Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 05232018 - PPC Agenda Pkt
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE ***SPECIAL MEETING*** May 23, 2018 1:30 P.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 107, 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 April 12, 2018 meeting. (Page 4) 4. CONSIDER forwarding fiscal year 2018-19 AB109 Community Program funding allocations to the Board of Supervisors for approval, as proposed by the Community Advisory Board. (Donte Blue, Office of Reentry and Justice) (Page 7) 5. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors appointment of Patrice Guillory to the Community Based Organization seat on the Community Corrections Partnership with a term ending December 31, 2018 and a proposal that the Community Advisory Board make annual recommendations for appointment to the seat in future years, as recommended by the Community Advisory Board. (Donte Blue, Office of Reentry and Justice) (Page 10) 6. CONSIDER accepting the AB 109 Annual Report for FY 2016-17 and recommend its adoption to the Board of Supervisors. (Lara DeLaney, Office of Reentry and Justice) (Page 17) 7. 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 68) 8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:30 AM. 9.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:05/23/2018 Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - April 12, 2018 Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE, Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - April 12, 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 April 12, 2018 meeting. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): APPROVE Record of Action from the April 12, 2018 meeting. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impart. This item is informational only. Attachments Record of Action - April 2018 Page 4 of 286 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE April 12, 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 Staff Present:Timothy M. Ewell, Committee Staff 1.Introductions Convene - 9:07 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 February 5, 2018 meeting. Approved as presented. Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Passed 4.1. 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. Approved as presented with the following direction to staff: 1. Return to the Committee with a claim process for individuals that believe a refund is due to them for the period prior to September 2010. 2. Forward to the Board of Supervisors a recommendation to refund Juvenile Electronic Monitoring fees to individuals for the period September 2010 forward for accounts presented by the County Probation Officer. Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Passed 5. Page 1 of 2Minutes 5/18/2018http://64.166.146.245/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=776&id=&mode=External&r... Page 5 of 286 For Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353 timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us 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. Approved as presented with the following direction to staff: 1. Return to the Committee with a summary of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, Juvenile Justice Commission and Delinquency Prevention Commission. 2. Provide information related to the past 12 months of meetings of the Juvenile Justice Commission and the Delinquency Prevention Commission. 3. Provide meeting history information for the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Passed 6.1. 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. Approved as presented with the following direction to staff: 1. Continue tracking litigation and return to the Committee with an update. 2. Direct County Counsel to write a response letter to the letter submitted to the Sheriff-Coroner by Asian Americans Advancing Justice on April 11, 2018 regarding compliance with the California Values Act (SB 54). Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Passed 7.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, May 7, 2018 at 10:30am. 8.Adjourn Adjourned 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. Page 2 of 2Minutes 5/18/2018http://64.166.146.245/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=776&id=&mode=External&r... Page 6 of 286 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:05/23/2018 Subject:FY 2018/19 AB109 COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Submitted For: AB109 CAB, Community Advisory Board on Public Safety Realignment Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: FY 2018/19 AB109 COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Presenter: Donte Blue, Office of Reentry and Justice Contact: Donte Blue, Office of Reentry and Justice Referral History: In its December 2012 meeting, the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) decided to provide a 4% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) to the Community Programs line item in its budget for FY 2018-19. When this budget was submitted to the Board of Supervisor’s Public Protection Committee (PPC) for consideration in February 2018, the PPC approved the COLA increase of $194,688 and directed the Community Advisory Board (CAB) of the CCP to return to the PPC a recommendation on how this additional revenue was to be distributed among the various programs. Referral Update: During its April 2018 General Meeting, CAB discussed the distribution of the $194,688 COLA among its various programs. Working from its FY 2017-18 baseline budget amount of $4,867,201, CAB determined that it would recommend the following for the aggregate $5,061,889 FY 2018-19 budget amount: Reduce the line item for CAB support to $5,000;1. Retain the amount of $15,000 for the connection to resources item used for the production of the Reentry Voice newsletter; 2. Distribute the remaining revenue pro rata among the various program areas based on their FY 2017-18 budget amounts; 3. Request that in developing contracts for FY 2018-19 with the various contractors the ORJ direct the contractors to prioritize the use of additional revenue towards increasing compensation amounts paid to line staff so this is consistent with the intended purpose of a COLA; 4. ORJ report back to CAB how each agency ultimately budgets for the increased revenue in its FY 2018-19 contract, and the reason any additional revenue is allocated to an item other than the increase in line staff compensation. 5. Page 7 of 286 As a result of its discussions, CAB established the following recommended allocations for the FY 2018-19 CCP community programs budget: Program Amount Employment $2,081,270 Housing $1,071,850 Legal Services $156,100 Mentoring and Family Reunification $208,130 Reentry Success Center $546,330 East and Central County Reentry Network $978,200 Connection to Resources (Reentry Voice)$15,000 CAB Planning and Support $5,009 TOTAL $5,061,889 During meetings ORJ had with each contractor following the completion quarter three of the current fiscal year, ORJ informed the contractors of the possible increased allocations to their programs and the desire by CAB to have this additional revenue directed at personnel costs. ORJ is now in the process of negotiating each of these contracts and their requisite budgets, and intends to report back to CAB the result of his process during the first quarter of FY 2018-19, as requested. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors (BOS) ADOPT the CCP-CAB recommendations to distribute $5,061,889 to fund the AB 109 community programs as follows: Employment: $2,081,2701. Housing: $1,071,8502. Legal Services:$156,1003. Mentoring and Family Reunification: $208,1304. Reentry Success Center: $546,3305. East and Central County Reentry Network: $978,2006. Connection to Resources (Reentry Voice): $15,0007. Community Advisory Board Support: $5,0098. 1. Attachments FY 2018/19 CAB Community Program Funding Recommendations Page 8 of 286 Proposed FY 2018-19 Community Based Program Allocations Community Advisory Board FY 2017-18 AB 109 Community Programs FY 2017/18 Budget with 4% COLA FY 2017-18 Proportional Distribution FY 2018-19 Redistribution Amount FY 2018-19 AB 109 Community Programs Proposed Budget Employment Awarded New Award Goodwill Industries: 11330 $900,000 936,000.00$ 18.58%573.82$ $936,570 Rubicon Progams, Inc.: 20095 $1,100,000 1,144,000.00$ 22.70%701.33$ $1,144,700 sub-total $2,000,000 $2,080,000 $2,081,270 Housing SHELTER, Inc.: 05015 980,000$ 1,019,200.00$ 20.23%624.82$ 1,019,820$ Reach Fellowship International: 03212 50,000$ 52,000.00$ 1.03%31.88$ 52,030$ sub-total $1,030,000 $1,071,200 1,071,850$ Legal Services Bay Area Legal Aid: 10473 150,000$ 156,000.00$ 3.10%95.64$ 156,100$ sub-total $150,000 $156,000 $156,100 Mentoring and Family Reunification Men and Women of Purpose: 08625 110,000$ 114,400.00$ 2.27%70.13$ 114,470$ Center for Human Development: 07452 90,000$ 93,600.00$ 1.86%57.38$ 93,660$ sub-total $200,000 $208,000 $208,130 Reentry Success Center Rubicon Programs, Inc: 20095 525,000$ 546,000.00$ 10.84%334.73$ 546,330$ sub-total $525,000 $546,000 $546,330 Network Management Team HealthRIGHT 360: 02401 605,000.00$ 629,200.00$ 19.40%599.32$ 629,800$ Network Services Transitional Housing 150,000$ 156,000.00$ 156,000$ Specialized Employment and Training 65,000$ 67,600.00$ 67,600$ Gender Responsive Reentry Transition Planning 60,000$ 62,400.00$ 62,400$ Employment and Education Liaison 60,000$ 62,400.00$ 62,400$ sub-total $940,000 $977,600 $978,200 Grand Total $4,845,000 $5,038,800 $5,041,880 CAB 7,201$ 5,000$ 5,009$ Connection to Resources 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Carry forward FY 16-17 to FY 17-18 (CCP Approved 5/5/17)75,000$ FY 18-19 Redistribution Balance 3,089$ Net 4,942,201$ 5,061,889$ 100%3,089$ 5,061,889$ Page 9 of 286 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:05/23/2018 Subject:APPOINTMENTS TO THE CY2018 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP - CBO SEAT Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE, Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: APPOINTMENTS TO THE CY2018 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP - CBO SEAT Presenter: Timothy Ewell, (925)335-1036 Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925)335-1036 Referral History: The California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 109 (Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011), which transferred responsibility for supervising certain lower-level inmates and parolees from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to counties. Assembly Bill 109 (AB109) took effect on October 1, 2011 and realigned three major areas of the criminal justice system. On a prospective basis, the legislation: • Transferred the location of incarceration for lower-level offenders (specified nonviolent, non-serious, non-sex offenders) from state prison to local county jail and provides for an expanded role for post-release supervision for these offenders; • Transferred responsibility for post-release supervision of lower-level offenders (those released from prison after having served a sentence for a non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offense) from the state to the county level by creating a new category of supervision called Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS); • Transferred the custody responsibility for parole and PRCS revocations to local jail, administered by county sheriffs AB109 also created an Executive Committee of the local Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) and tasked it with recommending a Realignment Plan (Plan) to the county Board of Supervisors for implementation of the criminal justice realignment. The Community Corrections Partnership is identified in statute as the following: Community Corrections Partnership Chief Probation Officer (Chair)1. Presiding Judge (or designee)2. County supervisor, CAO, or a designee of the BOS3. Page 10 of 286 District Attorney4. Public Defender5. Sheriff6. Chief of Police7. Head of the County department of social services8. Head of the County department of mental health9. Head of the County department of employment10. Head of the County alcohol and substance abuse programs11. Head of the County Office of Education12. CBO representative with experience in rehabilitative services for criminal offenders13. Victims’ representative14. Later in 2011, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 117 (Chapter 39, Statutes of 2011), which served as “clean up” legislation to AB109. Assembly Bill 117 (AB117) changed, among other things, the composition of the local CCP-Executive Committee. The CCP-Executive Committee is currently identified in statute as the following: Community Corrections Partnership-Executive Committee Chief Probation Officer (Chair)1. Presiding Judge (or designee)2. District Attorney3. Public Defender4. Sheriff5. A Chief of Police6. The head of either the County department of social services, mental health, or alcohol and drug services (as designated by the board of supervisors) 7. Although AB109 and AB117 collectively place the majority of initial planning activities for Realignment on the local CCP, it is important to note that neither piece of legislation cedes powers vested in a county Board of Supervisors’ oversight of and purview over how AB109 funding is spent. Once the Plan is adopted, the Board of Supervisors may choose to implement that Plan in any manner it may wish. Referral Update: Each year, the PPC reviews the membership of the Community Corrections Partnership and makes recommendations for appointment to non ex-offico seats to the Board of Supervisors. The Board has made these appointments on a calendar year basis. In October 2017, the Committee recommended appointments to the Board for 13 of the 14 seats and directed the Community Advisory Board to make a recommendation for appointment to the Community Based Organizations seat. Today's action is to consider recommending the appointment of Patrice Guillory of HealthRIGHT 360 to the full Board to a term ending on December 31, 2018. A copy of the letter submitted to the County Administrator's Office has been attached for reference. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 1. RECOMMEND to the Board of Supervisors appointment of Patrice Guillory to the Community Page 11 of 286 1. RECOMMEND to the Board of Supervisors appointment of Patrice Guillory to the Community Based Organization seat on the Community Corrections Partnership with a term ending December 31, 2018; and 2. RECOMMEND a proposal that the Community Advisory Board make annual recommendations for appointment to the seat in future years. