HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-21; City Council; ; California "Sanctuary State" LawsCalifornia's "Sanctuary State" Laws
Three laws were enacted last year by the California Legislature that have brought this debate
and legal actions involving the federal government, the state government and numerous local
governments to the forefront. These three legislative actions are attached to this report as
Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, and are summarized, as follows:
1. AB 450: The "Immigrant Worker Protection Act," prohibits private employers from
voluntarily allowing a federal immigration enforcement agent to enter any non-public
workplace areas unless the agent has a judicial warrant. The bill also prohibits public and
private employers from voluntarily allowing a federal immigration enforcement agent to
access, review, or obtain the employer's employee records without a subpoena or court
order, or under a limited exception. In addition, AB 450 requires public and private
employers who receive notice of an upcoming inspection by a federal immigration agency
related to employment eligibility, to notify employees of the inspection within 72
hours. Employers who violate provisions of AB 450 are subject to fines in the amount of
$2,000 to $5,000 for a first violation, and $5,000 to $10,000 for subsequent violations.
2. AB 103: This Public Safety Omnibus Bill includes provisions prohibiting a city, county, or
local law enforcement agency from contracting with the federal government or any federal
agency to house or detain adult non-citizens or accompanied or unaccompanied minors in a
local locked detention facility for purposes of civil immigration custody. Cities, counties, or
local law enforcement agencies that already have a federal contract may not amend their
agreements to expand the number of beds used to house or detain these individuals. AB
103 also requires the California Attorney General to inspect detention facilities where adult
and minor noncitizens are housed or detained for purposes of civil immigration
proceedings. The Attorney General will review these facilities including the conditions of
confinement, the "standard of care and due process" provided to those individuals, and the
circumstances around those individuals' apprehension and transfer to the facilities.
3. SB 54: This bill, which includes the "California Values Act," prohibits California law
enforcement agencies, both state and local, from acting or aiding federal immigration
officials in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Specifically, the bill prohibits
California law enforcement agencies from using agency money, personnel, or resources to
investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement
purposes, including (among other things) (a) inquiring into an individual's immigration
status, (b) detaining an individual on the basis of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement
("ICE") or U.S. Customs and Border Protection hold request, (c) providing information
regarding a person's release date from local or state custody, (d) providing personal
information about an individual, including a home or work address, (e) making or
intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants, (f) assisting
immigration authorities, (g) performing the functions of an immigration officer, and (h)
transferring an individual to immigration authorities. However, state law enforcement
agencies may provide information about an individual's release date or transfer an
individual to immigration authorities if the individual has been convicted of one of several
May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 2 of 26
enumerated serious or violent felonies, and may provide information to federal immigration
officials if the information is already publicly available or is subject to a subpoena or
warrant.
City of Carlsbad Police Department Policy
To comply with the new state laws, the Carlsbad Police Department amended its Policy Manual
via Special Order 2018-02 (Exhibit 4), effective March 30, 2018. The Special Order modifies
Policy 428 -Immigration Violations, to ensure consistency with all current state laws, including
AB 450, AB 103 and SB 54. As a result, the Carlsbad Police Department is prohibited from
enforcing or aiding in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Federal Legal Action
In response to the state enacting these laws, on March 6, 2018, the federal government sued
the State of California, Governor Brown, and California Attorney General Becerra in their official
capacities. The federal government's lawsuit seeks a judicial finding that California's sanctuary
state laws are invalid. The federal government's main argument is that federal law preempts
any laws the state may adopt that are contrary to federal laws. Based on this position, the
federal government asserts that the state laws are directly interfering with or obstructing the
federal government's enforcement of federal immigration laws and regulations.
The State refutes the federal government's position. The state will likely argue that "local
control" and the right of states to fashion their own criminal laws without interference from the
federal government is specifically provided for in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people."
Briefing on this case is due in June. Hearing dates have not been announced at this time.
Local Actions
Some California cities have demonstrated their opposition to California's "sanctuary state" laws
and support for the federal government's position by taking the following actions:
"Opt-Out" Ordinance: The City of Los Alamitos passed an ordinance that adds a chapter
to its municipal code entitled, "Constitution of the United States Compliance." The
chapter provides that: The City of Los Alamitos, a Charter City, does hereby exempt the
City of Los Alamitos from the California Values Act, Government Code Title 1, Division 7,
Chapter 17.25 [SB 54) and instead will comply with the appropriate Federal Laws and the
Constitution of the United States.
It remains to be seen whether this approach is within municipal authority, as Los
Alamitos has been sued by the ACLU over the city's opt-out ordinance.
May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 3 of 26
Resolutions: The cities of Beaumont, San Juan Capistrano, and Newport Beach have
adopted resolutions stating their oppositions to California's "sanctuary state" laws.
Lawsuits: The City of Huntington Beach filed its own lawsuit in State court against the
State. The County of Orange and the Orange County Sheriff are seeking to join and
become named parties in the federal lawsuit filed by the U.S. Attorney General against
the State of California.
Joining or Filing Amicus Briefs /Letters: The c.ities of Aliso Viejo, Barstow, Escondido,
Fountain Valley, Hesperia, Mission Viejo, and Yorba Linda all joined the amicus brief
drafted by the Immigration Reform Law Institute. None of these cities wrote their own
legal brief. Rather, they simply joined in the Immigration Reform Law lnstitute's brief in a
show of support for the arguments made in that brief. The cities of Upland and
Westminster voted to support Huntington Beach's lawsuit. The County of San Diego
County approved the filing of an amicus brief in support of the federal government at the
next available opportunity, which likely will be when the case reaches the appellate level.
The City of Yucaipa drafted a letter of opposition to SB 54. The City of Simi Valley filed an
amicus letter in support of the federal government. The City of Lake Forest will file an
amicus letter supporting the federal government.
Law Enforcement Agencies: The Orange County Sheriff announced that it will publicly list
dates that inmates will be released in an effort to provide information to the US
Immigration and Customs Enforcement for purposes of enforcing federal immigration
laws. The released information will not state whether the soon-to-be released inmate is
an illegal alien. By omitting this information, the Orange County Sheriff is of the belief
that this approach does not violate SB 54.
Some cities have decided to support the State and oppose the federal government:
Resolution: The San Gabriel City Council voted to approve a "safe cities" resolution,
declaring itself a "sanctuary city".
