 Filed 10/19/17 Page 26 of 26 Page 86 of 241 Page 87 of 241 Page 88 of 241 Page 89 of 241 Page 90 of 241 Page 91 of 241 Page 92 of 241 Page 93 of 241 Page 94 of 241 Page 95 of 241 Page 96 of 241 Page 97 of 241 Page 98 of 241 Page 99 of 241 Page 100 of 241 Page 101 of 241 Page 102 of 241 Page 103 of 241 Page 104 of 241 Page 105 of 241 Page 106 of 241 Page 107 of 241 Page 108 of 241 Page 109 of 241 Page 110 of 241 Page 111 of 241 Page 112 of 241 Page 113 of 241 Page 114 of 241 Page 115 of 241 Page 116 of 241 Page 117 of 241 Page 118 of 241 Page 119 of 241 Page 120 of 241 Page 121 of 241 Page 122 of 241 Page 123 of 241 Page 124 of 241 Page 125 of 241 Page 126 of 241 Page 127 of 241 Page 128 of 241 Page 129 of 241 Page 130 of 241 Page 131 of 241 Page 132 of 241 Page 133 of 241 Page 134 of 241 C AMENDMENT OF SOLICITA TlONIMODIFICA TlON OF CONTRACT r'CONTRACT 10 CODE IPAGE OF PAGES 1 I 32.AMENDMENTIMODIFICATION NO 3.EFFECTIVE DATE 4.REOUISmoNIPURCHASE REO.NO.r-PROJECT NO.(If applical:Je) POOO03 09/25/2014 192114FSFCOCOWR02.11 6.ISSUED BY CODE ICE/DM/DC-LAGUNA 7.ADMINISTERED BY (If OIher!1lan Item 6}CODE IICE/DM/DC-LAGUNA ICE/Detent Mngt/Detent Contract-LAG ICE/Detent Mngt/Detent Contract-LAG Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Acquisition Management Office of Acquisition />lanagement 24000 Avila Road,Room 3104 24000 Avila Road,Room 3104Attn:Natasha Nguyen (949}425-7030 Attn:Natasha Nguyen,(949)425-7030Laguna Niguel CA 92677 Laguna Niguel CA 92677 8.NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No.•_t...-y.$I;W_ZlPC-)(x)eA.AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO I-- aNTRA COSTA COUNTY INC 651 PINE ST 7TH FLOOR 9B.DATEO(SEElrEM1f} RTINEZ CA 945531229 x lOA.MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTIORDER NO.IGA 11-09-0034 HSCEDM-14-F-IG125 lOB.DATED (SEE ITEM 13) CODE 0076692160000 FACILITY CODE 05/0112014 11• ... MA ._The &bOW number8d IICIJOIationis ameneed ~1811011h in 118m14.The I\Our and elale speCifMtdlOr receipt OfOIlers ::.:"extendecI.:.:is nol extended 011."must acknOWledge receipl Of II1is amendment pnor to IIIe hour one!elate specI1Ied in IIIe 8OIlcitetion Of aa amended, by ono Of !he toUDWingmethod&:(e)By completing ltams B and 15.and returning copies 01 the amendment Ibl By adcnOWled~receipt olll1J$amen<ImenI on eacn copy OfIIIe Offer submlnod;or (e)By seplItOle loner Of Iologtam vottiC'h indudes a ref8l9r1CO10 the soIicitallon and amendment numbers.FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNO'M..EDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR ANDOATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER Jfby wtuo 01 tnis amondment you descre 10 CI\ang8 an oIIor 0lr0ady SOIbmillGCl.SU<:I'IcIIango may bo rnacIa by telegram Of lenar.pfOVlde<l eacn lelegram Of leiter maltes reference to IhO 8OIicitalion and IIUSamendment.and is recei'tQd prior 10 IIIe opening I\cur and dale spoofl8Cl. 12.ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (Ilrequirec1)Net Increase:$26,400.00 ERODETN R02 BA 31-12-00-000 18-63-0500-00-00-00-00 GE-25-72-00 U.THIS IftM ONLY APPLJ£S TO MCOIflCAllON OF CONTRACTSIORDERS.IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACTIORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN IlEM 14. CHECK ONE B.THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACTIORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES(such as chang8S in psying ollfce.appropfialion Date. OIC.}SET FORTH IN ITEM 14.PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b). A.~'~iR~~~ ~~Efo'1ISSUED PURSUANT TO:(Specify aul/lontyJ THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT C THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY v': x u, BILATERAL type Or """""""liOn If""IlUlnOrrlyJ - Mutual Agreement Eo IMPORTANT: COntnldor is not x is mquirod to sign this document and rotum 1 copies 10 !he iSSU1t19e!ftce 14.DESCRIPTION OF MlENDMENTIMODIFICATION (OllJsnizer1lly UCF 5eCIiOtt headings.illcludltlfl $OIic:ilrlfionloonlTact subjocl mane' •••hero feasible.) DUNS Number: 007669216 Alternate COR/Finance POC: Tom Weissmiller at 415-844-5604 or e-mail at thomas.j.weissmiller@ice.dhs.gov Program pac: Gwen Zander at 661-328-4575 or e-mail at gwen.zander@ice.dhs.gov This modification is issued to install Video Teleconferencing (VTC) system at Contra Costa County (West Detention facility) as a streamline to support with the Immigration Court proceeding for detainees who are currently in ICE/ERa custody in accordance with attached Visiting Center Plans for VTC. Continued ... ExcepI o.provided h"",;",aDterms and CCMiIicns Ofthe doc:umenI (e\8AltlCOd in 11011IeA Of lOA.osllere\Oforo c:nonged. rernolftS unchangad and in full fOrat ond elled. 