Residents urge county to end ICE transfers as sheriff says OCSD complied with state law

Community organizers, legal aid lawyers and residents pressed the Orange County Board of Supervisors on March 26 to end voluntary transfers of people in county custody to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, saying the practice fractures families and undermines trust in policing.

Speakers representing rapid‑response networks, the Harbor Institute for Immigrant and Economic Justice and the Public Law Center cited county data they said show a sharp rise in referrals and transfers. “Stop separating families,” Sandra, a member of the Orange County Rapid Response Network, told the board during the Truth Act forum. Jonathan Bridal of the Public Law Center urged the county to demand accountability from the sheriff and to ensure compliance with the California Values Act (SB 54).

Sheriff Don Barnes addressed the board after public comment, saying OCSD follows the requirements of SB 54 and does not conduct immigration enforcement. Barnes gave the board the numbers in the Truth Act submission: in calendar year 2023 OCSD recorded 547 jail bookings with ICE detainers; 302 of those met the statute’s threshold for notification as serious offenders, and 221 were ultimately transferred to ICE custody. Barnes said OCSD does not decide which detained individuals ICE will pick up and emphasized that the department “simply determine[s] if the detainer meets the standards of SB 54.”

Board members pressed for more transparency. Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento thanked the sheriff for providing information but said the community needs earlier and more accessible data to scrutinize trends and costs. Supervisor Katrina Foley asked whether the county could publish aggregated datasets and cost estimates on the county website and urged additional PADILLA‑attorney resources for detained people; she also suggested expanding notification to public defenders and consular offices where lawful.

County staff and the sheriff discussed practical limits on what can be disclosed under privacy and criminal history rules, and Barnes said OCSD was willing to provide aggregated charge lists and other nonidentifying information if legally permissible.

The board treated the Truth Act item as a statutorily required public hearing and moved to receive and file the presentation and related materials. No ordinance or policy change was adopted at the March 26 meeting. Several supervisors said they would continue to press for clearer public access to the data and for staff follow‑up on costs and procedural questions.

What’s next: The Truth Act hearing satisfied the state’s annual requirement for public discussion of local interactions with ICE. Supervisors recommended follow-up work — including consideration of aggregated data publication and possible staffing or procedural changes — but did not take further formal action at the meeting.