Joining or Filing Amicus Briefs I Letters: The City of Santa Ana voted to file an amicus brief
on behalf of California.
Other cities have decided to take no action:
The City of Roseville residents asked the City Council to consider a resolution
opposing the State's sanctuary state laws, and the Council asked staff to come back
with more information about how SB 54 would affect local law enforcement.
The City of West Covina formally decided to take no action.
May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 4 of 26
Conclusion
The federal government's lawsuit against California will test the validity of California's sanctuary
state laws. Whether or not the City of Carlsbad initiates its own action or joins or supports an
existing action, the legality of the "sanctuary state" laws enacted by the state will be decided
and the City of Carlsbad will receive the benefit of that decision. In other words, if the law is
determined to be legal or illegal for one city, such determination would be applicable to all
cities. Accordingly, because these issues are currently before the courts with plenty of litigants
on each side of the debate, most cities are taking a wait and see approach. Depending on the
rulings from the courts, Carlsbad and other cities can revisit the issue of whether or not they
wish to take any specific action.
Next Steps
The City Council may direct staff to take any of the following actions on this matter:
1. Take no further action,
2. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution expressing a policy position of "support" or "opposition",
3. Take a "watch and wait" approach and consider further action once the federal lawsuit
against the state reaches its conclusion,
4. Join a pending lawsuit against the state by filing an amicus (friend of the court) brief when a
currently pending case reaches the appellate level, or
5. File Carlsbad's own legal challenge against the state.
Fiscal Analysis
This matter will have no fiscal impact on the city.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, this action does not constitute a "project"
within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it has no
potential to cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and therefore does not require
environmental review.
Public Notification
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code
Section 54950 et seq.), published and distributed at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date
and time.
Exhibits
1. Assembly Bill 450 -Employment regulation: immigration worksite enforcement actions
2. Assembly Bill 103 -Public safety: omnibus (relevant sections)
3. Senate Bill 54 -Law enforcement: sharing data
4. Carlsbad PD Policy Manual Special Order 2018-02: Policy 428 -Immigration Violations
May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 5 of 26
Bill Text -AB-450 Employment regulation: immigration worksite enforcement actions. Page 2 of 4
affected employee for these purposes. The bill would prescribe penalties for failure to provide the notices of
$2,000 up to $5,000 for a first violation and $5,000 up to $10,000 for each subsequent violation, except as
specified, to be collected by the Labor Commissioner.
Except as required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer from reverifying the employment eligibility
of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by specified federal law. The bill would prescribe a
penalty of up to $10,000 for a violation of this prohibition to be recoverable by the Labor Commissioner.
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: no
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 7285 .1 is added to the Government Code, to read:
7285.1. (a) Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the
employer, shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter any nonpublic areas
of a place of labor. This section does not apply if the immigration enforcement agent provides a judicial warrant.
(b) An employer who violates subdivision (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000)
up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and five thousand dollars ($5,000) up to ten thousand
dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation. If a court finds that an immigration enforcement agent was
permitted to enter a nonpublic area of a place of labor without the consent of the employer or other person in
control of the place of labor, the civil penalty shall not apply. "Violation" means each incident when it is found that
subdivision (a) was violated without reference to the number of employees, the number of immigration
enforcement agents involved in the incident, or the number of locations affected in a day.
(c) This section shall not preclude an employer or person acting on behalf of an employer from taking the
immigration enforcement agent to a nonpublic area, where employees are not present, for the purpose of
verifying whether the immigration enforcement agent has a judicial warrant, provided no consent to search
nonpublic areas is given in the process.
(d) The exclusive authority to enforce this section is granted to the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General
and enforcement shall be through civil action. Any penalty recovered shall be deposited in the Labor Enforcement
and Compliance Fund.
(e) This section applies to public and private employers.
SEC. 2. Section 7285.2 is added to the Government Code, to read:
7285.2. (a) (1) Except as otherwise required by federal law, and except as provided in paragraph (2), an
employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration
enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer's employee records without a subpoena or judicial
warrant. This section does not prohibit an employer, or person acting on behalf of an employer, from challenging
the validity of a subpoena or judicial warrant in a federal district court.
(2) This subdivision shall not apply to I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms and other documents for which
a Notice of Inspection has been provided to the employer.
(b) An employer who violates subdivision (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000)
up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and five thousand dollars ($5,000) up to ten thousand
dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation. If a court finds that an immigration enforcement agent was
permitted to access, review, or obtain the employer's employee records without the consent of the employer or
other person in control of the place of labor, the civil penalty shall not apply. "Violation" means each incident
when it is found that subdivision (a) was violated without reference to the number of employees, the number of
immigration enforcement agents involved in the incident, or the number of employee records accessed, reviewed,
or obtained.
(c) The exclusive authority to enforce this section is granted to the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General
and enforcement shall be through civil action. Any penalty recovered shall be deposited in the Labor Enforcement
and Compliance Fund.
(d) This section applies to public and private employers.
SEC. 3. Section 7285.3 is added to the Government Code, to read:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billN avClient.xhtml ?bill_id=201720180AB450 5/15/2018 May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 7 of 26
Bill Text -AB-450 Employment regulation: immigration worksite enforcement actions. Page 3 of 4
7285.3. In accordance with state and federal law, nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted, construed, or
applied to restrict or limit an employer's compliance with a memorandum of understanding governing the use of
the federal E-Verify system.
SEC. 4. Section 90.2 is added to the Labor Code, to read:
90.2. (a) (1) Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer shall provide a notice to each current
employee, by posting in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related
information to the employee, of any inspections of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other
employment records conducted by an immigration agency within 72 hours of receiving notice of the inspection.
Written notice shall also be given within 72 hours to the employee's authorized representative, if any. The posted
notice shall contain the following information:
(A) The name of the immigration agency conducting the inspections of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification
forms or other employment records.
(B) The date that the employer received notice of the inspection.
(C) The nature of the inspection to the extent known.
(D) A copy of the Notice of Inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms for the inspection to be
conducted.
(2) On or before July 1, 2018, the Labor Commissioner shall develop a template posting that employers may use
to comply with the requirements of subdivision (a) to inform employees of a notice of inspection to be conducted
of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records conducted by an immigration
agency. The posting shall be available on the Labor Commissioner's Internet Web site so that it is accessible to
any employer.