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impact. Attachments Letter of Recommendation from Community Advisory Board CSAC Informational Letter Page 12 of 286 MEMORANDUM To: CCP Executive Committee Cc: Tim Ewell, CAO; Donte Blue, Office of Reentry and Justice From: Jason Schwarz, CAB Chair Date: February 16, 2018 Subject: CCP CBO Seat The Community Advisory Board on Public Safety Realignment (CAB) very much appreciates the opportunity to recommend an individual to fill the CCP seat reserved for a CBO representative. At the January CAB meeting, as part of its officers and appointments discussion, CAB members discussed the eligibility criteria for this seat on the CCP and the profile of the optimal candidate. CAB has determined that ideally this position would be filled by a CAB member that works for a CBO. Since CAB’s mandate is to represent the community CAB believes that appointing a CBO representative who is also a CAB member will have important benefits in strengthening linkages and communication among the CBO community, CCP, and CAB and providing the CCP meaningful inputs from the perspective of the CBO community. Accordingly, CAB unanimously nominated Patrice Guillory of HealthRIGHT 360, and current CAB Vice Chair, to fill this CBO seat. Not only does Patrice represent an organization with a long history of providing services to the reentry population, but she is also well versed in our local reentry system. CAB is also happy to announce that Patrice has chosen to accept a nomination from the Board of Supervisors to serve in this capacity. Furthermore, CAB discussed the benefit of naming an alternate to provide back-up to Ms. Guillory in the event she is unable to attend a CCP meeting, if this can be accommodated by the board, CAB member Kaleana Johnson of Shelter Inc., CAB Secretary, has volunteered to serve in this role. CAB also discussed the opportunity to institutionalize a process to nominate a representative for the CBO seat of the CCP on an annual basis, or in the event an incumbent resigns. CAB plans to discuss this in a future meeting and bring the results of that discussion to a future PPC meeting for endorsement. CAB thanks you for the opportunity to nominate the CBO representative for the CCP, and we look forward to future opportunities to inform other important county processes. Page 13 of 286 MEMORANDUM July 12, 2011 To: Members, Board of Supervisors County Administrative Officers From: Paul McIntosh Executive Director Re: AB 117 and the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) There continues to be a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding regarding the changes in the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) encompassed in Assembly Bill 117 (Chapter 39, Statutes of 2011), passed as part of the 2011-12 budget. AB 117 did not change the make-up of the CCP, first formed in SB 678 in 2009, but does provide for revisions to the makeup of the CCP’s Executive Committee, which originally was established in AB 109 (Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011). The fourteen-member CCP in each county remains essentially unchanged and is comprised of the following (Penal Code Section 1230.1): Chief Probation Officer (Chair) Presiding Judge (or designee) County supervisor, CAO, or a designee of the BOS District Attorney Public Defender Sheriff Chief of Police Head of the County department of social services Head of the County department of mental health Head of the County department of employment Head of the County alcohol and substance abuse programs Head of the County Office of Education CBO representative with experience in rehabilitative services for criminal offenders Victims’ representative AB 117 requires the CCP to prepare an implementation plan that will enable the county to meet the goals of the public safety realignment. AB 117 is silent as to what those goals may be and provides counties with flexibility in how to address realignment. AB 117 does not abdicate the board of supervisor’s authority over appropriations and does not enable the CCP to direct how realignment funds will be spent. Page 14 of 286 The seven-member CCP Executive Committee, as provided in AB 117, is comprised of the following: Chief Probation Officer (Chair) Presiding Judge (or designee) District Attorney Public Defender Sheriff A Chief of Police The head of either the County department of social services, mental health, or alcohol and drug services (as designated by the board of supervisors) Under AB 117, the CCP would develop an implementation plan and the Executive Committee would vote to approve the plan and submit it to the board of supervisors. The plan would be deemed accepted unless the board of supervisors voted via a 4/5 vote to reject the plan and send it back to the CCP. Concerns have been raised regarding why the CAO or board member is not part of the Executive Committee and why a 4/5 vote is required to reject the plan. CSAC’s role in the drafting of this component of AB 117 was as one of several stakeholders involved in the public safety realignment. While most of the county stakeholders maintained general agreement on realignment issues during each phase of negotiations in general, there were disparate opinions in how the planning process should unfold. CSAC felt strongly that the only way realignment will be successful is if the planning effort results in a significant shift away from a predominantly incarceration model and movement to alternatives to incarceration. Therefore, it was critical that the planning process be structured to encourage compromise in the CCP to reach the goals of the community in a manner acceptable to the board of supervisors. The CAO, as you know, must be in a position to remain objective and provide the board of supervisors with unvarnished recommendations on matters that come before them. Having the CAO or a board member as part of the Executive Committee, and therefore casting a vote on the plan to be presented to the board of supervisors, would represent a conflict of interest to the CAO or board member and place them in a position that could compromise their independence. Rather, this approach seemed to capture the best of both worlds – the CAO is part of the planning process and can bring that global vision to that process but is also free to make contrary recommendations to the board of supervisors should they disagree with the ultimate plan adopted. Likewise with a member of the board of supervisors being part of the executive committee. Some have commented that the 4/5 vote requirement to reject the plan submitted by the CCP limits local flexibility and discretion of the board of supervisors. While the dynamics of the planning process will differ from county to county, the goal was to force consensus within the CCP and the planning process and not Page 15 of 286 provide an avenue for a participant to try to push their opinion outside of the CCP with the board of supervisors. A super majority makes an “end run” difficult, but still enables the board to reject the plan if the board disagrees with it. A 4/5 vote requirement is not unusual, but does place a higher level of focus on the planning process. It should be noted, as well, that counsel has opined that meetings of the CCP and the Executive Committee will be subject to the Brown Act and all discussions will be required to be conducted in a public meeting. AB 117 is not a perfect solution but it represents a negotiated agreement that will enable California’s counties to move forward with the dramatic changes necessary to make realignment successful. Clearly the successful implementation of realignment will require a significant paradigm shift in our public safety communities. The successful model will not be an incarceration model, but one that seeks to divert and rehabilitate citizens, returning them to be productive members of our community. Hopefully, the construct of the CCP – that is intended to drive the local public safety community to a consensus about a “different way of doing business” - will ultimately lead to that approach. Page 16 of 286 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:05/23/2018 Subject:AB 109 Annual Report for FY 2016-17 Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE, Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: AB 109 Annual Report Presenter: L. DeLaney & M. Rabinowitz Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 Referral History: The County Administrator’s Office has commissioned the preparation of an AB 109 Annual Report since FY 2014-15. The reports have been prepared by the County’s contracted data collection and evaluation firm, Resource Development Associates (RDA), in collaboration with the County’s Office of Reentry and Justice and all AB 109-funded County departments/agencies/divisions, the Superior Court, and community-based organizations engaged in reentry service provision. Referral Update: The AB 109 Annual Report provides an overview of AB 109-related activities undertaken in Contra Costa County during the fiscal year 2016/17, with a focus on understanding the impact of AB 109-funded County departments, divisions, programs, and contracted service providers. Toward this end, this report describes the volume and type of services provided by all of the County’s AB 109 partners over the course of the year. The FY 2016-17 AB 109 Annual Report is Attachment A. Contra Costa County has responded to AB 109 Public Safety Realignment in a manner that has allowed the County to provide supervision and services to the AB 109 population, while building a collaborative reentry infrastructure to support the reentry population’s successful reintegration into the community. The County has followed best practice models in establishing access to services through the West County Reentry Success Center’s “one-stop” model and the Central & East Reentry Network’s “no wrong door” approach. During the 2016/17 Fiscal Year a number of key changes and investments further refined the County’s approach to AB 109, as well as reentry more generally. These included: Contracting with HealthRIGHT360 to operate the Central-East Reentry Network of Services in order to improve coordination and service delivery; Establishing the Office of Reentry and Justice as a 2.5 year pilot of the County Administrator’s Office to align and advance the County’s public safety realignment, reentry, Page 17 of 286 and justice programs and initiatives; Development of a Pre-release Planning Pilot Program to create a more seamless custody-to-community reentry process; and Increasing investments in housing services and supports to address the rising cost of housing. Note : Regarding the information in the report relative to the number of Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS) DA-initiated revocations (Figure 15, page 19), which was reported to be 368 clients revoked in FY 2016-17, staff are reviewing this number for accuracy, as Probation had reported the total PRCS client population to be 670. This concern was raised by the Chief of Probation upon review of the draft Plan. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 1. ACCEPT the FY 2016/17 AB 109 Annual Report; provide input to staff on any additional information to be included; and 2. RECOMMEND its acceptance by the Board of Supervisors. Fiscal Impact (if any): The contract to prepare the Annual Report was in the amount of $15,000. The contract was funded by the AB 109 allocation to the County Administrator's Office of Reentry and Justice. Attachments Attachment A: FY 2016-17 AB 109 Annual Report Page 18 of 286 Public Safety Realignment in Contra Costa County AB 109 Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2016/17 Attachment A Page 19 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 1 Community Corrections Partnership of Contra Costa County Staff Assigned to CCP Timothy M. Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator Lara DeLaney, Office of Reentry and Justice Acting Director Donte Blue, Office of Reentry and Justice Deputy Director Todd Billeci, Chief Probation Officer, Chair Donna Van Wert, Workforce Development Director David Livingston, Sheriff of Contra Costa County Roosevelt Terry, Community Based Organizations Representative Allwyn Brown, Richmond Police Chief, Rep. of Police Chiefs’ Association Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human Services Director Mark Peterson, District Attorney (res.) Cynthia Belon, Behavioral Health Director Stephen Nash, Superior Court designee David J. Twa, County Administrator Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Fatima Matal Sol, Alcohol and Other Drugs Director Devorah Levine, Victim's Representative Karen Sakata, County Superintendent of Schools Attachment A Page 20 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 2 Table of Contents Introduction to the Report ............................................................................................................................ 6 A Note on Data .................................................................................................................... 6 Realignment in Contra Costa County ............................................................................................................ 8 Legislative Impacts of AB 109 .......................................................................................................... 8 Contra Costa County’s Approach to Public Safety Realignment......................................... 9 County Department, Division, and Program Impacts (FY 16/17) ............................................................... 11 Behavioral Health Services............................................................................................................. 11 Alcohol and Other Drugs Division ..................................................................................... 11 Homeless Program ............................................................................................................ 13 Mental Health Division ..................................................................................................... 14 Public Benefits .................................................................................................................. 14 Health Services: Detention Health Services ................................................................................... 15 District Attorney’s Office ............................................................................................................... 16 Office of the Public Defender ........................................................................................................ 19 Pretrial Services ............................................................................................................................. 22 Probation Department ................................................................................................................... 24 Sheriff’s Office ................................................................................................................................ 