Macy Meinhardt, Voice & Viewpoint Staff Writer
Two controversial items landed on the San Diego Board of Supervisors agenda on Tuesday, Dec. 10, directly challenging the role of the Sheriff’s Office in how they handle immigration deportations and in-custody deaths.
Hot topics like immigration and criminal justice reform typically draw many community members to the board meetings, often resulting in heated and lengthy public comment sessions with the supervisors.
Last Tuesday’s meeting was no exception. In fact, residents were barred freely sitting in on the session at one point, due to excessive disruptions from audience members—such as yelling, clapping, booing, and hurling curse words at board members. Instead, chamber doors were locked, and residents had to view the meeting from outside. Those wishing to speak were ushered in five at a time. After their one-minute comment time was up, they were escorted out by patrolling sheriff officers.
Both items passed on the Democratic majority board. Supervisor Jim Desmond, a Republican, was the lone descending vote on the immigration policy, and Supervisor Joel Anderson, also a Republican, was absent.
Here is a breakdown of what these two contentious issues mean for the county and the Sheriff’s Office in the future.
Immigration Enforcement
Incoming President Donald Trump has vowed to begin mass deportations of illegal immigrants on the first day of office. As a border region, the policy proposed by Chair Vargas reaffirms the county’s commitment to serve as a sanctuary region during this time.
Proposed by Chairwoman Nora Vargas, and supported by Supervisors Monica Montgomery Steppe and Terra Lawson-Remer, the resolution will narrow county agencies’ ability to assist the U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) in deportations.
This includes local law enforcement withholding information from ICE agents on undocumented individuals in custody, such as their names and release dates, and denying the use of county facilities to assist in investigative interviews.
“When federal immigration authorities coerce local law enforcement to carry out deportations, family members are separated, and community trust in law enforcement and local government is destroyed,” the resolution stated.
State sanctuary laws such as the California Values Act have extended protections against deportations for immigrants since 2017. It is disputed, however, that loopholes in this law exist, causing deportations to occur without a warrant in some circumstances.
The approved policy seeks to provide “further clarity” by specifying that jails, facilities, staff, and funds will not be used to assist civil immigration enforcement actions.
Yet, this passed resolution did not go without a statement of rebuttal from San Diego Sheriff Kelly Martinez. Martinez claims the loophole is nonexistent and asserts that the Board of Supervisors does not set policy for her department.
“The Sheriff’s office will not change its practices based on the Board resolution and policy passed at today’s meeting,” the press release states.
The way the current law exists as it is today, Martinez argues, strikes the appropriate balance with public safety by only allowing information to be shared only for individuals who have committed “serious, violent, or sex crimes.”
Supervisor Desmond agrees with the Sheriff, arguing that the move prioritizes “political posturing over the safety and well-being of San Diegans.” In addition he writes on his X profile that the disclosure of information on certain individuals is sensible in protecting “our communities, and ensuring dangerous felons didn’t return to our streets.”
Expanding Oversight in Sheriff-Run Jails
Alongside the border crisis, a surge in in-custody deaths in the county’s jail system in the last twenty years has raised political and legal alarms.
A scathing 2022 report from the California State Auditors Office implicated San Diego County as having the highest rate of in-custody deaths between 2006 to 2020.
The audit report also revealed significant shortcomings in how jail deaths are investigated, particularly ones caused by medical negligence.
The Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board is an independent oversight group charged with investigating deaths and incidents connected to the actions of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department. However, its scope can only extend to investigating sworn peace officers, meaning the practices of other detention staff, such as medical providers, are off-limits.
“CLERB’S inability to complete a thorough investigation has left many questions unanswered about the circumstances of the decedent’s death,” the proposal states.
In line with the argument that medical care is a law-enforcement function and should fall within CLERB’S purview as an oversight body, the board of supervisors voted unanimously to expand their investigative jurisdiction during the last meeting.
“We cannot allow any more incidents to go unchecked or unnoticed. The time has come to be bold and bring accountability to a problem that has taken decades to correct,” stated District 4 Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe who proposed the amendment.
The morning the item was up for vote, Sheriff Martinez released another statement regarding the board of supervisors decision, stating that there already is “unprecedented oversight of jail personnel and contracted healthcare workers.”
So far, the county is on track for this year to yield the lowest number of jail deaths since 2012, and it is accredited to state legislative changes and policy changes within the Sheriff’s Office.
Sheriff Martinez believes, “Adding to this already burdensome oversight will not serve to make the jails safer; it will make it more difficult to hire staff and contract with high-quality healthcare workers and outside providers.”
The amendment to county laws governing CLERB clarifies it would only investigate healthcare workers in the event of an in-custody death. It also calls to implement a reporting requirement to ensure CLERB completes investigations in one year and for the group to review all deaths, including those ruled as “natural.”
A draft of an ordinance outlining these amendments is due back to the board in 60 days.