(3) An employer, upon reasonable request, shall provide an affected employee a copy of the Notice of Inspection
of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms.
(b) (1) Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer shall provide to each current affected employee,
and to the employee's authorized representative, if any, a copy of the written immigration agency notice that
provides the results of the inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records
within 72 hours of its receipt of the notice. Within 72 hours of its receipt of this notice, the employer shall also
provide to each affected employee, and to the affected employee's authorized representative, if any, written
notice of the obligations of the employer and the affected employee arising from the results of the inspection of
I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records. The notice shall relate to the affected
employee only and shall be delivered by hand at the workplace if possible and, if hand delivery is not possible, by
mail and email, if the email address of the employee is known, and to the employee's authorized representative.
The notice shall contain the following information:
(A) A description of any and all deficiencies or other items identified in the written immigration inspection results
notice related to the affected employee.
(B) The time period for correcting any potential deficiencies identified by the immigration agency.
(C) The time and date of any meeting with the employer to correct any identified deficiencies.
(D) Notice that the employee has the right to representation during any meeting scheduled with the employer.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, an "affected employee" is an employee identified by the immigration agency
inspection results to be an employee who may lack work authorization, or an employee whose work authorization
documents have been identified by the immigration agency inspection to have deficiencies.
(c) An employer who fails to provide the notices required by this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of two
thousand dollars ($2,000) up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and five thousand dollars
($5,000) up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation. This section does not require a
penalty to be imposed upon an employer or person who fails to provide notice to an employee at the express and
specific direction or request of the federal government. The penalty shall be recoverable by the Labor
Commissioner.
(d) For purposes of this section, an "employee's authorized representative" means an exclusive collective
bargaining representative.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billN avClient.xhtml ?bill_ id=201720180AB450 5/15/2018 May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 8 of 26
Bill Text -AB-450 Employment regulation: immigration worksite enforcement actions. Page 4 of 4
(e) This section applies to public and private employers.
(f) In accordance with state and federal law, nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted, construed, or applied to
restrict or limit an employer's compliance with a memorandum of understanding governing the use of the federal
E-Verify system.
SEC. 5. Section 1019.2 is added to the Labor Code, to read :
1019.2. (a) Except as otherwise required by federal law, a public or private employer, or a person acting on behalf
of a public or private employer, shall not reverify the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in
a manner not required by Section 1324a(b) of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), an employer who violates subdivision (a) shall be subject to a civil
penalty of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000). The penalty shall be recoverable by the Labor Commissioner.
(2) The actions of an employer that violate subdivision (a) and result in a civil penalty under paragraph (1) shall
not also form the basis for liability or penalty under Section 1019.1.
(c) In accordance with state and federal law, nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted, construed, or applied to
restrict or limit an employer's compliance with a memorandum of understanding governing the use of the federal
E-Verify system.
SEC. 6. 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.
https ://leginfo .legislature.ca. gov /faces/billN avClient.xhtml ?bill_ id=201720180AB4 5 0 5/15/2018 May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 9 of 26
Exhibit 2
AB-103 Public safety: omnibus. c2017-2ornJ
CHAPTER 17
An act to amend Sections 384 and 1010.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to amend Sections 11040, 11041, 11042, 11045, 24000, 69580,
69592, 69594, and 69600 of, to add Sections 15007, 15820.948, 68514, and 69614.4 to, to add Article 9 (commencing with 70500) to
Chapter 5.7 of Title 8 of, to add Chapter 17.8 (commencing with Section 7310) to Division 7 of Title 1 of, to add Chapter 16 (commencing
with Section 27770) to Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of, to add and repeal Section 12532 of, and to repeal Section 11043 of, the
Government Code, to add Section 329 to the Military and Veterans Code, to amend Sections 1170.18, 1370, 1370.6, 1372, 1463.007, ·
1464, 1557, 2801, 2808, 3453, 5075, 6031, 6031.1, 29800, 29805, 30680, and 30900 of, to add Sections 1170.127 and 4032 to, to repeal
Sections 1203.6 and 1464.2 of, and to repeal and add Section 1203.5 of, the Penal Code, to add and repeal Section 10340.1 of the Public
Contract Code, to amend Sections 13365, 13365.2, 40509, and 40509.5 of the Vehicle Code, and to amend Sections 209, 1982, 4100,
4358.5, 7228, and 7234 of, and to repeal and add Sections 270 and 271 of, the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to public safety,
making an appropriation therefor, to take effect immediately, bill related to the budget.
[ Approved by Governor June 27, 2017. Filed with Secretary of State June 27, 2017.J
[RELEVANT SECTIONS OF] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 103, Committee on Budget. Public safety: omnibus.
(3) Existing federal law authorizes the United States Attorney General to enter into
contracts or agreements with a state, or a political subdivision of a state, for detention or
incarceration space or facilities. Existing federal law authorizes the United States Attorney
General to enter into an agreement with a state, or a political subdivision of a state, to
authorize an officer or employee of that state or political subdivision to, among other
things, detain aliens in the United States.
Existing law, commonly known as the TRUST Act, prohibits a law enforcement official, as
defined, from detaining an individual on the basis of a United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement hold after that individual becomes eligible for release from custody,
unless, at the time that the individual becomes eligible for release from custody, certain
conditions are met, including, among other things, that the individual has been convicted of
specified crimes.
This bill would prohibit a city or county or local law enforcement agency from, on or after
June 15, 2017, entering into a contract with the federal government or any federal agency
to house or detain an adult noncitizen in a locked detention facility for purposes of civil
immigration custody. The bill would prohibit a city or county or local law enforcement
agency that entered into a contract of that nature on or before June 15, 2017, from
modifying or renewing that contract so as to expand the maximum number of contract
beds that may be used to house or detain an adult noncitizen for purposes of civil
immigration custody.
This bill would similarly prohibit a city or county or local law enforcement agency from, on
or after June 15, 2017, entering into a contract with the federal government or any federal
agency to house or detain an accompanied or unaccompanied minor that is in the custody
May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 10 of 26
of or detained by specified federal agencies in a locked detention facility. The bill would
prohibit a city or county or local law enforcement agency that entered into a contract of
that nature on or before June 15, 2017, from modifying or renewing that contract so as to
expand the maximum number of contract beds that may be used to house or detain an
accompanied or unaccompanied minor in a locked detention facility. The bill would
provide that this prohibition does not apply to temporary housing of any accompanied or
unaccompanied minor in less restrictive settings when the State Department of Social
Services certifies that the contract is necessary based on changing conditions of the
population in need and if the housing contract meets 2 requirements.