27 Workforce Development Board ..................................................................................................... 32 Community Based Service Providers .......................................................................................................... 33 Shared values/approach (EBPs, TIC approach, etc.) ...................................................................... 33 Overview of AB 109 community partnerships ............................................................................... 33 West County Reentry Success Center ............................................................................... 34 Central & East Network Reentry System of Services ........................................................ 35 Attachment A Page 21 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 3 Employment Support and Placement Services ................................................................. 39 Short and Long-Term Housing Access............................................................................... 40 Peer and Mentoring Services ............................................................................................ 42 Legal Services .................................................................................................................... 43 Family Reunification ......................................................................................................... 44 AB 109 Population Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 46 Violations ....................................................................................................................................... 46 New Charges and Convictions........................................................................................................ 47 Looking Ahead ............................................................................................................................................. 48 Attachment A Page 22 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 4 Table of Figures Figure 1: Outpatient Treatment Services .................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2: Residential Detoxification Services .............................................................................................. 12 Figure 3: Residential Treatment Services ................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4: AB 109 individuals provided Homeless Services .......................................................................... 13 Figure 5: Total bed-nights utilized by AB 109 population ........................................................................... 14 Figure 6: Clients referred to, screened for, and received Forensic Mental Health services ...................... 14 Figure 7: Medi-Cal intakes and approvals ................................................................................................... 15 Figure 8: DHS needs assessments and intake screenings for AB 109 inmates ........................................... 15 Figure 9: Types of DHS sick calls for AB 109 inmates .................................................................................. 16 Figure 10: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences, by FY 16/17 quarter ... 17 Figure 11: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences, all FY 16/17 ................ 17 Figure 12: Types of sentences as a percentage of all AB 109 sentences, by FY 16/17 quarter .................. 18 Figure 13: Types of sentences as a percentage of all AB 109 sentences, all FY 16/172 .............................. 18 Figure 14: Types of AB 109 supervision revocations, by FY 16/17 quarter ................................................ 18 Figure 15: Types of supervision revocations as a percentage of all AB 109 revocations, all ...................... 19 Figure 16: Clients referred to Social Worker by PD and community service providers by Social Worker . 20 Figure 17: Number and percentage of clients released on OR, by FY 16/17 quarter ................................. 20 Figure 18: Number and percentage of ACER dispositions, by FY 16/17 quarter ........................................ 21 Figure 19: Clean Slate petitions filed, granted, or denied, by FY 16/17 quarter ........................................ 21 Figure 20: PTS clients assessed for pre-trial risk, by FY quarter 16/17 ....................................................... 22 Figure 21: Assessed pre-trial risk levels, all FY 16/17 ................................................................................. 23 Figure 22: Risk-level distribution of clients starting pre-trial supervision, by quarter ............................... 23 Figure 23: Pre-trial supervision case closures, by quarter .......................................................................... 24 Attachment A Page 23 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 5 Figure 24: Unsuccessful pre-trial supervision case closures, by type, by quarter ...................................... 24 Figure 25: Newly processed AB 109 cases, by classification, by quarter .................................................... 25 Figure 26: Total AB 109 cases under supervision during FY 16/17 ............................................................. 25 Figure 27: Average AB 109 population under County supervision, by classification, by quarter ............... 26 Figure 28: Initial CAIS risk levels, all FY 16/17 ............................................................................................. 26 Figure 29: AB 109 supervision population CAIS-assessed needs, all FY 16/17 ........................................... 27 Figure 30: AB 109 bookings, by type – Martinez Detention Facility ........................................................... 28 Figure 31: AB 109 bookings, by type – West County Detention Facility ..................................................... 28 Figure 32: AB 109 bookings, by type – Marsh Creek Detention Facility ..................................................... 29 Figure 33. Average daily jail population, AB 109 vs. non-AB 109 ............................................................... 29 Figure 34: Average daily AB 109 population – Martinez Detention Facility ............................................... 30 Figure 35: Average daily AB 109 population – West County Detention Facility ......................................... 30 Figure 36: Average daily AB 109 population – Marsh Creek Detention Facility ......................................... 30 Figure 37: Average custodial time served by AB 109 clients, by population type ...................................... 31 Figure 38: PRCS flash incarcerations, by FY 16/17 quarter ......................................................................... 46 Figure 39: Percentage and number of 1170(h) cases revoked in FY 16/17 ................................................ 47 Figure 40: Percentage and number of PRCS cases revoked in FY 16/17 .................................................... 47 Figure 41: AB 109 clients with new charges and/or new criminal convictions during FY 16/17, by AB 109 classification type ................................................................................................................................ 47 Attachment A Page 24 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 6 Introduction to the Report This report provides an overview of AB 109-related activities undertaken in Contra Costa County during the fiscal year 2016/17, with a focus on understanding the impact of AB 109-funded County departments, divisions, programs, and contracted service providers. Toward this end, this report describes the volume and type of services provided by all of the County’s AB 109 partners over the course of the year. As context for these activities, the report begins with an overview of the legislative impact of AB 109 on California counties and a discussion of Contra Costa County’s response to Public Safety Realignment. This is followed by an in-depth look at the AB 109-related supervision and services provided by each of Contra Costa County’s AB 109-funded departments, divisions, and programs, as well as the cross-departmental Pre-trial Services program. 1 The County departments, divisions, and programs included in this report, listed in alphabetical order, are: Behavioral Health Services Heath Services: Detention Health Services District Attorney’s Office Office of the Public Defender Pre-trial Services Probation Department Sheriff’s Office Workforce Development Board After summarizing the implementation and impact of AB 109 across County departments, divisions, and programs, this report describes the services provided by AB 109-contracted community based organizations. Finally this report concludes with an overview of AB 109 population outcomes and a discussion of the County’s AB 109 priorities moving forward. A Note on Data The report development team worked with each County AB 109-funded department, division, and program, as well as 11 community-based organizations (“CBOs”) contracted to provide AB 109 services, to obtain the data necessary for the following report. Because data were collected across a variety of agencies that track AB 109 client measures differently, we caution against making direct comparisons from figures across agency sections. Moreover, because each agency has a separate data system and tracks AB 109 client data disparately, some measures such as the percentage of the AB 109 population 1 Contra Costa County also provides $200,405 in AB 109 funding to the County Superior Court to support courtroom operations. This funding pays for two courtroom clerks to expedite case file processing and data entry. Attachment A Page 25 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 7 under supervision with new criminal charges and/or convictions during FY 16/17 could not be calculated without tracking individuals across departments, divisions, and programs. Attachment A Page 26 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 8 Realignment in Contra Costa County Legislative Impacts of AB 109 Largely a response to prison overcrowding in California, the Public Safety Realignment Act (Assembly Bill 109 (“AB 109”)) was signed into law in 2011, taking effect on October 1, 2011. AB 109 transferred the responsibility of supervising specific lower-level incarcerated individuals and parolees from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to counties, realigning three major areas of the criminal justice system. Specifically, AB 109: Transferred the location of incarceration for individuals incarcerated for lower-level offenses (specified non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders) from state prison to local county jail and provided for an expanded role for post-release supervision for these individuals; Transferred the responsibility for post-release supervision of individuals incarcerated for lower- level offenses (those released from prison after having served a sentence for a non-violent, non- serious, and non-sex offense) from the state to the county level by creating a new category of supervision called Post-Release Community Supervision (“PRCS”); Shifted the responsibility for processing certain parole revocations from the state Parole Board to the local court system; and Shifted the responsibility for housing revoked supervision clients affected by the above changes from CDCR to county detention facilities. There are three new populations for which the County is now responsible for housing and supervising, all classified under AB 109. These populations include: Post-Release Community Supervisees: County Probation Departments now supervise a specified population of incarcerated individuals discharging from prison whose commitment offense was non-violent and non-serious. Parolees: Parolees – excluding those serving life terms – who violate the terms of their parole serve any detention sanction in the local jail rather than state prison. In addition, as of July 1, 2013 local courts are now responsible for parole revocation hearings for parolees who violate the terms of their parole, rather than the state Parole Board. 1170(h) Sentenced defendants: Individuals convicted of non-violent or non-serious felonies serve their sentence under the jurisdiction of the county instead of state prison. Sentences are now Attachment A Page 27 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 9 served either in county jail, on felony probation or on a split sentence (where part of the term is served in jail and part under supervision by the county Probation Department). In addition to transferring the responsibility of housing and supervising these populations from the state to the County, AB 109 also required that the County use AB 109 funding towards building partnerships with local health and social service agencies and community based services to provide supportive services designed to facilitate the successful reentry and reintegration of AB 109 individuals into the community and reduce the likelihood that they would recidivate. Contra Costa County’s Approach to Public Safety Realignment After the enactment of AB 109, the Executive Committee of Contra Costa County’s Community Corrections Partnership (“CCP”) developed an AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Implementation Plan approved by the County’s Board of Supervisors. During the first two years of Public Safety Realignment, the County focused on absorbing the impacts of AB 109 across County departments, divisions, and programs using data to inform decision making around how best to prepare for housing and supervising the AB 109 population. During this time Contra Costa County also established an AB 109 Operational Plan and worked towards developing a coordinated reentry infrastructure, emphasizing the use of evidence based practices (“EBPs”) for serving the AB 109 reentry population. In the years since then, Contra Costa County’s approach to AB 109 implementation has largely centered on developing formalized partnerships between different law enforcement agencies, as well as partnerships between law enforcement agencies and health or social service agencies, such as Behavioral Health Services (“BHS”) and AB 109-contracted community-based organizations (“CBOs”). For instance, the Sheriff’s Department and Probation have increased coordination with each other so that Deputy Probation Officers (“DPOs”) have greater access to County jails than they did prior to AB 109. Probation has also increased communication and collaboration with BHS and AB 109-contracted CBOs resulting in a greater number of referrals to reentry support services that are in place to help returning citizens successfully reintegrate into the community. During the 2016/17 Fiscal Year a number of key changes and investments further refined the County’s approach to AB 109, as well as reentry more generally. These included: Contracting