County executive commits to 287(g) warrant‑service MOU; council members say they were not briefed

Wicomico County’s executive told a Jan. 23 press conference that her administration has committed to entering the federal 287(g) program using the warrant‑service officer (WSO) model, and said the agreement will involve the county’s Department of Corrections rather than the sheriff’s office.

At the press conference the executive said, “I am proud to announce that my administration has committed to entering into the 287(g) program, specifically the warrant service officer model,” framing the program as a long‑standing partnership that allows trained local officers to work with federal authorities to identify and remove people who commit serious crimes. She added that the sheriff’s office would not have operational control over the corrections facility under the arrangement.

Why it matters: the WSO model would allow corrections officers certified by ICE to serve immigration detainers on people already in custody and to hold them up to 48 hours beyond the point they would otherwise be released. The press conference also said ICE will provide an 8‑hour training course delivered locally in Salisbury, a change from earlier materials that suggested much longer out‑of‑area training.

Panel guests and local officials on the Open Agenda program raised multiple practical and legal questions after the announcement. Jim Atkins, who attended both the press conference and the county council meeting, cited figures he said were provided by the detention center director: the county receives about $45 per day in state reimbursement to house an inmate while the county’s estimated cost is roughly $215 per day. “So we’re spending $215 a day approximately, and we’re getting back 45,” Atkins said, noting that holding someone an extra 48 hours would increase that gap.

Panelists also flagged specific contract language. The show discussed a transport clause (referred to as paragraph 9 of the MOU) that some counties do not include; hosts said county officials have asserted the county would not be responsible for transport but that the clause still needs clarification. A guest explained the difference between the words “shall” and “may” in indemnity language, noting that the MOU’s use of “may” would leave indemnification discretionary rather than mandatory.

Operational alternatives and staffing: the discussion contrasted the WSO model with the jail enforcement model (JEM). Supporters said JEM can provide more systematic screening at intake, but county officials told guests the county is roughly 30 correctional officers short, making the more intensive JEM training and staffing demands impractical. The program also drew operational comparisons to Cecil County, where a chief deputy said his office fingerprinted about 12,000 people over roughly five years, producing roughly 300 matches and about 100 ICE‑related cases.

Council reaction and transparency concerns: several county council members and the council president told guests they did not receive a copy of the MOU before the press conference and that there was no formal resolution or consensus taken in open session. John Cannon, the council president, and other council speakers said they received the MOU only the day after the press conference. County executive staff told the panel that Steve Lincoln, the assistant director of administration, had been in contact with President Cannon and that the executive believed it had majority support, but council leaders disputed that account on the record.

Legal and legislative context: the panel noted that the Maryland legislature rapidly considered and adopted emergency legislation aimed at prohibiting local 287(g) agreements, a move panelists said was prompted by testimony and public concern. Guests said the immediate legal landscape makes any local MOU potentially short‑lived and that court challenges are likely if the county proceeds and state action removes the legal basis.

What’s next: no formal council vote was reported on the program during the broadcast. Panelists urged clearer disclosure to the council and public hearings; guests suggested the next steps likely include continued council scrutiny, potential litigation and follow‑up as state legislation proceeds.

The program concluded by urging clearer public engagement and transparency from county leaders as lawmakers and courts consider the future of local immigration‑enforcement partnerships.