(5) Existing law sets forth the duties and responsibilities of the Attorney General and
provides that he or she has charge, as attorney, of all legal matters in which the state is
interested, except as specified.
This bill would require, until July 1, 2027, the Attorney General, or his or her designee, to
engage in reviews of county, local, or private locked detention facilities in which
noncitizens are being housed or detained for purposes of civil immigration proceedings in
California, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Justice to provide, during
the budget process, updates and information to the Legislature and the Governor, including
a written summary of findings, if appropriate, regarding the progress of these reviews and
any relevant findings. The bill would also require the Attorney General, or his or her
designee, on or before March 1, 2019, to conduct a review of these facilities and to provide,
on or before March 1, 2019, the Legislature and the Governor with a comprehensive report
outlining the findings of that review. The bill would require the comprehensive report to be
posted on the Attorney General's Internet Web site and otherwise made available to the
public upon its release to the Legislature and the Governor.
[Relevant Sections of] Assembly Bill No. 103
SEC. 6.
Chapter 17.8 (commencing with Section 7310) is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of the
Government Code, to read:
CHAPTER 17.8. Housing Contracts
7310.
(a) A city, county, city and county, or local law enforcement agency that does not, as of June
15, 2017, have a contract with the federal government or any federal agency to detain adult
noncitizens for purposes of civil immigration custody, is prohibited from entering into a
contract with the federal government or any federal agency, to house or detain in a locked
detention facility noncitizens for purposes of civil immigration custody.
(b) A city, county, city and county, or local law enforcement agency that, as of June 15,
2017, has an existing contract with the federal government or any federal agency to detain
adult noncitizens for purposes of civil immigration custody, shall not renew or modify that
contract in such a way as to expand the maximum number of contract beds that may be
utilized to house or detain in a locked detention facility noncitizens for purposes of civil
immigration custody.
May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 11 of 26
7311.
(a) A city, county, city and county, or local law enforcement agency that does not, as of June
15, 2017, have a contract with the federal government or any federal agency to house or
detain any accompanied or unaccompanied minor in the custody of or detained by the
federal Office of Refugee Resettlement or the United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement is prohibited from entering into a contract with the federal government or
any federal agency to house minors in a locked detention facility.
(b) A city, county, city and county, or local law enforcement agency that, as of June 15,
2017, has an existing contract with the federal government or any federal agency to house
or detain any accompanied or unaccompanied minor in the custody of or detained by the
federal Office of Refugee Resettlement or the United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement shall not renew or modify that contract in such a way as to expand the
maximum number of contract beds that may be utilized to house minors in a locked
detention facility.
( c) This section does not apply to temporary housing of any accompanied or
unaccompanied minor in less restrictive settings when the State Department of Social
Services certifies a necessity for a contract based on changing conditions of the population
in need and if the housing contract meets the following requirements:
(1) It is temporary in nature and nonrenewable on a long-term or permanent basis.
(2) It meets all applicable federal and state standards for that housing.
SEC.12.
Section 12532 is added to the Government Code, to read:
12532.
(a) Until July 1, 2027, the Attorney General, or his or her designee, shall engage in reviews
of county, local, or private locked detention facilities in which noncitizens are being housed
or detained for purposes of civil immigration proceedings in California, including any
county, local, or private locked detention facility in which an accompanied or
unaccompanied minor is housed or detained on behalf of, or pursuant to a contract with,
the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement or the United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. The order and number of facilities to be reviewed shall be determined by the
Department of Justice. The Attorney General, or his or her designee, shall have authority
over which facilities may be reviewed and when. The Department of Justice shall provide,
during the budget process, updates and information to the Legislature and the Governor,
including a written summary of findings, if appropriate, regarding the progress of these
reviews and any relevant findings.
(b) The Attorney General, or his or her designee, shall, on or before March 1, 2019, conduct
a review of county, local, or private locked detention facilities in which noncitizens are
being housed or detained for purposes of civil immigration proceedings in California,
including any county, local, or private locked detention facility in which an accompanied or
unaccompanied minor is housed or detained on behalf of, or pursuant to a contract with,
May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 12 of 26
the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement or the United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. The order and number of facilities to be reviewed shall be determined by the
Department of Justice.
(1) This review shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(A) A review of the conditions of confinement.
(B) A review of the standard of care and due process provided to the individuals described
in subdivision (a).
(C) A review of the circumstances around their apprehension and transfer to the facility.
(2) The Attorney General, or his or her designee, shall provide, on or before March 1, 2019,
the Legislature and the Governor with a comprehensive report outlining the findings of the
review described in this subdivision, which shall be posted on the Attorney General's
Internet Web site and otherwise made available to the public upon its release to the
Legislature and the Governor. The Department of Justice shall provide, during the budget
process, updates and information to the Legislature and the Governor, including a written
summary of findings, if appropriate, regarding the progress of the review described in this
subdivision and any relevant findings.
( c) The Attorney General, or his or her designee, shall be provided all necessary access for
the observations necessary to effectuate reviews required pursuant to this section,
including, but not limited to, access to detainees, officials, personnel, and records.
(d) This section shall become inoperative on July 1, 2027, and, as ofJanuary 1, 2028, is
repealed.
May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 13 of 26
Bill Text -SB-54 Law enforcement: sharing data. Page 2 of 8
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.
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes
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.
(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
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billN avClient.xhtml ?bill_id=201720180SB54 5/15/2018 May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 15 of 26
Bill Text -SB-54 Law enforcement: sharing data. Page 3 of 8
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, 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.
(0) 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.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billN avClient.xhtml ?bill _id=201720180SB54 5/15/2018 May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 16 of 26
Bill Text -SB-54 Law enforcement: sharing data. Page 4 of 8
(5) 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.
(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 U) 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 federa l 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 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.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billN avClient.xhtml ?bill_id=201720180SB54 5/15/2018 May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 17 of 26
Bill Text -SB-54 Law enforcement: sharing data. Page 5 of 8
(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. "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 poli_ce 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.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billN avClient.xhtml ?bill_id=201720180SB54 5/15/2018 May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 18 of 26
Bill Text -SB-54 Law enforcement: sharing data. Page 6 of 8
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.