with HealthRIGHT360 to operate the Central-East Reentry Network of Services in order to improve coordination and service delivery; Establishing the Office of Reentry and Justice as a 2.5 year pilot of the County Administrator’s Office to align and advance the County’s public safety realignment, reentry, and justice programs and initiatives; Development of a Pre-release Planning Pilot Program to create a more seamless custody-to- community reentry process; and Increasing investments in housing services and supports to address the rising cost of housing. Attachment A Page 28 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 10 RDA utilized the annual report template developed previously to compile the following FY 2016/17 AB 109 Annual Report. Attachment A Page 29 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 11 County Department, Division, and Program Impacts (FY 16/17 ) Public Safety Realignment shifted the responsibility of housing and supervising certain individuals incarcerated for lower-level offenses from the state to the County, and also required that the County use AB 109 funding towards building partnerships between County departments, divisions, and programs to provide coordinated and evidence-based supervision of, and services for, the AB 109 reentry population. The sections below summarize how AB 109 has impacted County departments, divisions, and programs by highlighting the volume and types of supervision and services provided to the AB 109 population across the County. Behavioral Health Services Table 1: Funding Allocation for BHS Program Expenditure FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Staff $ 1,011,070 $ 1,092,651 Operating $ 903,646 $ 1,150,781 Total $ 1,914,716 $ 2,243,433 The BHS Division combines Alcohol and Other Drugs Services (“AODS”), the Homeless Program, Forensic Mental Health Services, and Public Benefits into an integrated system of care. BHS partners with clients, families, and community-based organizations to provide services to the AB 109 population. While BHS provided services for the reentry population prior to the start of AB 109, Realignment resulted in an increased focus on and funding for serving these clients. The sections below demonstrate the number of AB 109 individuals receiving services from each department, division, and program over the course of the 2016/17 fiscal year. Alcohol and Other Drugs Division The AODS division of BHS operates a community-based continuum of substance abuse treatment services to meet the level of care needs for each AB 109 client referred. As shown in Figure 1, AODS provided outpatient services to an increasing number of AB 109 clients throughout the first three quarters of FY 16/17. During the entire FY, 59 clients were admitted to outpatient treatment and 12 successfully completed outpatient treatment services. Attachment A Page 30 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 12 Figure 1: Outpatient Treatment Services For AB 109 clients in need of acute withdrawal services, AODS provides residential detoxification treatment. During FY 16/17. AODS providers admitted 7 AB 109 clients to residential detox. As shown in Figure 2, 3 clients successfully completed residential detox during that year. Figure 2: Residential Detoxification Services AODS also provides residential substance abuse treatment to clients on AB 109 supervision. As shown in Figure 3, AODS provided residential treatment services to an increasing number of AB 109 clients for the first three quarters of the year. During FY 16/17 the County admitted 84 AB 109 clients to residential treatment, and 34 clients successfully completed residential services. Additionally, the number of clients completing services increased in the fourth quarter . 18 26 31 20 12 17 22 8 1 1 3 7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsTotal AB 109 Clients Receiving Services New Admissions Successful Completions Source: BHS 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 6000 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsTotal Receiving Services New Admissions Successful Completions Source: BHS Attachment A Page 31 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 13 Figure 3: Residential Treatment Services Homeless Program In FY 16/17, the County’s Homeless Program2 served 15 AB 109 individuals in the first quarter, 10 in the second, 9 in the third, and 10 in the fourth, as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4: AB 109 individuals provided Homeless Services The total number of bed-nights utilized by the AB 109 population are provided in Figure 5 below, which shows 1,615 bed-nights were utilized both in and out of the county during the fiscal year. 2 Although the County’s Homeless Program is listed in the Behavioral Health Services section of this report, please note that Homeless Services are actually provided through the Homeless Program’s association with the Health, Housing, and Homeless Services Division. 30 30 41 35 18 21 27 18939 13 0 10 20 30 40 50 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsTotal Receiving Services New Admissions Successful Completions 15 10 9 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsSource: Health Services –Health, Housing, and Homeless Service Division Attachment A Page 32 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 14 Figure 5: Total bed-nights utilized by AB 109 population Mental Health Division Forensics Mental Health collaborates with Probation to support successful community reintegration of individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance related disorders. Services include assessment, groups and community case management. As indicated in Figure 6, Probation referred 189 AB 109 clients to Fornesic Mental Health services, of whom 116 received mental health screenings, and from which 78 opened services. Figure 6: Clients referred to, screened for, and received Forensic Mental Health services Public Benefits BHS also assists AB 109 clients with applying for public benefits, including Medi-Cal, General Assistance, CalFresh, and Social Security Disability Income/Supplemental Security Income (“SSDI/SSI”). Figure 7 displays the number of AB 109 clients assisted with applications for Medi-Cal in FY 16-17, and the number of applications approved by the State. 416 441 391 367 0 250 500 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of bed-nightsOutside County West Central East 67 40 44 38 36 28 29 23262321 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsService Referrals Screenings Services Opened Attachment A Page 33 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 15 Figure 7: Medi-Cal intakes and approvals In contrast, no data was available on whether AB 109 clients were assessed for or enrolled in other benefits, such as General Assistance, CalFresh, and SSDI/SSI benefit applications than Medi-Cal applications. Given that such data was available in prior years, it is not clear why BHS was unable to provide it for this year. Health Services: Detention Health Services Table 2: Budget Allocation for DHS Program Expenditure FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Staff $ 1,055,562 $ 1,055,562 Total $ 1,055,562 $ 1,055,562 Contra Costa County’s Detention Health Services Department (“DHS”) provides health care to all incarcerated individuals – including AB 109 individuals – housed within the County. DHS provides in- custody access to nurses, doctors, dentists, mental health clinicians, and psychiatrists who provide medical and mental health care for all AB 109 individuals in custody. The County’s detention facilities provide basic health screenings to all new individuals in custody, including AB 109 individuals. Figure 8 displays the number of AB 109 individuals who were provided intakes health screening across each quarter of FY 16/17. Figure 8: DHS needs assessments and intake screenings for AB 109 inmates 20 15 19 13 20 15 19 13 0 5 10 15 20 25 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsIntakes Approvals 551 434 399 236 0 250 500 750 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsIntake Screenings Source: DHS Attachment A Page 34 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 16 In addition to these screenings, DHS provides an array of health-related services to all individuals incarcerated in the County’s detention facilities, including physical, behavioral, and dental care. Figure 9 displays the distribution of sick calls (e.g., in-person appointments) provided for AB 109 individuals in FY 16/17. Figure 9: Types of DHS sick calls for AB 109 inmates District Attorney’s Office Table 3: Budget Allocation for the DA FY 16/17 Program Expenditure Current FY 16/17 Salaries & Benefits: Victim Witness Program $ 87,434 Salaries & Benefits: Arraignment Program $ 592,516 Salaries & Benefits: Reentry/DV Program $ 606,169 Salaries & Benefits: ACER Clerk $ 89,624 Salaries & Benefits-Add (1) Gen’l Clerk $68,059 Ceasefire Coordinator Program $110,000 Operating Costs $ 82,995 Total $ 1,636,797 Table 4: Budget Allocation for the DA FY 15/16 Program Expenditure FY 15/16 Salaries & Benefits: $ 1,122,727 Operating Costs $ 134,189 Total $ 1,256,916 297 247 178 265 244 220 140 189 59 51 37 68 86 77 52 89 226 216 164 263 71 73 64 89 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 Inmate Sick CallsMental Health RN Mental Health Clinician Psychiatrist Dental MD Nursing Attachment A Page 35 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 17 The District Attorney’s Office (“DA”) functions to protect the community by prosecuting crimes and recommending sentences intended to increase public safety. Certain felony charges, if convicted, result in AB 109 sentences. As shown in both Figure 10 and Figure 11 below, only 148 of all convicted felonies in the County in FY 16/17 —fewer than 10% overall—resulted in AB 109 sentences. Figure 10: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences, by FY 16/17 quarter Figure 11: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences, all FY 16/17 The Court may sentence a convicted AB 109 individual to either local custody or a split sentence, which entails local incarceration followed by Probation supervision. Increasing evidence shows that split sentences lead to better outcomes, and the County’s District Attorney has been a statewide leading advocate for split sentences. As shown in both Figure 12 and Figure 13, 100% of AB 109 sentences in the County were a combination of custody and supervision. Sentences labeled “Supervision” are instances where individuals were sentenced to custody and supervision as well; in these instances, individuals were released upon sentencing after receiving credit for time served prior to their sentence. 4%4%9%6% 33 31 48 36 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage of Sentences% Other % AB 109 # AB 109 Source: DA AB 109 sentences 6 6%Other felony sentences 94 94% Attachment A Page 36 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 18 Figure 12: Types of sentences as a percentage of all AB 109 sentences, by FY 16/17 quarter3 Figure 13: Types of sentences as a percentage of all AB 109 sentences, all FY 16/173 Additionally, the DA can initiate supervision revocations for probation and parole violations. Figure 14 and Figure 15 illustrate the number of AB 109 supervision revocations in FY 16/17, by AB 109 classification types. Figure 14: Types of AB 109 supervision revocations, by FY 16/17 quarter 3 Only includes new 1170(h) sentences. 100%100%100%100% 33 31 48 36 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage of Sentences% Super vision % Split % Jail Only # AB 109 Split Sentences, 148, 100% Jail Only, 0, 0% Supervision Only, 0, 0% 18 24 28 38 81 110 84 93 27 34 36 43 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 1170(h)PRCS Parole Attachment A Page 37 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 19 Figure 15: Types of supervision revocations as a percentage of all AB 109 revocations, all FY 16/17 Office of the Public Defender Table 5: Budget Allocation for the PD FY 16/17 Program Expenditure Current FY Salaries & Benefits: Clean Slate/ Client Support $ 316,930 Salaries & Benefits: ACER Program $ 697,958 Salaries & Benefits: Reentry Coordinator $ 257,399 Salaries & Benefits: Failure to Appear Program $ 151,080 Total $ 1,423,367 Table 6: Budget Allocation for the PD FY 15/16 Program Expenditure FY 15/16 Salaries & Benefits $ 1,166,572 Total $ 1,166,572 The main role of the Public Defender within AB 109 implementation is to provide legal representation, assistance, and services for indigent persons accused of crimes in the County. Before the adjudication process begins, the County’s AB 109 funds enable the Office of the Public Defender to provide paralegal and attorney staffing for the Arraignment Court Early Representation (“ACER”), the Pre-trial Services (“PTS”) programs, and the Early Representation Program. Both the ACER and PTS programs are designed to reduce the County’s custodial populations; by ensuring the presence of attorneys at defendants’ initial court appearances, ACER is intended to increase the likelihood that appropriate defendants will be released on their own recognizance (“OR”) for the duration of the court process and allow for the expedited resolution of cases. PTS supports reduced Pre-trial detention by providing judges with greater information with which to make bail and Pre-trial detention decisions, and by providing Pre-trial supervision of individuals who are deemed appropriate for release. The Early Representation Program is designed to lower the Failure to Appear (FTA) rate by providing early representation services to those who receive misdemeanor citations from the Antioch Police Department. County AB 109 funds also support a social worker who provides social service assessments and referrals for clients needing additional support and prepares social history reports for court proceedings. The Office 1170(h), 108, 17% PRCS, 368, 60% Parole, 140, 23% Attachment A Page 38 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 20 also provides a suite of post-conviction Clean Slate services including advocacy for expungement and record sealing, obtainment of certificates of rehabilitation, motion for early termination, and petitions for factual innocence. During FY 16/17, the social worker in the Office of the Public Defender assessed 133 defendants for social service needs and referred 132 of these individuals to community-based services intended to help address identified needs. Figure 16: Clients referred to Social Worker by PD and community service providers by Social Worker The ACER collaboration between the Office of the Public Defender and the District Attorney’s Office has resulted in thousands of defendants receiving representation at arraignment and does appear to facilitate both Pre-trial releases and early case resolution. As Figure 17 shows, more than 5,284 defendants were represented at arraignment though the ACER program; of these between approximately 20% and 24% were released on their own recognizance. Figure 17: Number and percentage of clients released on OR, by FY 16/17 quarter 35 38 30 30 45 50 34 343538 29 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of ClientsAssessed by Social Worker Referred to Social Worker Referred to community services Source: PD 1423 1079 1314 1468 340 219 261 323 24% 20%20%22% 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of CasesDefendents represented at arraignment ACER defendents released on OR % ACER OR releases Attachment A Page 39 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 21 A smaller but still sizeable percentage of criminal cases were also disposed though ACER. Across the year, 138 cases were disposed at arraignment, comprising between 2% and 4% of all cases that went through the ACER process.4 Figure 18: Number and percentage of ACER dispositions, by FY 16/17 quarter In addition to these services, the Office of the Public Defender dedicated significant efforts to Clean State services. As Figure 19 shows, the Office of the Public Defender filed 1,740 Clean Slate petitions. Over the same period of time, 1,465 Clean Slate petitions were granted and 83 were denied5. (Due to time lags between the filing of petitions and the review thereof, the number of petitions ruled on does not align with the number filed.) Figure 19: Clean Slate petitions filed, granted, or denied, by FY 16/17 quarter 4 This includes only felony cases resolved at arraignment and does not include misdemeanor or probation violations resolved by the ACER attorneys. 