15A NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or prlnl)lOA.NAME AND nns OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or plinf) Roberta J.Halls 16C.DATE SIGNED STANDARD FORM 30 «REV lG.83) Pf8$Cnl>ed by GSA FAR (48 CFR)53.243 Page 135 of 241 REFERENCE NO.OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED CONTINUAnONSHEET IGA 1l-09-0034/HSCEDM-14-F-IGI25/P00003 3 NAME Of OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INC ITEM NO. (Al SUPPLIESlSERIIICES (8) AMOUNT (F) Exempt Action: Y LIST OF CHANGES: Reason for Modification : Additional Work Total Amount for this Modification: $26,400.00 New Total Amount for this Award: $2,195,300.00 Obligated Amount for this !>lodification:$26,400.00 New Total Obligated Amount for this Award: $2,195,300.00 FOB: Destination Period of Performance: 07/01/2014 to 10/15/2014 Add Item 0002 as follows: 0002 TO INSTALL VTC SYSTEM FOR ICE USE AT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (WEST DETENTION FACILITY). County shall invoice only for work actually performed. The telecom not to exceed costs are as follows: $2,500 for Shielded Cat 6 cable run from wiring closet in building 4 to room 1 in visitation. Two sets of cable will be run to each data box. $2,500 for Shielded Cat 6 cable run from wiring closet in building 4 to room 2 in visitation. Two sets of cable will be run to each data box. $2,500 for Shielded Cat 6 cable run from wiring closet in building 4 to room 13 in visitation. Two sets of cable will be run to each data box. $2,500 for Shielded Cat 6 cable run from wiring closet in building 4 to ICE Admin office in visitation. Two sets of cable will be run to each data box. $1,000 for phone line to room 3 in visitation. $1,000 for phone line to be used by fax machine in room 3. $10,000 to run fiber from the MPOE to wiring closet building 4. $3,000 for any unexpected costs. $1,400 to install electrical outlets in rooms 2 and 3. TOTAL ESTIMATE NOT TO EXCEED: $26,400.00 Continued ... QUANTITY UNIT (e)(0) 1 LO UNIT PRICE (E) 26,400.00 26,400.00 OPTIONAL F0IU0I336 I_I a_brCSA FAR I" c;FR)U."O Page 136 of 241 REFERENCE NO.OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED CONTINUAnON SHEET IGA 1l-09-0034/HSCEDM-14-f-IG125/P00003 3 NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INC SUPPl.IESlSERVlCES (B) AMOUNT (F) ITEM NO. (A) Task Order HSCEDM-14-F-IG125 is hereby issued against US Department of Justice, Marshals Inter-governmental Service Agreement (IGA) Number 11-09-0034 for the detention and care of aliens housed at Contra Costa County, CA. All other terms and conditions refernced within the IGA remain the same. OUANTITY ~IT (C) 0) UNIT PRICE (E) OPTIONAl.FOAMSM I_Is_,.....,GSA FAR (41 CFR) $lIIO Page 137 of 241 Page 138 of 241 Page 139 of 241 Page 140 of 241 Page 141 of 241 Page 142 of 241 Page 143 of 241 Page 144 of 241 Page 145 of 241 Page 146 of 241 Page 147 of 241 Page 148 of 241 Page 149 of 241 Page 150 of 241 Page 151 of 241 Page 152 of 241 Page 153 of 241 Page 154 of 241 Page 155 of 241 Page 156 of 241 Page 157 of 241 Page 158 of 241 Page 159 of 241 Page 160 of 241 Page 161 of 241 Page 162 of 241 Page 163 of 241 Page 164 of 241 Page 165 of 241 Page 166 of 241 Page 167 of 241 Page 168 of 241 Page 169 of 241 Page 170 of 241 Page 171 of 241 Page 172 of 241 Page 173 of 241 Page 174 of 241 Page 175 of 241 Page 176 of 241 Page 177 of 241 Page 178 of 241 Page 179 of 241 Page 180 of 241 Page 181 of 241 Page 182 of 241 Page 183 of 241 Page 184 of 241 Page 185 of 241 Page 186 of 241 Page 187 of 241 Page 188 of 241 Page 189 of 241 Page 190 of 241 Page 191 of 241 Page 192 of 241 Page 193 of 241 Page 194 of 241 Page 195 of 241 Page 196 of 241 Page 197 of 241 Page 198 of 241 Page 199 of 241 Page 200 of 241 Page 201 of 241 Page 202 of 241 Page 203 of 241 Page 204 of 241 Page 205 of 241 Page 206 of 241 Page 207 of 241 Page 208 of 241 Page 209 of 241 Page 210 of 241 Page 211 of 241 Page 212 of 241 Page 213 of 241 Page 214 of 241 Page 215 of 241 Page 216 of 241 Page 217 of 241 Page 218 of 241 Page 219 of 241 Page 220 of 241 Page 221 of 241 Page 222 of 241 Page 223 of 241 Page 224 of 241 Page 225 of 241 Page 226 of 241 Page 227 of 241 Page 228 of 241   Immigration  1  Contra Costa County Probation Department Policy Manual Immigration 428.1 DEFINITIONS 1. Individual – An “individual” is any person with whom the Probation Department interacts or otherwise encounters while in performance of the authorized functions of the Department, including, but not limited to, adults or juveniles under the Department’s supervision, juveniles in the custody of the Department, victims, witnesses, and those defendants in the criminal courts for whom the Department prepares reports. 2. ICE – “ICE” is the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 3. Probation ICE Liaison – The “Probation ICE Liaison” is the Probation Manager designated by the Chief Probation Officer as the person responsible for communicating with ICE on matters pertaining to immigration. The Chief Probation Officer will inform staff of who she/he has designated as the Probation ICE Liaison. 428.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines to Contra Costa County Probation staff concerning cooperation with ICE on matters involving the immigration status of individuals. 