(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
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.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml ?bill_id=201720180SB54 5/15/2018 May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 19 of 26
Bill Text -SB-54 Law enforcement: sharing data. Page 7 of 8
(4) Making inquiries into information necessary to certify an individual who has been identified as a potential
crime or trafficking victim for a Tor U Visa pursuant to Section llOl(a)(lS)(T) or 1 lOl(a)(lS)(U) of Title 8 of the
United States Code or to comply with Section 922(d)(S) 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 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.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/bil1NavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB54 5/15/2018 May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 20 of 26
Bill Text -SB-54 Law enforcement: sharing data. Page 8 of 8
(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 for the purpose of immigration
enforcement. All state and local law enforcement age,ncies 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.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml ?bill_id=201720180SB54 5/15/2018 May 21, 2018 Item #1 Page 21 of 26
Morgen Fry
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mel N
Monday, May 21, 2018 12:22 PM
Council Internet Email
California "Sanctuary State" Laws Meeting
pear Mayor Hall, City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney:
All Receive -Agenda Item # _L
For the Information of t he:
CITY COUNCIL
ACM v" CA .Jl._ CC ../
Datei;/:JJ\l& CM ,/ coo i/
I am disappointed about the council's decision to hold this meeting. The Mayor and City Council positions are non-
partisan positions, and are meant to deal with local Carlsbad issues. Federal and state laws preempt City laws. There is
no reason to add fuel to the fire of an already fully burning debate when the issues are not part of our city government's
responsibility or jurisdiction.
The state and federal governments already have branches designated by law to deal with this issue. It is complex arid divisive.
Please do not entangle our city in needless posturing.
Sincerely,
Melba Novoa
Carlsbad resident
1
Morgen Fry
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mark Packard,
Priscilla Espinoza
Monday, May 21, 2018 11:32 AM
Council Internet Email
Re: SB-54.
I hope you will side with us American citizens regarding SB-54!
We need ICE to do their job in California. Mexico deports illegal aliens without the
benefit of even a hearing. And we should do the same!
Best Regards, Priscilla Espinoza
1
Morgen Fry
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Carlsbad City Council,
Steve Short
Monday, May 21, 2018 3:57 AM
Matthew Hall; Keith Blackburn; Michael Schumacher; Council Internet Email; Cori
Schumacher
Bonnie Short
Please vote to oppose SB 54 All Receive -Agenda Item# .1..
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
ACM ,/ CA....1,LCC V
Datet;\;uh-& CMJ::::::"COO V
Please vote to OPPOSE SB 54! ! ! !
Thanks,
Steve & Bonnie Short
I 0 :,, Virus-free. www.avg.com
1
Morgen fry
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Robin Hvidston
Sunday, May 20, 2018 9:45 PM
Matthew Hall; Keith Blackburn; Michael Schumacher; Council Internet Email; Cori
Schumacher
VOTE TO OPPOSE SB 54
SB 54 shields and protects criminal aliens. PLEASE take a stand for
public safety and oppose this law!
Robin Hvidston
1
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject
Sandra Moffitt <~
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:11 AM
Matthew Hall
Keith Blackburn; Council Internet Email; Michael Schumacher; Cori Schumacher
NO to be a sanctuary city -thank you for your vote!
My husband and I have lived in Carlsbad for a long time and I grew up here on the coast. We believe that the primary
role of government is to keep us safe, and the state's sanctuary policy that protects criminals leaves us scratching our
heads. We support people following the rules and respecting our country's immigration policy-entering legally not
illegally. And we certainly do not need to protect criminals or gang members. Thank you for your vote to side with the
Trump Administration and NOT Jerry Brown, who is bankrupting our state with his crazy policies.
Also, I have noticed more homeless people downtown Carlsbad and the city needs to do something to nip this in the
bud before our tourism is affected. And the tax payers quality of life. The Mayor of Escondido and council are on the
right track by purchasing bus tickets for the homeless to send back from where they came from. The more services
cities offer to homeless, the more will come. That is common sense. Parts of Seattle, LA and even downtown San
Diego have become real slums with feces and needles littering the sidewalks and taking parks that tax payers pay for
have been taken over by the homeless. This is not right. Just wanted to address this while I was taking the time to
write to you.
Thank you again for your vote on the sanctuary city situation.
Sandra Moffitt Adams
1
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Liam Dunfey <
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 8:55 AM
Cori Schumacher
Council Internet Email; Christine Dunfey
Thank You
Dear Councilmember Schumacher,
I want to commend you for being the lone dissenting voice on our City Council and not backing the divisive and
xenophobic Trump administration's policy to allow local law enforcement officials to investigate arrestees'
immigration status or report that status to federal authorities. This isn't a pressing matter in our community, yet
our elected officials feel victim to loud voices in the community that are ill-informed and misguided. I commend
your leadership in a time of bullying, baseless white grievances and fears, and political posturing.
My wife and I are appalled that we're raising our young children under this so called President. It's going to
take real leadership to heal our country and community. Thanks again for showing some integrity and seeing
the bigger picture.
Sincerely,
Liam Dunfey
Carlsbad, CA 92009
2
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kira Linberg
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 8:44 AM
Council Internet Email
Call from Mindy Schwartz
Carlsbad resident Mindy Schwartz called this morning to pass along a message to city council that she is very
disappointed with last night's vote. She said she will be working hard to support any candidates in the next election that
did not go along with it. She said it is heartless, and that Trump is doing much damage. She said that she is disappointed
to live in a city that supports his agenda.
3
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Karin Brennan
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 8:28 AM
Council Internet Email; Matthew Hall; Keith Blackburn; Michael Schumacher; Cori
Schumache.r
Shame -anti Sanctuary city vote
As a longtime resident of Carlsbad, this is the first time I have ever been embarrassed to claim it as my home. This
council's cowardly bowing to the outright racist policies of the current administration of Donald Trump came as a major
surprise to me, and is a sad reflection of this regrettable time in our national history. Apparently, our wonderful city has
now become infected with the "build a wall" mentality that has unnecessarily torn our country from stem to stern. The
toothless argument of "keeping us safe" is a false cover story, and one which taints our city's otherwise welcoming
veneer. Now that we've shown we are no better that other fear mongering locales, what will we start seeing next? Maybe
we'll start seeing people calling the police because of others who don't look like they "belong"? Hispanic/other darker
skinned people may be pulled over to check their status under the ruse of a legitimate traffic stop.Ridiculous? Hardly. If
you are paying attention, these things are happening daily across our country. You have wittingly opened the door to that
kind of behavior, and have now invited the "us vs. them" mentality directly into your/our back yard.
