22 Apr Proposed ICE Policy Sent Back Again Over ‘Glaring Loophole’

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Equity Committee, led by Supervisors Shanelle Scales-Preston and Ken Carlson, center, heard concerns over potential loopholes in a proposed ICE non-cooperation policy. (Screenshot captured by Samantha Kennedy / The CC Pulse)

By Samantha Kennedy

It’s approaching a year since Contra Costa supervisors called for a non-cooperation ordinance with federal immigration authorities, following community concerns over support from the Sheriff’s Office as President Trump’s second term got underway. But officials and community members still can’t seem to find the right balance on proposed restrictions.

Supervisors Ken Carlson and Shanelle Scales-Preston, who serve as chair and vice chair of the Equity Committee, sent a proposed ICE non-cooperation policy back for changes — again.

Carlson and Scales-Preston at Monday’s meeting considered a policy that would ban the use of county resources for immigration enforcement. Portions of the draft requiring contractor compliance and protecting county data were removed since the last meeting, prompting residents’ warnings of potential loopholes for outside access.

The more than two dozen community members who spoke said they were supportive of a non-cooperation policy, but the suggested possibilities following the removal of contractor compliance were “terrifying.”

“This is a glaring loophole that excludes many who may operate within the county or have access to information,” said Allyssa Victory, an attorney with the ACLU Northern California’s criminal law and immigration program.

Some residents said that county contractors could share collected data and other information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Though residents largely didn’t name contractors, the county contracts with Flock Safety through the Sheriff’s Office for automated license plate readers.

Flock, which also contracts with other Bay Area law enforcement agencies and thousands in the country, has faced questions over who has access to the system’s data. The Richmond and El Cerrito police departments were two of many agencies last year that found out their data could be searched by out-of-state and federal agencies because of a feature that had unknowingly been turned on.

California law enforcement agencies have been prohibited since 2015 from sharing data from the cameras with out-of-state and federal authorities, though agencies in San Francisco and Oakland, for example, have been found as recently as 2025 to search the data using terms related to federal agencies like the FBI.

Contra Costa also contracts with LexisNexis, a data and research collection company that contracts with ICE for data services that have also been subject to opposition.

Both Flock and LexisNexis have defended their services, with Flock saying that the company does not share data with ICE unless a specific agency allows it. LexisNexis has said that it “prides itself on the responsible use of data.”

Carlson said that while he understood fears, the county and its contractors do not share information with ICE.

Scales-Preston said she wanted to see if it was possible to keep the portion that requires contractor compliance and another removed provision that would safeguard county data.

In a health context, county counsel Thomas L. Geiger said that immigration and citizenship data are already illegal to release. In other departments, Geiger said that information is released to contractors only if it’s legally required.

Even with assurances from companies and state protections, community members say that passing the draft as a policy and not an ordinance would mean fewer consequences for those who break the rules, especially if it can be overruled by a separate department policy.

Geiger said that a policy would be “just as enforceable as an ordinance, but it applies to county employees.”

Scales-Preston suggested that the information about data not being shared through county departments should be included in the language to ensure that people are aware that that’s already the case.

The proposed policy also includes banning “staging or establishing an operational base” for immigration enforcement, a common request in ICE-free zones.

Scales-Preston called on the county to adopt an ICE-free zone. The cities of Richmond and Pinole and the West Contra Costa Unified School District have adopted such zones, which prohibit immigration agents from using their property for enforcement activities.

Committee members are expected to consider a new version of the non-cooperation policy in May or June.