Every year, Contra Costa County holds a forum at which — in the interest of transparency — the sheriff discloses exactly how many times his office collaborated with Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities.
But with immigration enforcement now one of the most controversial topics in the country, this year’s event was very different — as even the Board of Supervisors had to acknowledge on Tuesday, while about 200 protesters demanded local law enforcement end all cooperation with ICE.
“This is a different presidential administration, and this is a different ICE,” Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia said. “Last year, I think we just had a handful of people who showed up. This year, we obviously have a large turnout because of public concern over the practices and tactics of ICE.”
The ramp-up of immigration enforcement operations throughout California this summer has brought new scrutiny to county sheriff’s departments, which are barred from sharing information with ICE except in very limited circumstances, even as ICE pressures local agencies to provide data on inmates’ immigration status.
Contra Costa County Sheriff David Livingston shared that his agency received 578 requests from ICE related to detaining individuals in 2024. The sheriff’s office notified ICE in 132 of these instances, which included 96 unique individuals.
Immigrant rights’ advocates said the sheriff’s office should cease all notifications to ICE, noting specific concern for inmates convicted of misdemeanors, such as DUI, possession of stolen goods, or controlled substances. These suspects could face deportation if taken into custody by ICE, said Miosotti Tenecora, staff attorney for the Immigration Legal Resource Center.
These yearly forums have been held by the county since 2018 as part of California’s TRUTH Act, which aims to protect immigrants held in local custody. The forums proved useful in 2019, when the public learned the sheriff’s office had cooperated with ICE to allow its agents to enter private areas in county jails and apprehend immigrants in detention. Public backlash forced Livingston to adopt a slew of new policies for his office that prohibited communication with ICE outside of violent crimes, felonies, and federal subpoenas.
In June, ICE agents went to Concord Immigration Court, where they arrested and removed four asylum-seekers following their scheduled hearing. While the county sheriff’s office was not involved in that case, ICE’s presence in heavily immigrant California communities from San Jose neighborhoods to agricultural fields in Ventura County has driven fear and anxiety among immigrants, immigrant advocates say.
“Folks who are being apprehended do not have criminal convictions,” Tenecora said. “We are seeing legal-status U.S. citizens being apprehended. That is the sort of national landscape that we’re working with.”
Livingston bristled at the idea of not sharing information about violent criminals with ICE – one of the few circumstances in the state’s immigration law SB 54 where local authorities may communicate with the agency. During one tense exchange, Supervisor Ken Carlson asked Livingston why the county could not simply refuse to communicate with ICE in these limited circumstances.
“It astounds me that people would actually advocate to release sex offenders, rapists and murderers,” Livingston said to Carlson. “I am not going to do that, sir.”
Livingston said that ICE does not inform the sheriff’s department of any upcoming enforcement actions. He also defended his department’s actions against critics, stating that SB54 “limits our exposure to ICE” unless it pertains to violent felons. While some of Livingston’s answers were met with groans from the audience, the sheriff said his duty was to also serve the 1.2 million county residents who were not in attendance.
Carlson criticized Livingston for using the specter of rapists and murderers to defend his communication with ICE, and warned the sheriff about the growing distrust in the community toward law enforcement when it comes to ICE.
“I got to tell you right now, our community is not very trusting,” Carlson said. “SB 54 is the ceiling, not the floor, right? So there’s room for us to work in there. And if not, then we need to communicate more clearly with the public.”