By the way, these comments do NOT apply to Ms.Schumacher, who alone had the courage to stand up to the coming
injustice inherent in this terrible policy. While we supported all of you in the past, we will never vote for 4 of you again.
Only Ms. Schumacher will have our support in the future. My husband and I are both veterans and we always VOTE.
Shame on this embarrassment of an administration for tarnishing our reputation across the world, and shame on you for
adding us to the list of fools without the moral courage to hold our civic ground.
Karin Brennan
4
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sen~:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council,
Meg Feeley <j
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 7:03 AM
Council Internet Email
Anti-Sanctuary State Lawsuit
Thank you for your vote in joining the Anti Sanctuary lawsuit against the state of California and keeping our city safe.
Kindly,
Margaret Feeley
5
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello,
Dee Forsberg, Global Hire
Monday, May 21, 2018 9:18 PM
Council Internet Email
Immigrant Protections
I am appalled by our City Council this evening and the vote regarding immigrants. I have to really
wonder where the sense of humanity has gone in our cultural. I thought we had individuals
representing "all of us" who were compassionate and acted like humanitarians. I also have to wonder
why this has become an issue all of a sudden in City of Carlsbad where we have "fewer" immigrants
and the only thing I can surmise is it politically driven. Driven to divide instead of bringing us together,
which is what we need as a country and a community. I know others will feel the same. The old ways
of thinking and prejudice attitudes are on the way out. Fear mongering, especially when people are
intelligent does not go over well.
Thank you for your service
0 ----·------
Dee@GlobalHire.org -(
Licensed and Insured
6
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject
Attachments:
brine-
Monday, May 21, 2018 6:31 PM
Council Internet Email; Matthew Hall; Keith Blackburn; Michael Schumacher; Cori
Schumacher; City Clerk; Manager Internet Email
brine-
REASONS WHY YOU NEED TO OPPOSE SB54 SANCTUARY policies
1 -CARLSBAD -2018-05-21 -REASONS FOR FORMAL OPPOSillON TO SB54 -
SANCTUARY -PDF.pdf
TO: City Council including Mayor
cc: City Clerk
REASONS WHY YOU NEED TO FILE FORMAL OPPOSITION TO SB54 SANCTUARY policies.
Please see attached PDF
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA
"Activists lobbying to protect citizens' rights under the U.S. Constitution"
7
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Arthur Christopher Schaper
Monday, May 21, 2018 3:17 PM
Council Internet Email; cityclerk@carlsbadca.gov; citymanager@carlsbadca.gov; Help;
Attorney
Carlsbad City Council: Please Pass a Constitution Compliance Ordinance/Resolution--
Disregard/Opt out of SB 54
Template for Proposed Constitutional Compliance Ordinance Overriding SB 54.docx
Dear Carlsbad City Council and staff:
My name is Arthur Schaper, a life-long California resident deeply concerned about SB 54, the sanctuary state
law which is endangering our public safety officers, our businesses, and our fellow citizens.
I am writing this extended letter to all of you urging the city to pass an ordinance/resolution rejecting
compliance with the unconstitutional California Values Act, i.e. SB 54. The legislation creates a direct conflict
for municipal governments between compliance with state and federal law.
This crisis must be resolved, especially for private firms who must comply with federal law, yet face fines and
prosecution from the state attorney general for doing so. The same holds true for police and other public safety
and civil servants in the state of California. This schism between federal and state law is untenable. Not only
that, but SB 54 places public safety and peace officers in considerable, unnecessary, and unfounded danger.
We are a nation oflaws, and cities can draft ordinances/resolutions that reflect not just the oaths of office taken
by every elected official, but also the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Art. VI, Sec. 2)
The City of Los Alamitos has submitted and approved an ordinance called "Constitution of the United States
Compliance," which resolves the above conflict for their city, civil staff, residents, and businesses. They have
opted to disregard SB 54 and comply with federal law. More cities and counties must follow this example.
Here is a list (and growing!) of cities and counties which are opposing and opting out of SB 54:
Counties Cities
Adelanto
8
Los Alamitos
Mission Viejo
Aliso Viejo Newport Beach
1. Amador County Anderson Orange
2. Butte County Barstow Ridgecrest
3. Kem County Beaumont Ripon
4. Mariposa County California City San Jacinto
5. Orange County Colusa San Juan Capistrano
6. San Diego County Corona Santa Clarita
7. Shasta County Costa Mesa Simi Valley
8. Siskiyou County t. Dana Point Upland
9. Tehama County . Escondido Villa Park
10. Tuolumne County '.. Fountain Valley Waterford
,. Glendora Westminster
-. Hanford Wildomar
;_ Hemet Yorba Linda
i. Hesperia Yuba City
'. Highland Yucaipa
:. Huntington Beach
1. Laguna Niguel
t. Lake Elsinore
. Lake Forest
'.. Lincoln
Other California cities are exploring their options. Keep in mind that jurisdictions like Pittsburg, CA as well as
Suffolk County, New York and Miami-Dade and Palm Beach in Florida have rescinded their sanctuary status,
too.
Sheriffs throughout the state are rejecting this lawlessness. El Dorado County Sheriff John D' Agostini officially
asserted that he would comply with federal law, not the contradictory state law. Sheriffs in Orange County,
Contra Costa County, and even liberal Alameda County are now releasing the information on all inmates and
their release times, including illegal aliens, in full cooperation with federal agencies and in defiance of the
unlawful, unconstitutional California, Sanctuary State legislation. In Los Angeles County, Sheriff Jim
McDonnell has taken every step possible to ensure public safety and cooperate with ICE in spite of repeated
pressure from Sacramento politicians, the left-wing Board of Supervisors, and open-border advocates.