5 This estimate only includes expungement dismissal petitions and not Proposition 47 Felonies. 31 19 56 32 2% 2% 4% 2% 0 50 100 150 200 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of CasesACER dispositions % of cases disposed through ACER 372 147 91 1130 146 133 134 1052 33 28 19 3 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of petitionsPetitions filed Petitions granted Petitions denied Attachment A Page 40 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 22 Pre-trial Services Table 7: Budget Allocation for PTS FY 16/17 Program Expenditure FY 16/17 Salaries & Benefits $ 866, 863 Operating Costs $75, 497 Total $ 942, 360 Table 8: Budget Allocation for PTS FY 16/17 Program Expenditure FY 15/16 Salaries & Benefits: Probation $ 678,056 Salaries & Benefits: Public Defender $ 149,182 Operating Costs $ 10,197 Total $ 837,435 PTS is a collaboration between the Office of the Public Defender, the District Attorney, Sheriff’s Office, Probation, and the Court that is aimed at reducing the pre-trial custody population. Paralegals screen all eligible individuals scheduled for arraignment, and qualifying clients are then assessed for risk utilizing a validated assessment tool. The numbers of PTS clients assessed for risk, and then released pre-trial following the assessment are shown below in Figure 20. Figure 20: PTS clients assessed for pre-trial risk, by FY quarter 16/17 There are five categories of risk: low, below average, average, above average, and high, although some clients are screened for Pre-trial assessment but do not receive a score due to a lack of necessary information available at the time of assessment. Figure 21 displays the distribution of risk levels in FY 16/17, showing that most of clients scored above average during this period. Clients assessed as average or above average risk were more likely to be released onto pre-trial supervision than clients who were average risk and below. 229 221 242 284 70 63 52 56 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of ClientsClients receiving pretrial risk assessment Clients released following assessment Attachment A Page 41 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 23 Figure 21: Assessed pre-trial risk levels, all FY 16/17 Figure 22 demonstrates that throughout FY 16/17, the Court did release a higher proportion of above average risk clients, with the exception of quarter 3 when a higher proportion of average risk clients were released. Figure 22: Risk-level distribution of clients starting pre-trial supervision, by quarter As Figure 23 shows, among all individuals under pre-trial supervision whose case closed during FY 16/17, most successfully closed their cases, meaning that cilents successfully appeared at their court dates and were not charged with any new offense while going through the court process. Because going through the court process can take months or years, the number of individuals whose pre-trial supervision cases closed is smaller than the number of inidividuals who started pre-trial supervision over the year. 55 140 179 234 22 021 51 59 84 15 0 0 100 200 300 Low Below average Average Above average High n/aNumber of ClientsClients assessed in risk category Clients starting pretrial supervision Source: Probation 7%8% 2% 16% 21%24%21%18%20% 28% 36% 20% 48% 38%34%35% 4%2% 9%11% 0%0%0%0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage of clientsLow Risk Below Average Risk Average Risk Above Average Risk High Risk n/a Attachment A Page 42 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 24 Figure 23: Pre-trial supervision case closures, by quarter Despite overall success of PTS clients, a sizaeble minorty of clients do not successfully complete the program. As Figure 24 shows, this is usually due to a client’s failure to appear at his/her court date, although this is sometimes due to a client being charged with a new criminal offense or being returned to custody for a technical violation of the terms of pre-trial supervision. Figure 24: Unsuccessful pre-trial supervision case closures, by type, by quarter Probation Department Table 9: Budget Allocation for Probation Program Expenditure FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Salaries & Benefits $ 2,256,596 $ 2, 489, 970 Operating Costs $ 269,934 $ 294, 173 Total $ 2,526,531 $ 2,784,143 The Probation Department’s primary role in AB 109 is to supervise and support the reentry of AB 109 clients, including PRCS and 1170(h) individuals with mandatory supervision as part of their sentences, upon their return from custody to the community. As part of this process, AB 109 DPOs assess their clients 9 29 30 319 15 28 13 0 20 40 60 80 100 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of case closuresUnsuccessful Successful 1 8 18 9 2 4 3 3 3 7 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of case closuresTechnical violation New offense Failure to appear Attachment A Page 43 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 25 for both criminogenic risk factors and for general reentry needs, and then refer interested clients to a range of supportive services. There were a total of 374 AB 109 Supervision cases during FY 16/17. Between new supervision cases and continuing supervision cases, there were 1,153 AB 109 cases supervised by the County Probation Department during the same time period. As Figure 25 and Figure 26 show, PRCS cases continue to be a substantial proportion of both new supervises and the overall AB 109 probation supervision population, in contrast to early state projections that estimated a reduction in new PRCS cases overtime. Figure 25: Newly processed AB 109 cases, by classification, by quarter Figure 26: Total AB 109 cases under supervision during FY 16/17 PRCS clients also continue to make up a substantial proportion of the average daily number of AB 109 clients under County supervision, as demonstrated in Figure 27. 58 63 56 53 30 36 46 32 0 20 40 60 80 100 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsPRCS 1170(h) PRCS 670 58% 1170(h) 483 42% Attachment A Page 44 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 26 Figure 27: Average AB 109 population under County supervision, by classification, by quarter A DPO conducts an interview and uses the Correctional Assessment and Intervention System (“CAIS”) risk assessment tool, an evidence based risk assessment tool used to determine each client’s risk for recidivism and associated risk factors, to determine each AB 109 client’s appropriate level of supervision intensity upon entering County supervision. Figure 28 indicates the distribution of recidivism risk for all AB 109 clients given an initial CAIS risk assessment during FY 16/17. Figure 28: Initial CAIS risk levels, all FY 16/17 The majority of AB 109 Probation clients were assessed to have a variety of overlapping needs that are associated with a risk for future involvement in criminal activities. As shown in Figure 29, the most common risk factor among AB 109 Probation clients is alcohol and/or drug use, followed closely by criminal orientation. 329 352 371 376 422 421 457 416 0 100 200 300 400 500 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average DailyPopulation1170(h) PRCS High 166 57% Moderate 105 36% Low 21 7% Attachment A Page 45 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 27 Figure 29: AB 109 supervision population CAIS-assessed needs, all FY 16/17 Sheriff’s Office Table 10: Sheriff’s Office Budget Allocation FY 16/17 Program Expenditure FY 16/17 Salaries & Benefits $ 5,983,717 Inmate Food/Clothing/Household Exp $ 456, 250 Monitoring Costs $ 55, 000 IT Support $ 40, 000 Vehicle Maintenance/ Depreciation - Behavioral Health Court Operating Costs $ 80, 500 Transport Bus Maintenance - “Jail to Community” Program $ 200, 000 Inmate Welfare fund re: FCC Ruling $ 731, 000 WCDF Capital Projects - Total $ 7,546,467 Table 11. Sheriff’s Office Budget Allocation FY 15/16 Program Expenditure FY 15/16 Staffing $ 5,558,565 Operating Costs $ 833,507 Total $ 6,392,072 The Sheriff’s Office primary role in AB 109 implementation is to provide safe and secure housing for all incarcerated individuals, including AB 109 individuals. The Sheriff’s Office operates the County’s three detention facilities—Marsh Creek Detention Facility (“MCDF”), West County Detention Facility (“WCDF”), and Martinez Detention Facility (“MDF”). 61% 58% 50% 38% 46% 41% 11% 6% 5% 3% 5% 3% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70% Alcohol and/or Drug Abuse Criminal Orientation Emotional Factors Interpersonal Manipulation Vocational Skills Family History Social Inadequacy Relationships Isolated Situational Basic Needs Abuse/Neglect and Trauma Physical Safety Attachment A Page 46 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 28 Over the course of FY 16/17, there were 1,345 AB 109-related bookings or commitments into the County’s three detention facilities. Figure 30 - Figure 326 show the number of AB 109 bookings into each County detention facility during each quarter of the year, with a breakdown of AB 109 population types. As these figures demonstrate, Parolees make up most AB 109 bookings across the County’s detention facilities. Figure 30: AB 109 bookings, by type – Martinez Detention Facility Figure 31: AB 109 bookings, by type – West County Detention Facility 6 One parolee may be counted in multiple categories. Parole Commitment numbers may be duplicated in Parole Hold numbers. This can be seen in MCDF Q3. An inmate was booked on a Parole Hold during Q3 and was t hen sentenced on that Parole Hold. The data reads 1 Parole Hold and 1 Parole Commitment however it is the same inmate. The majority of Parole Commitments are counted as such in the Parole Hold numbers. 7 4 6 11 48 52 60 42 7 16 21 14 73 80 80 75 17 14 11 10 0 25 50 75 100 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of bookingsPRCS Flash Incarcerations PRCS Revocations Parole Commitments Parole Holds 1170(h) Commitments Source: Sheriff 7 9 9 9 52 65 65 65 12 13 13 10 67 64 74 69 19 15 17 21 0 25 50 75 100 125 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of bookingsPRCS Flash Incarcerations PRCS Revocations Parole Commitments Parole Holds 1170(h) Commitments Attachment A Page 47 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 29 Figure 32: AB 109 bookings, by type – Marsh Creek Detention Facility Despite the relative high total number of AB 109 bookings and commitments that occurred over the year, AB 109 individuals in custody still make up a very small percentage of the County’s average daily incarceration population. As demonstrated in population. Figure 33, over the course of the year, AB 109 individuals comprised 5% of the County’s average daily custodial population. Figure 33. Average daily jail population, AB 109 vs. non-AB 109 Figure 34 through Figure 36 show the average percentage of AB 109 individuals in each of the County’s detention facilities, as well as the number of AB 109 individuals in custody who are serving new 1170(h) sentences versus parole holds or commitment. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 000 1 000 1 0 3 8 6 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of bookingsPRCS Flash Incarcerations PRCS Revocations Parole Commitments Parole Holds 1170(h) commitments Non-AB 109 95% AB 109 5% Attachment A Page 48 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 30 Figure 34: Average daily AB 109 population – Martinez Detention Facility Figure 35: Average daily AB 109 population – West County Detention Facility Figure 36: Average daily AB 109 population – Marsh Creek Detention Facility While parolees make up a larger percentage of the AB 109 incarcerated population, on average 1170(h) individuals spend much longer time in custody than the parole population (who can be committed to County jail for up to six months for a parole violation). Notably, despite the fact that AB 109 allows for much longer sentences in local custody than was previously possible, AB 109 individuals serve, on average, much less than a year in jail. 23 20 20 22 12 17 9 10 6% 7%7% 6% 0 10 20 30 40 50 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average daily population1170(h) commitments Parole holds & commitments AB 109 % of total population 14 15 14 19 3 24 26 6 5%5%5% 6% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average daily population1170(h) commitments Parole holds & commitments AB 109 % of total population 0 0 1 1 10 16 13 10 20% 28% 22% 18% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average daily population1170(h) commitments Parole holds & commitments AB 109 % of total population Attachment A Page 49 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 31 155 136 112 162 28 30 36 36291816 23 0 50 100 150 200 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 1170(h) Parole (sentenced) Parole (holds/ dropped) Figure 37: Average custodial time served by AB 109 clients, by population type7 7 Quarterly averages are based on first day of custodial sentence. In FY 16/17 Q3 two of 22 individuals served/are serving sentences over 1,000 days, inflating that quarter’s average. Additionally, several individuals on 3056 holds have other charges preventing parole or the courts from dropping their hold. This makes each quarter’s average time served for 3056 holds/dropped appear larger