428.3 POLICY Contra Costa County is committed to treating everyone fairly, without regard to immigration status. The County also has an obligation to follow state and federal law including, but not limited to, 8 U.S.C. Section 1373. It is the policy of this Department not to inquire into or report the immigration status of any individual, absent a legal mandate to do so. The staff of the Probation Department are not to perform any of the functions of an immigration officer. The purpose of this policy is to clarify this Department’s legal responsibilities and delineate the role of Probation staff in responding to immigration matters. 428.4 VICTIMS AND WITNESSES To encourage crime reporting and cooperation in the investigation of criminal activity, all individuals, regardless of their immigration status, must feel secure that contacting or being addressed by members of the Probation Department will not lead to immigration inquiry and/or deportation. Staff shall treat all individuals equally and without regard to race, color, national origin or immigration status. 428.5 PROVIDING INFORMATION/ASSISTANCE TO ICE Probation staff shall refer all ICE inquiries to the Probation ICE Liaison, or in the absence of the Probation ICE Liaison, to the Assistant Chief Probation Officer or Chief Probation Officer. The primary role of the Probation ICE Liaison is to respond to ICE requests about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status. The Probation Department shall not use Department resources or personnel to investigate, interrogate, Policy  428 Page 229 of 241   Immigration  2  detain, detect or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following: A) Providing information regarding a person’s release date(s), except as set forth in section 428.7 below; B) Providing Probation appointment date(s) C) Providing personal information as defined in Section 1798.3 of the Civil Code, about an individual, including, but not limited to, the individual’s home address, work address or telephone number unless the information is available to the public The Probation ICE liaison shall keep a written record of all communication with ICE that includes the following information: who requested information and the type of information requested, the ICE contact, the date and type of information that was disseminated and by whom, the identifying information about the individual who is the subject of the inquiry that includes Probation ID Number (PID), name and date of birth, current charges, and the name of the assigned Deputy Probation Officer. Sworn Probation Department staff who are in the field may choose to render mutual aid per Penal Code Section 830.5(a)(5)(A) to any law enforcement agents, including ICE agents, when there is a threat to public safety or the ICE agent’s safety. If such assistance is rendered, the staff shall complete an Incident Report. Such aid should not result in Probation staff arresting individuals for civil immigration violations. 428.6 CONFIDENTIAL JUVENILE MATTERS ICE detainers, notification requests and/or transfer requests for individuals involved in juvenile cases will not be honored at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall or the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility. The individual who is the subject of the ICE detainer, notification request and/or transfer request, and his or her guardian, if applicable, shall be given a copy of the documentation received from ICE regarding his or her detainer, notification request or transfer request, along with written notice that the Probation Department will not be complying with that ICE request. (Gov. Code Section 7283.1.) Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 831, Probation staff shall not provide information regarding an individual involved in a juvenile case to any Federal Agency absent a court order, as required by Welfare and Institutions Code Section 827. 428.7 NOTICE TO INDIVIDUALS IN PROBATION CUSTODY WHO ARE CHARGED AS ADULTS In all cases other than those set forth in section 428.6, above, when ICE has issued a hold, notification, or transfer request for an individual charged as an adult who is being housed at Juvenile Hall, that individual shall be given a copy of the documentation received from ICE regarding his or her hold, notification, or transfer request, along with written notice as to whether the Probation Department will or will not comply with that ICE request. If the Probation Department notifies ICE that an individual in its custody is being or will be released on a certain date, a copy of that notification shall be provided in writing to the individual and his/her attorney or to one additional person who the individual may designate (Gov. Code Section 7283.1). No individual who is otherwise ready to be released from custody will be detained solely for the purpose of making notification to immigration authorities, except in cases where the Probation Department is in possession of a valid arrest warrant. 