Here are the news articles announcing Los Alamitos' decision to opt out of SB 54:
http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/los-alamitos-rejects-ca-state-sanctuary-law
9
Los Alamitos rejects CA state sanctuary
law -Story] KTTV
www.foxla.com
Los Alamitos Council members voted 4-1 to ignore CA
sanctuary laws Monday night.
https://www .nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Los-Alamitos-Weighs-Opts-Out-of-So-Called-Sanctuary-Law-
477349573 .htrnl ....................
Los Alamitos Opts Out of So Called
Sanctuary Law
www.nbclosangeles.com
A Southern California city has opted exempt itself from a
state law that limits cooperation between local police and
federal immigration agents.
https :/ /www.ocregister.com/2018/04/ 16/ sanctuary-rally-expected-in-advance-of-tonights-los-alarnitos-vote/
10
Los Alamitos approves its precedent-
setting anti-sanctuary ...
www.ocregister.com
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to
share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on
Redd it (Opens in new window) Click to print (Opens in new
window) Leonor Ferris, left, and Genevieve Peters celebrate
after the Los Alamitos council voted to give final approval for
an ...
Carlsbad can and must do the same. The city has the authority and the responsibility to do so.
I have provided a template attached with the exact same language as the ordinance passed in Los Alamitos.
Of course, the Carlsbad city council should direct legal and civil staff to look over the language of the
ordinance to affirm that everything is in proper order.
For the PDF file of the Los Alamitos Ordinance, see below, pg. 171-173:
http://cityoflosalamitos.org/?wpfb dl=3092
Carlsbad should take on the state legislature's affront to the rule of law imposed
on California's municipalities because of SB 54. The city has taken the lead on many issues. This is one core
matter which the city can and should take a stand on.
There are plenty of means to achieving these goals of opposing, upending, and stopping SB 54:
1. Pass Opt-Out Ordinance from SB 54
2. Pass Resolution Opposing SB 54
3. Issue a Stay of Compliance until the courts issue a final ruling on SB 54
' 11
4. File Lawsuit Against State of California
5. Join with Huntington Beach lawsuit against California
6. File Joinder with DOJ/Huntington Beach lawsuit
7. Urge your county sheriff to reject SB 54, comply with federal law, and publish all the release times and
dates for inmates, legal and illegal.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Arthur Christopher Schaper
Email: ArthurSchaper@hotmail.com
Arthur Christopher Schaper is a blogger, writer, and commentator on topics both timeless and timely; political,
cultural, and eternal. A life-long Southern California resident, Arthur currently lives in Torrance. Follow his blogs
at The State of the Union and As He ls. So Are We Ministries.
Townhall.com Contributor
Barbwire.com Contributor
Canada Free Press Contributor
Twitter: @ArthurCSchaper
Email: ArthurSchaper@hotmail.com
12
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council Members,
c
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:50 PM
Council Internet Email
Sanctuary state issue
I am a former resident of Carlsbad having just closed escrow on my home this past week. For many
reasons my wife and I are moving to the state of Tennessee. One of the reasons is what you just
addressed last night, the sanctuary state issue.
Thank you for voting to back the federal government's lawsuit against California. The stance of the
state of California and numerous cities with regard to this issue is inappropriate and flies in the face of
our US Constitution.
I wish you success in undertaking this issue, both for the sake of the state and the sake of the USA.
Thank you again,
Charles Deen
1
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
Mark Gordey
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:26 PM
Council Internet Email
FW: City Council votes to opt out of 'sanctuary' law ... Thank You
Dear Carlsbad City Council and Mayor, I would like to Thank You for being brave and doing the common since
thing and putting the well being of law abiding citizens first and foremost.
Thank You
Mark Gordey
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:14 PM
Council Internet Email
Sanctuary law decision
Sadly, I'm not surprised that the Council voted to support Trump's RACIST policies, I guess I was hoping for better.
Is that what you want Carlsbad to stand for? Supporting a racist president and policy? VERY disappointing and I can
promise that once I know who voted in favor of this law (vs SUPPORTING OUR DIVERSE STATE) I will not only vote
AGAINST THEM but participate in ANY way I can to ensure those persons are voted out of office.
Mike Barnes
Carlsbad resident AGAINST discrimination
3
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject
Susan Traugh <
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 11:33 AM
Matthew Hall; Keith Blackburn; Council Internet Email; Michael Schumacher
Cori Schumacher
Sanctuary Cities
I'm disgusted with the Carlsbad City Council Members who voted to join Trump's bigoted and ill-conceived attack on
undocumented workers.
As you can see from this article in the LA Times, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-males-white-americans-
violence-sanctuary-cities-20170803-story.html. the so-called "safety" issues you site are pure fiction of ill-informed
people. (To quote the article, "Rates of homicides, gun killings and illicit-drug fatalities are highest in counties where
nine in 10 residents are white and where President Trump won.")
Your suit is part of that larger, prejudiced movement and one that I cannot support in any way.
To that end, I will be careful NEVER to cross into Carlsbad to shop or do business of any kind until either you are
replaced in office or this misguided position is changed.
Disgusted with you,
SUJa-WTr~~ c?~R~
Author/Presenter
P.S. Thank you, Cori Schumacher, for being a person of integrity.
4
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Richard L Shlemmer <
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 11:11 AM
Council Internet Email
Sanctuary City Status
Dear Mayor and members of the city council: As 50 years citizens of Carlsbad we are deeply disappointed in your 4-1
vote to oppose our California State Senate Bill 54. While this is a purely "political and divisive" vote we single out Cori
Schumacher who courageously voted with those of us in the California majority who affirm the rights of all in our state,
including the many immigrants who enrich our state. This is a grave embarrassment for our City to be counted with
Encinitas and Escondido in opposition to Senate Bill 54 because of it's racial overtones. We will do all possible speaking
to our long term friends and business associates to reject the "4" who opposed the State Sanctuary Law. Dr. Richard &
Jo Anne Shlemmer
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
5
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Jim Houle
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 8:58 PM
Council Internet Email
Jim
Subject: Regarding Carlsbad sanctuary status
From: Jim Houle
Date: May 22, 2018 at 8:54:01 PM PDT
To: cori.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov
Cc: Mary Mobbs
Subject: Regarding Carlsbad sanctuary status
Dear Ms. Schumacher, i applaud your response and your vote on the matter of the Carlsbad sanctuary
status:
"The weighing in on this is purely political, and it's divisive," said Councilwoman Cori Schumacher, who
voted against the motion."
