Tempers flared at a special meeting of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors this week to discuss and provide updates on the county’s cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The public forum, which was attended by several hundred people Tuesday, is required under the Truth Act for counties that cooperate on law enforcement with federal immigration agencies. The Truth Act, which was enacted in 2016 by California Gov. Jerry Brown, also requires, among other protections, that immigrants in custody be informed of their right to an attorney.
Over the past month, multiple ICE detentions at the immigration courthouse in Concord have sparked protests, ignited fears in local immigrant communities, and raised questions about how the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department is, or isn’t, working with federal authorities on identifying immigrants in local custody.
Tuesday’s meeting provided some answers, but sparked an emotional debate between the sheriff and county officials who have more lenient views on immigration enforcement.
County sheriff said release date notifications to ICE sometimes happen
Contra Costa County Sheriff David Livingston confirmed at the meeting that his office will sometimes notify ICE when the agency requests the anticipated release date for a county detainee on their watchlist, even though California law does not require such notifications.
Under SB54, a 2017 bill commonly known as the California Values Act, country sheriffs are not required to share information with ICE, though they may choose to do so for detainees held for certain serious or violent felony charges. Local agencies may also release information with ICE if that data would be otherwise publicly available.
Livingston shared in a presentation at the meeting that, in 2024, ICE made 578 requests to the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office for notification. Of those, the office honored requests for 96 unique detainees, or about 17% of the total requests.
The most common charges for those detainees were the unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (14), false imprisonment (14), and receiving stolen property (10). Under California penal code, all three of these charges are classified as “wobblers,” or charges that could either be misdemeanors or felonies. Receiving stolen property, County Chief Public Defender Ellen McDonnell pointed out, could be as miniscule as buying something at a yard sale that the seller had stolen.
Fiery debate between sheriff and supervisors
“Questions?” the last slide of the sheriff’s presentation read.
There were questions.
“Who holds you accountable if you’re not following state law?” District 3 Sup. Diane Burgis asked Livingston.
“The State Attorney,” the sheriff responded.
“What would happen if [the county] did not submit any notifications [to ICE]?” District 5 Sup. Shanelle Scales-Preston asked.
“It astounds me that people would actually advocate for us to release sex offenders and child molesters,” Livingston said.
As the crowd began shouting in response, Livingston raised his voice into the mic.
“I’m not going to do it,” he said. “I will notify ICE.”
“”
It astounds me that people would actually advocate for us to release sex offenders and child molesters.
— Contra Costa County Sheriff David Livingston
Other California counties — including nearby Alameda, San Francisco, and San Mateo — have non-cooperation policies with ICE, meaning they will not honor any ICE requests for notification. These policies are legal under SB54. (The first Trump administration tried and failed to challenge SB54. The current administration is making similar attempts.)
“Nobody is saying a rapist should be let free,” District 1 Sup. John Gioia said. “But [ICE raids] are not about law and order, they’re about fear. They’re about the performance of power.
“This is a different ICE,” Gioia added. “They’re violating federal law. I don’t trust them.”
Despite the sentiment expressed by Gioia and others, Contra Costa General Counsel Thomas Geiger told the assembly that the board of supes has limited authority over the sheriff’s operations. Supervisors can control the sheriff’s budget, he said, but not their internal policies.
McDonnell expressed concern that the sheriff’s cooperation with ICE could result in serious costs for the county. Under SB54, a detainee’s prior convictions might make them eligible for ICE notification, but the process of manually sifting through rap sheets requires unwarranted staff hours, she said.
“The amount of county time you would need to invest to properly ensure that [cases] are going to ensure due process is a very high bar,” she said. “It doesn’t make sense for the county.”
McDonnell also pointed to a “pattern of errors that would continue if notifications continue.” These administrative errors, she said, put the county at risk for lawsuits.
“”
Nobody is saying a rapist should be let free. But [ICE raids] are not about law and order, they’re about fear. They’re about the performance of power.
— District 1 Supervisor John Gioia
Livingston responded that the sheriff’s office had mistakenly notified ICE of a detainee’s release only once, in 2023 for a DUI charge, and denied any pattern of mistakes.
The Immigrant Legal Rights Center expressed concerns similar to McDonnell’s during its presentation on Tuesday. In an email to Richmondside, a spokesperson for ILRC later said that the sheriff’s statistics revealed “some instances where the sheriff has violated its own policy” and suggested that the legality of some of their actions with ICE could be open to interpretation.
“For example,” ILRC wrote, “a conviction for the unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle does not meet an enumerated exception where complying with a notification request would be allowed under SB54…These examples clearly show that these legal calculations can be challenging.”
When ILRC prompted the sheriff during the hearing, Livingston responded that prior convictions had made those specific detainees eligible for ICE notification.
County counsel Geiger reported no concerns with the sheriff office’s compliance with SB54. Neither Geiger nor McDonnell’s office had responded to Richmondside’s request for comment as of publication time.
Immigration enforcement has Contra Costa County in the spotlight
Gioia noted that in previous years, the county’s annual immigration enforcement forums only pulled in a handful of public commenters. But this year, with increasingly brazen ICE raids in Contra Costa, roughly 80 people took turns speaking in-person and on Zoom at Tuesday’s meeting.
A rally and presentation organized by the Contra Costa Immigrant Rights Alliance (CCIRA) preceded the hearing. Hundreds sat in the chamber with handmade protest signs.
While no formal action was taken at the meeting, the Public Defender’s Office, various supervisors, and public commenters all advocated for a non-cooperation policy.
“I’m sure this chamber would be even more packed,” Scales-Preston said, “if we didn’t have our immigrant community afraid.”
Sheriffs all across the country have way to much power and Contra Costa is no exception. They work for us!!! David Livingston is another Joe Arpaio drunk with power, but he is not the only one. They should only have the same amount of power as city police chiefs.