428.8 ICE INTERVIEWS FOR INDIVIDUALS IN PROBATION CUSTODY AND WHO ARE CHARGED AS ADULTS In advance of any interview regarding civil immigration violations between ICE and an individual charged as an adult in the Probation Department’s custody, the Probation Department shall provide the individual with a written consent form that explains the purpose of the interview, that the interview is voluntary, and that he/she may decline to be interviewed or may choose to be interviewed only with his/her attorney present. Page 230 of 241   Immigration  3  (Gov. Code Section 7283.1(a).) Upon request of an ICE interview and prior to obtaining the individual’s signature on a consent form, the Juvenile Hall Intake staff will notify the individual’s attorney of record. The attorney of record will be given the opportunity to provide advice regarding their client’s consent to the requested interview before the Probation Department proceeds. Any interview for an individual in the Probation Department’s custody shall be facilitated through the Probation ICE Liaison, after consultation with the Assistant Chief Probation Officer or the Chief Probation Officer. 428.9 IMMIGRATION STATUS IN REPORTS AND FILE DOCUMENTATION Probation staff shall not ask an individual about his or her immigration status or document an individual’s immigration status in a Court report. Staff may ask an individual about his or her language skills, place of birth, and related social history factors and may document that information in Court reports. 428.10 STAFF INQUIRIES WITH ICE – WHEREABOUTS If Probation staff suspects that an individual under the Probation Department’s supervision has been deported or is in the custody of ICE, and that individual’s matter is still active, staff shall contact the ICE Liaison. The ICE Liaison may obtain information on the individual’s whereabouts by utilizing the ICE Online Detainee Locator System (https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/index), in addition to any other available means to check whereabouts which may include, contacting the individual’s attorney of record, and checking other available records/information sources. Probation staff shall discuss the matter with their supervisor to determine the appropriate course of action in order to retain jurisdiction and/or toll time in the event that individual returns to the United States. Appropriate actions may include submitting a petition to revoke with a warrant request for adult cases or file a Welfare and Institutions Code Section 777 notice of violation for juvenile cases. Revision Date – 12/11/2017 Page 231 of 241 Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff General Policy and Procedure CCCSO NUMBER: 1.02.28 RELATED ORDERS: AB 4 (Trust Act), AB 2792 (Truth Act), SB 54 (California Values Act), Gov’t. Code §§7282- 7284.6, SB 29 Civil Code §1670.9,8 CFR 287.7, 8 USC §1101(a)(43), 8 USC §1373, 8 USC §1644 ISSUE DATE: 12-3-2013 REVISION DATE: 12/20/2017 CLEARANCE: Office of the Sheriff CHAPTER: Law Enforcement Role and Authority SUBJECT: IMMIGRATION STATUS I. POLICY. A. No person shall be contacted, detained, or arrested solely on the basis of his or her immigration status. B. The Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff will equally enforce the laws and serve the public without regard to immigration status. Except as specifically set forth in this Policy, the immigration status of a person, and the lack of immigration documentation, should have no bearing on the manner in which Deputies execute their duties. C. No Departmental funds nor personnel may be used to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes. Nevertheless, Office of the Sheriff personnel may send to, or receive from, immigration authorities (including ICE), information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual (8 USC §1373) (see IV.C.). II. DEFINITIONS. A. IMMIGRATION DETAINER. An Immigration Detainer is a request by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) that law enforcement agencies advise ICE, prior to releasing an individual, in order for ICE to arrange to assume custody for the purpose of deportation. The ICE Detainer Request is presented on ICE Form I- 247A. These requests are processed in accordance with IV.E. below. III. GENERAL. A. IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION. ICE has primary responsibility to investigate and enforce federal immigration laws. Office of the Sheriff personnel shall not assist ICE in the enforcement of federal immigration laws except as set forth below. Assistance to ICE personnel Page 232 of 241 in personal distress will be provided. Notwithstanding “A” above: 1. Sheriff’s Personnel may investigate, enforce, or detain upon reasonable suspicion of, or arrest for a violation of 8 USC 1326(a) [illegal reentry by a previously deported or removed alien] that is detected during an unrelated law enforcement activity. 