Thank you for your work for the city.
Regards,
James Houle, Carlsbad Ca
3
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Carlsbad City Council,
on behalf of Kellie Fuhr
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 3:25 PM
Council Internet Email
Thank you!
Thank you for taking a stand and opposing SB 54.
-Kellie Fuhr
4
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sandra Robbins
Wednesday, May 23, 2018 7:30 AM
Council Internet Email
Recent vote on Sanctuary City
Congratulations on your decision to stand with the Federal Government. However, we are curious who the
council member is who voted against it.
Sandra and Jack Robbins
Carlsbad, CA
1
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
John sladavic <
Wednesday, May 23, 2018 7:12 AM
Council Internet Email
Exclusion
Dear (or not so dear) City Council),
With your vote of exclusion, I find it very hard to be proud of our city leaders. I love carlsbad but I think you are making
decisions for your own political agenda. This is not in Carlsbad's interest.You have no business giving Carlsbad's support
to the national arena without the input of its denizens. I truly hope you meet your destiny at the polls.
John Sladavic
2
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council Members,
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:50 PM
Council Internet Email
Sanctuary state issue
I am a former resident of Carlsbad having just closed escrow on my home this past week. For many
reasons my wife and I are moving to the state of Tennessee. One of the reasons is what you just
addressed last night, the sanctuary state issue.
Thank you for voting to back the federal government's lawsuit against California. The stance of the
state of California and numerous cities with regard to this issue is inappropriate and flies in the face of
our US Constitution.
I wish you success in undertaking this issue, both for the sake of the state and the sake of the USA.
Thank you again,
Charles Deen
1
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
Mark Gordey
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:26 PM
Council Internet Email
FW: City Council votes to opt out of 'sanctuary' law ... Thank You
Dear Carlsbad City Council and Mayor, 1 would like to Thank You for being brave and doing the common since
thing and putting the well being of law abiding citizens first and foremost.
Thank You
Mark Gordey
2
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:14 PM
Council Internet Email
Sanctuary law decision
Sadly, I'm not surprised that the Council voted to support Trump's RACIST policies, I guess I was hoping for better.
Is that what you want Carlsbad to stand for? Supporting a racist president and policy? VERY disappointing and I can
promise that once I know who voted in favor of this law (vs SUPPORTING OUR DIVERSE STATE} I will not only vote
AGAINST THEM but participate in ANY way I can to ensure those persons are voted out of office.
Mike Barnes
Carlsbad resident AGAINST discrimination
3
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject
Susan Traugh
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 11:33 AM
Matthew Hall; Keith Blackburn; Council Internet Email; Michael Schumacher
Cori Schumacher
Sanctuary Cities
I'm disgusted with the Carlsbad City Council Members who voted to join Trump's bigoted and ill-conceived attack on
undocumented workers.
As you can see from this article in the LA Times, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-males-white-americans-
violence-sanctuary-cities-20170803-story.html. the so-called "safety" issues you site are pure fiction of ill-informed
people. (To quote the article, "Rates of Homicides, gun killings and illicit-drug fatalities are highest in counties where
nine in 10 residents are white and where President Trump won.")
Your suit is part of that larger, prejudiced movement and one that I cannot support in any way.
To that end, I will be careful NEVER to cross into Carlsbad to shop or do business of any kind until either you are
replaced in office or this misguided position is changed.
Disgusted with you,
SU,Ja,WTrauglv., 0~R~
Author /Presenter
P.S. Thank you, Cori Schumacher, for being a person of integrity.
4
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
Richard L Shlemmer
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 11:11 AM
Council Internet Email
Sanctuary City Status
Dear Mayor and members of the city council: As 50 years citizens of Carlsbad we are deeply disappointed in your 4-1
vote to oppose our California State Senate Bill 54. While this is a purely "political and divisive" vote we single out Cori
Schumacher who courageously voted with those of us in the California majority who affirm the rights of all in our state,
including the many immigrants who enrich our state. This is a grave embarrassment for our City to be counted with
Encinitas and Escondido in opposition to Senate Bill 54 because of it's racial overtones. We will do all possible speaking
to our long term friends and business associates to reject the "4" who opposed the State Sanctuary Law. Dr. Richard &
Jo Anne Shlemmer
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
5
Tammy McMinn
From:
Sent:
Cc:
Subject:
Council Internet Email
Wednesday, June 13, 2018 8:18 AM
City Clerk; Jason Haber
FW: City Council "Special Meeting" May 21, 2018
From: Hope Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:49 PM
(Y)~ J/s-6
Sf:::U-o-1/ r(t~ .
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>; Attorney <attorney@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Manager Internet
Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>
Subject: City Council "Special Meeting" May 21, 2018
6/12/2018
To: Mayor Matt Hall, Council Members Mark Packard, Michael Schumacher, Keith Blackbum, Cori
Schumacher, City Attorney Celia Brewer, City Manager Scott Chadwick
Re: Carlsbad City Council Special Meeting of May 2l5t, 2018
Request this letter be included in the public record.
Mayor Hall, City Council Members, City Attorney and City Manager,
I cannot begin to tell you how disturbed I am regarding the Special Meeting noted above. Disturbed, angry,
insulted and disappointed just begin to describe my response to the meeting.
I wonder how it came to be that a Special Meeting was called, the nature of the meeting known to be so divisive
that SWAT was deemed needed. Was it because someone knew about the outside agitators history or because
someone thought those who live in Carlsbad were going to be the problem? Either way, it is insulting.
I'd like to know why folks who don't live in Carlsbad were allowed to hold signs up in the faces of good
citizens while they spoke. I've been to meetings where our Mayor has called out people in the gallery for much
less and yet, at this meeting, the Mayor remained silent.
Last why is it that the City Council is even involved in this charade? As Councilwoman Cori Schumacher
pointed out at the meeting, this has nothing to do with crime in our community and nothing to do with the
ability of our police to protect us. The California Values Act (not "Sanctuary State Act") is a court issue, the
window of opportunity is closed and it does not fall into the purview of our City Council.
I am disappointed to see our City going down this road. It's divisive, it's not what Carlsbad is about, and it's
ineffective. It's about time for an explanation regarding how this happened and an apology to the citizens.
With Sadness,
Hope Nelson
18 year Carlsbad resident
1