than is typical. Attachment A Page 50 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 32 Workforce Development Board Table 12: Budget Allocation for the WDB Program Expenditure FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Salaries & Benefits $ 94,990 $ 161,639 Overhead Costs $ 105,010 $ 38,361 Total $ 200,000 $ 200,000 The role of the Workforce Development Board (“WDB”) in Contra Costa County is to strengthen local workforce development efforts by bringing together leaders from public, private, and non-profit sectors to align a variety of resources and organizations to help meet the needs of businesses and job seekers. To date, the WDB’s primary role in AB 109 implementation has been to broker opportunities for the AB 109 reentry population and to coordinate with AB 109 partners to ensure they are aware of and are able to effectively access services and resources available for the AB 109 reentry population. To that end the WDB has identified 207 employer partnerships that are appropriate for the AB 109 population; they have also conducted a number of on-site recruitments and career fairs that AB 109 reentry clients, as well as other reentry individuals, can attend. The WDB has also met with Goodwill and Rubicon to create a process for AB 109 participants to co-enroll in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). The WDB hosted its first Fair Chance Employer Summit in collaboration with the Office of Reentry & Justice in FY 16/17. The summit brought together employers and community partners to expand employment opportunities for previously incarcerated individuals. During the summit, 18 companies signed a Fair Chance Business Pledge. Unfortunately, the WDB does not currently track the number of AB 109 clients who have utilized their services. Attachment A Page 51 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 33 Community Based Service Providers Shared values/approach (EBPs, TIC approach, etc.) Contra Costa County’s reentry approach is centered on developing an integrated and supportive service system comprised of AB 109-contracted community-based organizations, public agencies, and the broader community. The system serves as a collaborative partnership that aids individuals, families, and their support system in achieving successful reentry and reintegration back into the community. AB 109- contracted CBOs play a large role in the reentry infrastructure, providing a range of services from housing assistance and employment services to mentorship and family reunification. When working successfully, the County’s reentry services are part of a continuum that begins at the point an individual enters the justice system and continues through successful reintegration. In the County’s 2011 Reentry Plan, County and community stakeholders agreed to the following set of principles: The County seeks to provide increased awareness about the value of formerly incarcerated individuals and their loved ones to their communities. Individuals are more likely to experience success when they are part of a supportive, integrated system. Reentry and reintegration begin while the individual is incarcerated. While leaving room for innovation, evidence-based practices are utilized when developing programs and policies. Collaboration, coordination, information, and communication are critical to the success and sustainability of Contra Costa County’s reentry infrastructure. The good of the community comes before one's self and/or organizational interests. While these principles have not been explicitly tied to AB 109, they are nonetheless founding principles upon which much of the County’s AB 109 work has been built. Overview of AB 109 community partnerships Table 13: Contracted Allocations Service FY 15/16 Current FY West County Reentry Success Center $ 433,000 $ 503,943 Central & East Network $ 800,000 $ 820,000 Employment Support and Placement $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Short and Long-Term Housing Access $ 500,000 $ 1,030,000 Peer and Mentoring $ 110,000 $ 110,000 Legal $ 80,000 $ 150,000 Family Reunification $ 90,000 $ 90,000 Total $ 4,013,000 $ 4, 703,943 Attachment A Page 52 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 34 In FY 14/15, Contra Costa County launched the Central & East Network Reentry System of Services (Network) for Returning Citizens to help connect AB 109 clients to a diverse array of AB 109-contracted and County reentry support providers. In FY 15/16, the County established the Reentry Success Center (Center) in West County, a “one-stop” center that helps link reentry clients to both County and community-based services. Both the Center and the Network link AB 109 individuals to organizations that provide services within the categories recommended by the Community Advisory Board (CAB): Employment Support and Placement Services, Short and Long-Term Housing Access, Peer and Mentoring Services, Legal Services, and Family Reunification Services. Table 13 above lists the CCP-approved budget recommendations made by the CAB. The following sections illustrate the budget allocations for each service category, as well as the program- specific outcomes achieved by the community-based organizations. West County Reentry Success Center Table 14: Budget Allocation for “Center” FY 16/17 Program Expenditure FY 16/17 Staff $ 243,411 Consultants and Subcontractors $ 50,000 Occupancy $ 107, 554 Office and Communications $ 43, 598 Transportation & Travel $ 2, 100 Indirect $ 57, 480 Total $ 503,943 Table 15: Budget Allocation for Reentry Success Center FY 15/16 Program Expenditure FY 15/16 Total $ 433,000 The West County Reentry Success Center (Reentry Success Center) serves as a central hub that provides a place for learning, capacity building, and access to information and services for justice involved individuals who are reentering the community. The mission of the Reentry Success Center is to gather effective resources into one accessible and welcoming hub of integrated services (e.g., family reunification, financial responsibility, education, employment, health and wellness, housing, legal aid, and pub benefits) in order to foster healing, justice, safety, and lifelong liberty for the people of Contra Costa County.8 The Reentry Success Center opened doors to new members in November of 2015, and has developed deep partnerships with the Office of the Public Defender, Men and Women of Purpose, Bay 8 Further The Work: Strengthening Nonprofits and their Partners. (2014). A Design and Implementation Plan for a West County Reentry Resource Center. Retrieved January 4, 2017 from http://www.co.contra- costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/30064 Attachment A Page 53 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 35 Area Legal Aid, the African American Health Conductors, and Rubicon since then in an effort to connect the reentry population to experts who can help provide them with critical reentry services. The Reentry Success Center dedicated significant time and resources in FY 15/16 implementing a Salesforce database and training partners to successfully utilize the software. The database tracks all referrals, including those made by Probation, as well as program specific outcomes measures (e.g., retrieving identification card, completing homeless court, successfully entering employment services), in order to allow partners to easily view who each client is working with. This has helped to reduce referrals to redundant services, and also allowed for less room for members to fall through the cracks without receiving the necessary support for successful reentry. Central & East Network Reentry System of Services Table 16: Budget Allocation for “Network” Program Expenditure FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Total $ 800,000 $ 820,000 Similar to the West County Reentry Resource Center, the Central & East Network Reentry System of Services (“the Network”) functions to connect AB 109 clients in Central and East County to a diverse array of AB 109-contracted reentry support providers. Dubbed the “No Wrong Door” (NWD) Network, the foundational element of the Network is that there are multiple entry points and varied opportunities for engagement made available to returning citizens seeking reentry services During FY 15/16 the Network was managed by an independent contractor, and staffed by three contracted Field Operation Coordinators who served to connect members of the AB 109 reentry population to AB 109-contracted CBOs. The County experienced some challenges with this model, and contracted a single organization – HealthRight360, in November 2016. Fast Eddie’s Automotive Fast Eddie’s provides workforce development skills and automotive technical training for AB 109 individuals referred to the program. They have contracted with the County to provide employment support and employment placement opportunities for AB 109 clients. Fast Eddie’s received $65,000 amount out of the Network’s $820,000 to provide these services. Table 17: Fast Eddie’s: Program-Specific Outcomes Fast Eddie’s Number of AB 109 Clients Number of Other Clients Total Number of Clients Referred to services 16 41 57 Enrolled in services 6 11 17 Provided Service Provision Plan 10 13 23 Participated in 1 module 10 11 17 Attachment A Page 54 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 36 Participated in 2 modules 10 11 17 Participated in 3 modules 4 11 15 Participated in 0 modules 0 2 2 Completed 1 module 6 10 16 Completed 2 modules 6 9 15 Completed 3 modules 4 9 13 Completed Auto Training Program 4 4 Completions Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal involvement 1 1 2 Total participants no longer in program due to lack of engagement 2 1 3 Other reasons: Needs could not be met 0 2 2 Death 0 1 1 Mz. Shirliz Transitional Mz. Shirliz Transitional provides clean and sober transitional housing and support services to formerly incarcerated individuals. Support services include mentoring, weekly house meetings, and connections to local organizations for other needed services. Clients are required to attend NA/AA meetings through NA and AA a minimum of 3 times per week. Most clients arrive at Mz. Shirliz employed or working with partner agencies to find employment. Mz. Shirliz received $150,000 out of the Network’s $820,000 budget to provide these services. Table 18: Mz. Shirliz Transitional: Program-Specific Outcomes Mz. Shirliz Transitional Number of AB 109 Clients Number of Other Clients Total Number of Clients Referred to services 25 16 41 Enrolled in services 6 8 14 Assessed pre-release for post-release service needs 0 0 0 Provided a service provision plan 0 0 0 Received housing counseling 4 3 7 Received rent payment assistance 0 0 0 Received rental deposit assistance 0 0 0 Received utility payment assistance 0 0 0 Moved in to transitional housing 6 10 16 Received transportation assistance 0 0 0 Received credit counseling 0 0 0 Received legal services 0 0 0 Received job finding assistance 0 0 0 Received case/care management 0 0 0 Received clothing support 1 0 1 Received court support 0 0 0 Attended recovery meetings 6 8 14 Attachment A Page 55 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 37 Completions Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet program requirements 1 3 4 Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal involvement 0 0 0 Total participants no longer in program due to lack of engagement 0 0 0 Total participants no longer in program due to absconding 0 0 0 Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or case transfer 0 0 0 Successfully completed the program 1 0 1 Other reasons: Probation revoked 0 0 0 Needs could not be met 0 0 0 Disagreement with rules/persons 0 0 0 Death 0 0 0 Other 0 1 1 Men and Women of Purpose Men and Women of Purpose (“MWP”) provides employment and education liaison services for the County jail facilities, for which the program facilitates employment and education workshops every month at the County’s jails and works with Mentor/Navigators to assist the workshop participants with the documentation required to apply for employment, education, and other post-release activities. MWP also provides pre- and post-release mentoring services for West County using the organization’s evidence- based program Jail to Community model. The program provides one-on-one mentoring, as well as weekly mentoring groups that focus on employment and recovery. Men and Women of Purpose received $50,000 out of the Network’s $820,000 budget to provide these services. Table 19. Men and Women of Purpose: Program-Specific Outcomes MWP Number of AB 109 Clients Number of Other Clients Total Number of Clients Referred to Men and Women of Purpose (Employment and Placement Services) 35 80 115 Participated in workshops 34 49 83 Enrolled pre-release 36 27 63 Enrolled post-release 27 38 65 Learned of program through pre-release workshop attendance 32 60 92 Assessed pre-release for post-release service needs 65 54 119 Provided Service Provision Plan 45 53 98 Obtained documents successfully: 59 98 157 Birth certificate 13 5 18 California ID 28 69 97 Social Security Card 22 30 52 California Driver’s License 51 108 159 Attachment A Page 56 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 38 Completions Total participants who successfully completed program 59 98 157 Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet program requirements 16 31 48 Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal involvement 13 21 34 Total participants no longer in program due to lack of engagement 14 22 36 Total participants no longer in program due to absconding 8 6 14 Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or case transfer 3 1 4 Other reasons: Probation revoked 3 1 4 Needs could not be met 13 9 22 Disagreement with rules/persons 14 18 32 Death 0 1 0 Reach – Employment and Education Services Centering their program services on women, Reach Fellowship International (“Reach”) provides weekly employment and education workshops in West County Detention Facility (“WCDF”), in addition to pre- and post-release one-on-one case management. Reach provides employment and education liaison services to female returning citizens in fulfillment of the County’s Reentry into the Community Program and also acts as a lead information specialist for County jail facilities for the AB 109 program. Finally, Reach also conducts workshops to introduce employment and educational opportunities to participants, to assist incarcerated and returning citizens with obtaining the paperwork required for those opportunities, and to screen participants for employment and educational preparedness. Reach received $50,000 out of the Network’s $820,000 budget to provide these services. Table 20: Reach Fellowship: Program-Specific Outcomes (Education and Employment Liaison) Reach Fellowship Number of AB 109 Clients Number of Other Clients Total Number of Clients Referred to services 30 