2. Sheriff’s Personnel may respond to a request from immigration authorities for information about a specific person’s criminal history. 3. Sheriff’s Personnel may conduct enforcement or investigative duties associated with a joint law enforcement task force, including the sharing of confidential information with other law enforcement agencies for purposes of task force investigations, but only if the specific provisions set forth in Gov. Code §7284.6 (b)(3)(A) and (B) and (C) are met. 4. Sheriff’s Personnel may grant immigration authorities access to interview an individual in our custody. All interview access shall comply with IV.H (“TRUTH Act Notifications”). 5. Sheriff’s Personnel may send to ICE, and receive from ICE information regarding the immigration status of any individual (see IV.C.). (Do not confuse information regarding immigration status with information regarding the anticipated release date of individuals with immigration status, which information may not be released except as set forth in this policy at IV.G. and IV.K.) B. LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTACTS. Non-consensual contacts, detentions, and arrests shall be based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause. A Deputy shall not initiate any law enforcement action based on observations relating to immigration status (such as lack of documentation), but such issues may, as part of several factors, be relevant to the direction and analysis of an investigation. C. THE CALIFORNIA VALUES ACT. 1. California law enforcement agencies shall not: a. Use agency moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration law enforcement purposes, including any of the following: 1. Inquiring into an individual’s immigration status (but see III.B. above, and IV.C. below); 2. Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request; 3. Providing information regarding a person’s release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public, or is in response to a Notification Request from ICE that satisfies the conditions set forth in IV.G. and IV.K.; 4. Providing personal information about an individual, including, but not limited to, the individual’s home address or work address unless that information is available to the public; 5. Making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants; Page 233 of 241 6. Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to 8 USC 1357(g) or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal; b. Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies for the purposes of immigration enforcement. c. Use Immigration Authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in custody. d. Transfer an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant. e. Provide office space exclusively dedicated for immigration authorities for use within a law enforcement facility. 2. Deputies retain discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities if doing so does not violate any Federal, state, or local law or policy, and only where permitted by the California Values Act. The California Values Act permits communications between Office of the Sheriff personnel and immigration authorities “regarding the citizenship or immigration status …of an individual” (see IV.C.). D. FEDERAL DETAINEES. Wherever this policy refers to, or relates to, persons in Sheriff’s Office custody, such policy provisions do not apply to individuals in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security who are detained in a county detention facility pursuant to a contract with the Federal government (Gov. Code §7310(b)). IV. PROCEDURES. A. IMMIGRATION VIOLATION COMPLAINTS. 1. If members of the public contact the Office of the Sheriff to report suspected immigration violations, such persons should be directed to ICE. B. IMMIGRATION STATUS. 1. A Deputy’s suspicion about any person’s immigration status shall not be used as a sole basis to initiate contact, detain, or arrest that person unless such status is reasonably relevant to the investigation of a crime, such as trafficking, smuggling, harboring, and terrorism. 2. Sweeps intended solely to locate and detain undocumented immigrants are not permitted. Deputies will not participate in ICE-organized sweeps to locate and detain undocumented aliens. Office of the Sheriff personnel shall not provide support services, such as traffic control, during an ICE operation. C. COMMICATIONS WITH ICE. Office of the Sheriff personnel may send to, or receive from, immigration authorities (including ICE), information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual (8 USC §1373), including specifically any alien in the United States (8 USC §1644). Such information as is permitted to be sent or received pursuant to Page 234 of 241 this subsection may be maintained and may be exchanged with any other Federal, State, or local government entity (8 USC §1373). (Compliance with 8 USC §1373 and 8 USC §1644 is specifically permitted pursuant to Gov. Code 7284.6(e)). D. WITNESSES AND VICTIMS. 1. The immigration status of crime victims or witnesses should not be probed unless it is reasonably relevant to the investigation of a crime. 2. U-Visa Nonimmigrant Status. Federal law grants immigration benefits to victims of qualifying crimes who have been helpful to the investigation and/or prosecution of the case. A law enforcement certification is prepared and issued by specifically designated administrative personnel. E. ICE DETAINER REQUESTS. The Office of the Sheriff occasionally receives Immigration Detainer requests on ICE Form I-247A. A detainer serves to advise that ICE seeks both notification of the anticipated release of a removeable alien from custody and his or her continued detention in order for ICE to arrange to assume custody. The request to detain will not be honored (see IV.F.). The request to Notify will be honored only under the circumstances set forth in IV.G. and IV.K. below. F. IMMIGRATION DETAINERS. Inmates who are eligible for release from custody shall not be held, pursuant to an immigration hold, beyond the time he or she would otherwise be released. G. IMMIGRATION NOTIFICATION. The Office of the Sheriff will provide release information in response to individual-specific ICE requests for notification (ICE Form I-247A), but only in compliance with the conditions set forth in IV.L. Individuals meeting the conditions set forth in IV.L. will be released to ICE custody (but shall not be detained to do so), if immigration authorities are present at a detention facility’s Release Window at the time of an individual’s release. 1. Individuals meeting the conditions set forth in IV.K. and released to ICE custody at the time of their release, may not be converted into ICE Detainees. Immigration authorities desiring to house such persons as ICE Detainees at WCDF must escort such persons outside of our facility, and then return them, via Intake, to be newly booked as ICE Detainees for transport to WCDF. H. TRUTH ACT NOTIFICATION (Gov. Code 7283.1; AB-2792). Upon receiving any ICE notification request on Form I-247A, the named inmate shall be provided a copy of the respective form. If ICE is to be notified of the proposed release of an inmate, he or she shall be notified as well. Additionally, efforts will be made to notify the inmate’s attorney or an additional person of the inmate’s choosing. 1. Immigration authorities shall be granted access to interview inmates following compliance with the Truth Act notification provision: In advance of any interview between ICE and an inmate, the inmate shall be provided with a written consent form either consenting or declining to participate in the interview. Standardized copies of this form are available (under the heading AB 2792 Forms) at http://www.bscc.ca.gov/m_divisions.php Page 235 of 241 I. EQUALITY OF ACCESS. All persons arrested for a criminal offense and held in our custody will have equal access to custody programs if otherwise program- eligible. J. COURT ORDERS. Court Orders and warrants are entirely separate and should not be confused with Form I-247A requests. Duly issued warrants will be honored. K. CONDITIONS FOR ICE NOTIFICATION. ICE requests for notification of the anticipated release date of an inmate will be honored only with respect to inmates who are being held for certain charges or who have specific prior convictions. 1. These conditions include (but are not limited to) inmates who have been convicted of (i) of a serious felony [PC 1192.7(c)] or a violent felony, [PC 667.5(c)] (see listing below). a. As used in PC 1192.7(c), “serious felony” means any of the following: (1) murder or voluntary manslaughter (2) mayhem (3) rape (4) sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person (5) oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person (6) lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 years of age (7) any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life (8) any felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice, or any felony in which the defendant personally uses a firearm (9) attempted murder (10) assault with intent to commit rape or robbery (11) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer (12) assault by a life prisoner on a non-inmate (13) assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate (14) arson (15) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure (16) exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing bodily injury, great bodily injury, or mayhem (17) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder (18) any burglary of the first degree (19) robbery or bank robbery (20) kidnapping (21) holding of a hostage by a person confined in a state prison (22) attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life Page 236 of 241 (23) any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon (24) selling, furnishing, administering, giving, or offering to sell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor any heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), or