17 47 Enrolled in services 39 138 177 Participated in workshops 23 127 150 Enrolled pre-release 14 111 125 Enrolled post-release 13 39 52 Learned of program through pre-release workshop attendance 18 111 129 Assessed pre-release for post-release service needs 15 110 125 Provided Service Provision Plan 22 67 89 Obtained documents successfully: 13 43 56 Birth certificate 0 0 0 California ID 10 34 44 Attachment A Page 57 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 39 Social Security Card 3 7 10 California Driver’s License 0 2 2 Completions Successfully completed 13 64 77 Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet program requirements 3 11 14 Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal involvement 5 19 24 Total participants no longer in program due to lack of engagement 6 16 22 Total participants no longer in program due to absconding 4 12 16 Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or case transfer 8 16 24 Employment Support and Placement Services Table 21: Budget Allocations for Employment Support and Placement Services Previous FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Goodwill Industries $ 600,000 $ 900,000 Rubicon $ 1,400,000 $ 1,100,000 Total $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Goodwill Industries The Bridges to Work program of Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay (“Goodwill”) facilitates the County’s Employment Support and Placement Services to provide employment support and placement services in Central County. Participants can engage in up to 90 days of transitional, paid employment at local Goodwill stores or other partner agencies, in addition to receiving job search assistance for competitive employment opportunities. Goodwill also serves as a service hub for other providers. Table 22: Goodwill Industries: Program-Specific Outcomes Goodwill Industries Number of AB 109 Clients Number of Other Clients Total Number of Clients Referred to services (Q1-Q4) 229 119 348 Enrolled in services (Q1-Q4) 108 113 221 Assessed pre-release for post-release service needs 0 0 0 Provided a service provision plan 108 113 221 Obtained unsubsidized employment 51 97 148 Obtaining subsidized transitional employment 96 91 187 Obtaining subsidized on-the-job training 96 91 187 Completions Total participants who successfully completed program 51 97 148 Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet program requirements 57 16 73 Attachment A Page 58 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 40 Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal involvement 14 7 21 Total participants no longer in program due to lack of engagement 43 9 52 Total participants no longer in program due to absconding 0 0 0 Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or case transfer 0 0 0 Rubicon Rubicon provides employment support and placement services, integrated with other supports, to AB 109 participants in East County and West County. Rubicon’s program for AB 109 participants is 3 years and includes pre-release engagement, job readiness workshops, educational and vocational training, transitional employment, individualized career coaching, legal services, financial stability services, and domestic violence prevention and anger management. In addition to helping clients gain employment, Rubicon focuses on developing career paths and continues to provide support after a client attains their first job. To provide a continuum of services, Rubicon partners with a number of other organizations through formal subcontracts, including vocational training partners, AB 109 providers, and other community-based organizations. Table 23: Rubicon: Referrals, Enrollments, and Completions Rubicon Number of AB 109 Clients Referrals 574 Enrollments 151 Completions Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet program requirements 1 Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal involvement 1 Total participants no longer in program due to lack of engagement 37 Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or case transfer 1 Other reasons: Substance Abuse 4 Death 1 Other 1 Short and Long-Term Housing Access Table 24: Budget Allocations for Short and Long-Term Housing Access Services FY 15/16 FY 16/17 SHELTER, Inc. $ 720,000 $ 980,000 Reach Fellowship International - $ 50,000 Total $ 720,000 $1,030,000 Attachment A Page 59 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 41 SHELTER Inc. SHELTER, Inc. operates the County’s AB 109 Short and Long-term Housing Access Program. This program assists incarcerated and formerly incarcerated persons who are referred to them under the AB 109 Community Programs to secure and maintain stabilized residential accommodations. Shelter, Inc. provides a two-phased approach to clients seeking housing assistance. Before the program refers clients to the Housing Services section, the staff conducts social service assessments/intake procedures to ensure that clients will have success. The program places the majority of their clients into transitional housing situations (such as room or apartment shares) to allow them time to develop the resources for stable housing. Table 25: SHELTER, Inc.: Program-Specific Outcomes SHELTER, Inc. Number of AB 109 Clients Referred to services 277 Enrolled in services 104 Provided a service provision plan 104 Completions Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet program requirements 10 Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal involvement 1 Total participants no longer in program due to lack of engagement 4 Total participants no longer in program due to absconding 0 Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or case transfer 0 Successfully completed the program 8 Reach – Housing REACH Housing provides housing placement services to formerly incarcerated women at their Naomi House facility. Additional services include support groups, employing training, anger management, and parenting classes. REACH Housing also partners with other local county homeless agencies to provide additional housing opportunities to their cliental. REACH housing provided no services to AB 109 clients in FY 16/17. Table 26: Reach Fellowship: Program-Specific Outcomes (Housing Services) Reach Fellowship Number of AB 109 Clients Number of Other Clients Total Number of Clients Referred to services 0 10 10 Enrolled in services 0 7 7 Participated in workshops 0 6 6 Enrolled pre-release 0 5 5 Attachment A Page 60 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 42 Enrolled post-release 0 6 6 Learned of program through pre-release workshop attendance 0 5 5 Assessed pre-release for post-release service needs 0 5 5 Received housing counseling 0 7 7 Received rent payment assistance n/a 7 7 Received utility payment assistance n/a 7 7 Moved into transitional housing n/a 7 7 Received transportation assistance n/a 7 7 Received credit counseling n/a 3 3 Received legal services n/a 2 2 Received job finding assistance n/a 2 2 Received case/ care management n/a 7 7 Provided Service Provision Plan n/a 7 7 Completions Successfully completed program n/a 4 4 Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet program requirements n/a 3 3 Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal involvement n/a 2 2 Total participants no longer in program due to lack of engagement n/a 1 1 Total participants no longer in program due to absconding n/a 0 0 Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or case transfer n/a 0 0 Other reasons: Probation revoked n/a 0 0 Needs could not be met n/a 2 2 Disagreement with rules/persons n/a 1 1 Death n/a 0 0 Other n/a 0 0 Peer and Mentoring Services Table 27: Budget Allocations for Peer and Mentoring Services FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Men and Women of Purpose $ 110,000 $ 110,000 Total $ 110,000 $ 110,000 Men and Women of Purpose Men and Women of Purpose (“MWP”) provides peer and mentoring liaison services for the County jail facilities, for which the program works with Mentor/Navigators to assist the workshop participants with the documentation required to apply for employment, education, and other post-release activities. MWP also provides pre- and post-release mentoring services for West County using the organization’s evidence- based program Jail to Community model. The program provides one-on-one mentoring, as well as weekly mentoring groups that focus on employment and recovery. Attachment A Page 61 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 43 Table 28: Men and Women of Purpose: Program-Specific Outcomes MWP Number of AB 109 Clients Number of Other Clients Total Number of Clients Referred to Men and Women of Purpose (Peer and Mentoring Services) 41 107 148 Enrolled in services 31 82 113 Provided a service provision plan 35 99 134 Participated in one-on-one mentoring 36 95 131 Participated in group mentoring 61 108 169 Learned of program through pre-release workshop attendance 22 98 120 Completions Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet program requirements 15 29 44 Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal involvement 13 46 59 Total participants no longer in program due to lack of engagement 12 42 54 Total participants no longer in program due to absconding 4 11 15 Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or case transfer 3 2 5 Successfully completed program 31 44 75 Other reasons: Probation revoked 4 2 6 Needs could not be met 17 14 31 Disagreement with rules/persons 7 8 15 Death 1 0 Other 0 0 Legal Services Table 29: Budget Allocations for Legal Services FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Bay Area Legal Aid $ 79, 619 $ 150, 000 Total $ 79, 619 $ 150, 000 Bay Area Legal Aid Bay Area Legal Aid (“BayLegal”) provides legal services for AB 109 clients and educates them about their rights and responsibilities. The legal services BayLegal provides include: obtaining or retaining housing, public benefits, and health care, financial and debt assistance, family law, and obtaining driver’s licenses. The program provides post-release legal check-ups for each client to identify legal barriers that are able to be remediated, educates clients about early termination of probation, and assists with fines, and attorneys are also able to meet individually with clients in both jail and prison prior to their release. Attachment A Page 62 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 44 Table 30: Bay Area Legal Aid: Program-Specific Outcomes Bay Legal Number of AB 109 Clients Referred to services 86 Enrolled in services 127 Assessed pre-release for post-release service needs 8 Provided a service provision plan 4 Obtained RAP sheet review 4 Obtain/review driving record 60 Received housing barrier assistance 11 Received public benefits barrier assistance 9 Received healthcare barrier assistance 4 Received assistance with financial health 6 Received information/referral in court matters 16 Received information/referral in family law matters 9 Received employment barrier assistance 35 Completions Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet program requirements 0 Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal involvement 0 Total participants no longer in program due to lack of engagement 0 Total participants no longer in program due to absconding 0 Total participants no longer in program due to relocation or case transfer 0 Family Reunification Table 31: Budget Allocations for Family Reunification Services Previous FY Current FY Center for Human Development $ 90,000 $ 90,000 Total $ 90,000 $ 90,000 Center for Human Development The Center for Human Development (“CHD”) operates the Community and Family Reunification Program (“CFRP”) for Contra Costa County’s AB 109 Community Programs’ Mentoring Program, providing reunification services to returning citizens, their families, and friends, in addition to providing community support throughout Contra Costa County. Services include large and small group pre-release presentations and workshops at West County Detention Facility and Marsh Creek Detention Facility. CHD also provides post-release large and small group presentations and workshops to returning citizens at partner agencies and other locations throughout the County. Table 32: Center for Human Development: Program-Specific Outcomes CHD Number of AB Number of Total Number Attachment A Page 63 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 45 109 Clients Other Clients of Clients Referred to services 18 10 28 Enrolled in services 43 32 75 Assessed pre-release for post-release service needs 43 32 75 Provided a service provision plan 43 32 75 Participated in family skills building 43 32 75 Participated in family reunification 43 32 75 Reunited with partner No. who reunited with children and family 2 1 3 Participated in general parenting class Completions Successfully completed program 1 0 6 Total participants no longer in program due to failure to meet program requirements 3 1 4 Total participants no longer in program due to court or criminal involvement 2 0 2 Total participants no longer in program due to lack of engagement 11 2 13 Total participants no longer in program due to absconding 1 0 1 Attachment A Page 64 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 46 21 22 25 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Flash IncarcerationsSource: Probation AB 109 Population Outcomes Over the course of FY 16/17 there were a total of 1,153 AB 109 clients under supervision at some point in time. Of these 1,153 AB 109 clients, 206 individuals successfully completed the terms of their Probation during the fiscal year. The following sections demonstrate the number of AB 109 clients who violated the terms of their supervision and served flash incarcerations and/or had their probation revoked, as well as the number of clients with new criminal charges filed against them and/or new criminal convictions during the fiscal year. Violations Probation officers use graduated sanctions with AB 109 clients. For instance, when clients have dirty drug tests they are typically referred to inpatient or outpatient treatment rather than having their supervision term revoked, and returned to custody. This allows them to receive treatment without further justice involvement. AB 109 Probation Officers may also use flash incarcerations of up to ten days in county jail for PRCS clients. This serves as an intermediate sanction where individuals must serve a short period of time in county jail, but do not have further criminal charges filed against them. Figure 38 shows that the number of flash incarcerations imposed on PRCS clients9 ranged from 20 to 25 flash incarcerations per quarter. Figure 38: PRCS flash incarcerations, by FY 16/17 quarter Of the 483 1170(h) Probation cases10 under supervision over the course of FY 16/17, approximately 18% of AB 109 cases (88) were revoked from probation. Among the PRCS population the percentage was lower, as 13% of PRCS cases were revoked from probation. 