any methamphetamine- related drug, or any of the precursors of methamphetamines (25) any violation of PC 289(a) where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person (26) grand theft involving a firearm (27) carjacking (28) any felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of PC 186.22 (29) assault with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation (30) throwing acid or flammable substances (31) assault with a deadly weapon, firearm, machinegun, assault weapon, or semiautomatic firearm or assault on a peace officer or firefighter (32) assault with a deadly weapon against a public transit employee, custodial officer, or school employee (33) discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft (34) commission of rape or sexual penetration in concert with another person (35) continuous sexual abuse of a child (36) shooting from a vehicle (37) intimidation of victims or witnesses (38) criminal threats (39) any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an assault (40) any violation of PC 12022.53 [Enhancements for use of a firearm in 18 specified felonies] (41) a violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418 (42) any conspiracy to commit an offense described in this subdivision (43) And any offense committed in another state, which if committed in California, would be punishable as a listed serious felony b. As used in PC 667.5(c), “violent felony” means any of the following: (1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter (2) Mayhem (3) Rape (4) Sodomy (5) Oral copulation (6) Lewd or lascivious act Page 237 of 241 (7) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life (8) Any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice which has been charged and proved, or any felony in which the defendant uses a firearm which use has been charged and proved (9) Any robbery (10) Arson (11) Sexual penetration (12) Attempted murder (13) A violation of PC 18745, 18750, or 18755 (explosives) (14) Kidnapping (15) Assault with the intent to commit a specified felony, in violation of Section 220 (16) Continuous sexual abuse of a child (17) Carjacking (18) Rape, spousal rape, or sexual penetration (19) Extortion, which would constitute a felony violation of PC 186.22 (20) Threats to victims or witnesses, which would constitute a felony violation of PC 186.22 (21) Any burglary of the first degree, wherein it is charged and proved that another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of the burglary (22) Any violation of PC 12022.53 [Enhancements for use of a firearm in 18 specified felonies] (23) A violation of PC 11418(b) or (c)(weapon of mass destruction) (24) And any offense committed in another state, which if committed in California, would be punishable as a listed violent felony 2. Notification requests will be honored for any conviction or prior conviction for a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison. 3. Notification requests will be honored for any person who is a current registrant on the California Sex and Arson Registry (CSAR) as a sex offender pursuant to PC 290 or as an arson offender pursuant to PC 457.1 4. Notification requests will be honored for (i) any felony conviction within the last 15 years, or (ii) any misdemeanor conviction within the past five years, that is punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony (i.e.: “wobbler”) involving the following specified crimes: (A) Assault (B) Battery (C) Use of threats (D) Sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or crimes endangering children (E) Child abuse or endangerment (F) Burglary, robbery, theft, fraud, forgery, or embezzlement Page 238 of 241 (G) Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but only for a felony conviction (H) Obstruction of justice (I) Bribery (J) Escape (K) Unlawful possession or use of a weapon, firearm, explosive device, or weapon of mass destruction (L) Possession of an unlawful deadly weapon, under the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010 (PC 16000) (M) An offense involving the felony possession, sale, distribution, manufacture, or trafficking of controlled substances (N) Vandalism with prior convictions (O) Gang-related offenses (P) An attempt, or any conspiracy, to commit an offense specified in this section (Q) A crime resulting in death, or involving the personal infliction of great bodily injury (R) Possession or use of a firearm in the commission of an offense (S) An offense that would require the individual to register as a sex offender (T) False imprisonment, slavery, and human trafficking (U) Criminal profiteering and money laundering (V) Torture and mayhem (W) A crime threatening the public safety (X) Elder and dependent adult abuse (Y) A hate crime (Z) Stalking (AA) Soliciting the commission of a crime (AB) An offense committed while on bail or released on his or her own recognizance (AC) Rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual penetration (AD) Kidnapping (AE) A violation of CVC 20001(c) 5. Notification requests should also be honored for any federal conviction of any crime that meets the definition of an aggravated felony as set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101 at Section 1101(a)(43)(A) to (P). The full listing of specified crimes follows: The term "aggravated felony" means – (A) murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor (B) illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (C) illicit trafficking in firearms or destructive devices (D) laundering of monetary instruments if the amount of the funds exceeded $10,000 (E) an offense relating to explosive materials (F) a crime of violence, but not including a purely political offense for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year Page 239 of 241 (G) a theft offense or burglary offense for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year (H) the demand for or receipt of ransom (I) child pornography (J) racketeer influenced corrupt organizations or gambling offenses, for which a sentence of one year imprisonment or more may be imposed (K) owning, controlling, managing, or supervising of a prostitution business; peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons (L) gathering or transmitting national defense information relating to disclosure of classified information relating to sabotage, relating to treason, relating to protecting the identity of undercover intelligence agents or relating to protecting the identity of undercover agents (M) fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000; tax evasion in which the revenue loss to the Government exceeds $10,000 (N) alien smuggling (except in the case of a first offense for which the alien has affirmatively shown that the alien committed the offense for the purpose of assisting, abetting, or aiding only the alien's spouse, child, or parent) (O) an offense described in section 1325(a) or 1326 of this title committed by an alien who was previously deported on the basis of a conviction for an offense described in another subparagraph of this paragraph (P) falsely making, forging, counterfeiting, mutilating, or altering a passport or instrument and for which the term of imprisonment is at least 12 months (except in the case of a first offense for which the alien has affirmatively shown that the alien committed the offense for the purpose of assisting, abetting, or aiding only the alien's spouse, child, or parent (and no other individual.) Page 240 of 241 Stand Together CoCo Partner Advisory January 30, 2018 Resources for Families or Individuals at Risk of Federal Deportation Actions Stand Together CoCo is launching an immigration legal services and rapid response network in Contra Costa County. This ensures that all Contra Costa County residents receive due process under the law, including qualified legal representation, if they are detained by Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) or face potential deportation. Still in the early days of organizing, a rapid response hotline dedicated to Contra Costa County residents will launch in March. We are also recruiting community responder teams to serve East, Central, and West County. FOR FAMILIES OR INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES RIGHT NOW (before March 2018): If you need non-emergency advice or counsel from a qualified immigration attorney, please call: 510-365-6812 You’ll reach Catholic Charities of the East Bay, which will help you directly or will connect you to the appropriate community partner. A non-emergency includes applying for residency or citizenship, DACA renewals, or setting up educational workshops about immigration and your Constitutional rights. In the event of an emergency, please call the ACILEP Hotline: 510-241-4011 Your call will be answered by the Alameda County Immigration Legal & Education Partnership (ACILEP), your information will be dispatched to the Contra Costa County team. An emergency is when: • An individual has already been detained or arrested by ICE • Federal immigration activity is in progress at your school, workplace, or in the community • An individual is facing deportation procedures or a hearing Stand Together CoCo is a coalition of community partners including the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office, which was authorized by the Board of Supervisors to provide no-cost community education and outreach, rapid response, and legal services to help individuals and families drawn into or at risk of becoming involved with the federal deportation system. The partners include Catholic Charities of the East Bay, Centro Legal de La Raza, Oakland Community Organizations, Monument Impact, Jewish Family and Community Services – East Bay, International Institute of the Bay Area, and Bay Area Community Resources. The partners also work closely with the Diocese of Oakland, First 5 Contra Costa, and the Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity. Page 241 of 241