9 One client may receive multiple flash incarcerations. The total number of flash incarcerations does not represent the total number of unique individuals who received flash incarcerations. 10 One case does not necessarily represent one individual. One individual may receive 1170(h) status more than once in a given fiscal year. Attachment A Page 65 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 47 33 21 103 76 49 39 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 New Charges New ConvictionsIndividulas PC 1170(h) PRCS Parole Source: Court Figure 39: Percentage and number of 1170(h) cases revoked in FY 16/17 Figure 40: Percentage and number of PRCS cases revoked in FY 16/17 New Charges and Convictions Figure 41 below shows the number of AB 109 individuals with new charges filed against them during FY 16/17, as well as the number of AB 109 individuals who were convicted of a new criminal offense during FY 16/17. Because the court does not have a record of individuals currently under AB 109 supervision, Figure 41 includes all individuals who have ever been supervised or sentenced under AB 109, including those not currently under County supervision, who had new charges filed and/or new criminal convictions during FY 16/17. The percentage of the AB 109 population with new charges or criminal convictions during FY 16/17 is not calculated because the court does not have a record of all individual under AB 109 supervision. As a result, there is no way to calculate this percentage without tracking individuals across data systems. Figure 41: AB 109 clients with new charges and/or new criminal convictions during FY 16/17, by AB 109 classification type No Revocation 395 82% Revocation 88 18% No Revocation 586 87% Revocation 84 13% Attachment A Page 66 of 286 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 16/17 May 2018 | 48 Looking Ahead Contra Costa County has responded to Public Safety Realignment in a manner that has allowed the County to provide supervision and services to the AB 109 population, while building a collaborative reentry infrastructure to support the reentry population’s successful reintegration into the community. The County has followed best practice models in establishing access to services through the West County Reentry Success Center’s “one-stop” model and the Central & East Network Reentry System’s “no wrong door” approach. The launch of the Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ) in January 2017 is evidence that the County sees its Public Safety Realignment, reentry, and justice work as a high priority. In FY 17/18, the County will undertake a comprehensive planning process to develop a Reentry Strategic Plan to guide the County’s reentry system as a whole, including but not limited to AB 109-funded services. As the County has continued to implement Public Safety Realignment, the need for an inclusive reentry system that provides access to individuals regardless of their AB 109 status has become apparent, with the County granting approval to expand access to AB 109-funded services to any returning resident. The five-year strategic plan will begin with a needs assessment to identify key strengths and needs in the reentry system. This needs assessment will build on recommendations born from AB 109 evaluations over previous years. The County will then engage stakeholders in defining priority areas, goals, and strategies to address gaps and needs in the reentry system. The Reentry Strategic Plan will serve as the County’s guiding document for reentry programs and services for 2018-2023. Attachment A Page 67 of 286 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date:05/23/2018 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 68 of 286 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 69 of 286 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. On April 12, 2018, staff provided an update regarding the TRUTH Act community forum determination process. In addition, the Committee directed County Counsel to review a letter submitted by the Asian Law Caucus to Sheriff David Livingston on the evening prior to the meeting regarding the Sheriff's Immigration Status Policy. 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. County Counsel's response to a letter received from the Asian Law Caucus addressed to Sheriff David Livingston regarding compliance with SB-54. (Written staff report attached) 3. 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 Page 70 of 286 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): 1. 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 UPDATE: County Counsel Response to Letter from Asian Law Caucus UPDATE: Letter from Asian Law Caucus to Sheriff David O. Livingston, April 12, 2018 Page 71 of 286 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 72 of 286 being deported. It is timely and in the public interest to refer this issue to the Public Protection Committee. Page 73 of 286 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 74 of 286 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 75 of 286 (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 76 of 286 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 77 of 286 (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 78 of 286 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 79 of 286 “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 80 of 286 (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 81 of 286 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 82 of 286 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 83 of 286 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 84 of 286 Page 85 of 286 Page 86 of 286 Page 87 of 286 Page 88 of 286 Page 89 of 286 Page 90 of 286 Page 91 of 286 Page 92 of 286 Page 93 of 286 Page 94 of 286 Page 95 of 286 Page 96 of 286 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 97 of 286 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 98 of 286 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 99 of 286 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 100 of 286 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 101 of 286 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 102 of 286 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 103 of 286 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 104 of 286 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 105 of 286 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 106 of 286 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 107 of 286 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 108 of 286 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 109 of 286 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 110 of 286 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 111 of 286 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 112 of 286 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 113 of 286 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 114 of 286 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 115 of 286 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 116 of 286 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 117 of 286 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 118 of 286 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 119 of 286 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 120 of 286 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 121 of 286 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 122 of 286 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 123 of 286 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 124 of 286 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 125 of 286 Page 126 of 286 Page 127 of 286 Page 128 of 286 Page 129 of 286 Page 130 of 286 Page 131 of 286 Page 132 of 286 Page 133 of 286 Page 134 of 286 Page 135 of 286 Page 136 of 286 Page 137 of 286 Page 138 of 286 Page 139 of 286 Page 140 of 286 Page 141 of 286 Page 142 of 286 Page 143 of 286 Page 144 of 286 Page 145 of 286 Page 146 of 286 Page 147 of 286 Page 148 of 286 Page 149 of 286 Page 150 of 286 Page 151 of 286 Page 152 of 286 Page 153 of 286 Page 154 of 286 Page 155 of 286 Page 156 of 286 Page 157 of 286 Page 158 of 286 Page 159 of 286 Page 160 of 286 Page 161 of 286 Page 162 of 286 Page 163 of 286 Page 164 of 286 Page 165 of 286 Page 166 of 286 Page 167 of 286 Page 168 of 286 Page 169 of 286 Page 170 of 286 Page 171 of 286 Page 172 of 286 Page 173 of 286 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 174 of 286 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 175 of 286 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 176 of 286 Page 177 of 286 Page 178 of 286 Page 179 of 286 Page 180 of 286 Page 181 of 286 Page 182 of 286 Page 183 of 286 Page 184 of 286 Page 185 of 286 Page 186 of 286 Page 187 of 286 Page 188 of 286 Page 189 of 286 Page 190 of 286 Page 191 of 286 Page 192 of 286 Page 193 of 286 Page 194 of 286 Page 195 of 286 Page 196 of 286 Page 197 of 286 Page 198 of 286 Page 199 of 286 Page 200 of 286 Page 201 of 286 Page 202 of 286 Page 203 of 286 Page 204 of 286 Page 205 of 286 Page 206 of 286 Page 207 of 286 Page 208 of 286 Page 209 of 286 Page 210 of 286 Page 211 of 286 Page 212 of 286 Page 213 of 286 Page 214 of 286 Page 215 of 286 Page 216 of 286 Page 217 of 286 Page 218 of 286 Page 219 of 286 Page 220 of 286 Page 221 of 286 Page 222 of 286 Page 223 of 286 Page 224 of 286 Page 225 of 286 Page 226 of 286 Page 227 of 286 Page 228 of 286 Page 229 of 286 Page 230 of 286 Page 231 of 286 Page 232 of 286 Page 233 of 286 Page 234 of 286 Page 235 of 286 Page 236 of 286 Page 237 of 286 Page 238 of 286 Page 239 of 286 Page 240 of 286 Page 241 of 286 Page 242 of 286 Page 243 of 286 Page 244 of 286 Page 245 of 286 Page 246 of 286 Page 247 of 286 Page 248 of 286 Page 249 of 286 Page 250 of 286 Page 251 of 286 Page 252 of 286 Page 253 of 286 Page 254 of 286 Page 255 of 286 Page 256 of 286 Page 257 of 286 Page 258 of 286 Page 259 of 286 Page 260 of 286 Page 261 of 286 Page 262 of 286 Page 263 of 286 Page 264 of 286 Page 265 of 286 Page 266 of 286 Page 267 of 286 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 268 of 286 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 269 of 286 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 270 of 286 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 271 of 286 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 272 of 286 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 273 of 286 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 274 of 286 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 275 of 286 (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 276 of 286 (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 277 of 286 (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 278 of 286 (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 279 of 286 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 280 of 286 County Counsel Response Review of Letter from Asian Law Caucus At its meeting on April 12, 2018, the Public Protection Committee asked that the County Counsel’s Office provide the Committee with a response to the legal issues raised in a letter dated April 11, 2108, to Sheriff David Livingston from the Asian Law Caucus alleging that the Sheriff’s Immigration Status Policy No. 1.02.28 was not in compliance with the California Values Act (“SB 54”). Their response follows: Issue #1: Does SB 54 prohibit a Sheriff’s Department from having a policy that allows deputies to use their reasonable suspicion about a person’s immigration status when it is reasonably relevant to an investigation of crimes such as trafficking or smuggling? Response to Issue #1: SB 54 does not restrict local law enforcement from investigating activities that may violate state criminal laws. Government Code section 7284.6, subdivision (f), recognizes that local law enforcement agencies retain jurisdiction of criminal law enforcement matters. Immigration Status Policy Section IV.B.1 states that: 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. The focus of SB 54 is on restricting the use of local law enforcement for civil immigration enforcement activities. Trafficking, smuggling, harboring, and terrorism are all offenses that may be violations of state criminal laws. Such offenses may be committed by citizens or noncitizens alike and may involve victims or witnesses who are citizens or noncitizens. The Immigration Policy simply recognizes that immigration status may be a factor in the investigations of those crimes. Issue #2: Is Section III.A.1. of the Immigration Policy inconsistent with SB 54 by permitting a deputy to investigate, enforce, detain, or arrest an individual who is suspected of unlawfully re-entering the United States during an unrelated law enforcement activity? Response to Issue #2: The Policy language is not inconsistent with SB 54, but admittedly SB 54 does not provide clear guidance on this issue. Immigration Status Policy Section III.A.1 states that: 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. Page 281 of 286 If, during a law enforcement activity, a deputy discovers that an individual who was previously deported may have unlawfully entered the United States, then a deputy is permitted to investigate, enforce, detain, or arrest such individuals. (CA Gov. Code § 7284.6(b)(1).) SB 54 includes some additional language to suggest that an individual’s prior deportation should have been the result of a conviction of an aggravated felony in order for a deputy to conduct an investigation into the unlawful reentry. (CA Gov. Code § 7284.6(b)(1).) Whether investigations related to unlawful reentry are strictly limited to individuals who were deported following conviction of an aggravated felony is not clear in SB 54. Due to the uncertainty of the intent of the language, the Sheriff’s Office could consider adding language to the Policy regarding aggravated felonies. Issue #3: Is posting of inmate release information on the Sheriff’s website a violation of SB 54 if such information was not already posted prior to the effective date of SB 54? Response to Issue #3: The California Public Records Act specifically identifies inmate release information as public information. (CA Gov. Code § 6254(f)(1), identifying “time and manner of release.”) SB 54 recognizes it is lawful to disclose release date information that is available to the public. (CA Gov. Code § 7284.6(a)(C).) For these reasons, the release information posted by the Sheriff’s Office is public information, the disclosure of which is not prohibited by SB 54. The Sheriff’s Office advises that it has posted inmate release information on its website since approximately February 2018. Other counties, including Orange, San Diego, and Alameda, also post inmate release information on their websites. Page 282 of 286 Page 283 of 286 Page 284 of 286 Page 285 of 286 Page 286 of 286