Contra Costa Sheriff Will Continue Giving ICE Some Inmate Release Data

Despite requests from community groups and Contra Costa County’s Public Defender to stop reporting inmate release data for people living here illegally to Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents, Sheriff David Livingston told county supervisors Tuesday the reporting will continue regarding some of the inmates. The Board of Supervisors hosted a forum on local immigration enforcement activities and concerns over local law enforcement sharing information with ICE.

Livingston said his office adheres to the state’s Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds Act, meant to ensure local law enforcement agencies provide people in custody with basic due process rights should federal immigration authorities seek them.

The California Values Act limits state and local resources from being used to carry out federal immigration enforcement.

Livingston said his office follows state law by not cooperating with ICE, except for reporting release data on immigrants with prior serious or violent felony convictions, or those arrested for serious or violent felonies, which he said is allowed. ICE must request notification.

At issue is what qualifies as a serious and/or violent offense. At the supervisors meeting, there was no debate over whether crimes like murder, rape, domestic violence, firearm crimes, robbery, assault, carjacking, and kidnapping were serious or not, all of which were on the list.

The debate concerned so-called “wobblers,” which are offences like drug possession, vandalism and DUIs, which could either be charged as felonies or misdemeanors depending on various factors.

Those were also on the sheriff’s list of offenses allowing for ICE notification. Public Defender Ellen McDonnell told the board that the law allowing local law enforcement to report release dates to ICE is “incredibly complex” and mistakes are made regarding what crimes qualify.

“Whether it’s wobblers, whether it’s strikes, whether it’s something else on the list, I am here to urge this county to stop giving notifications,” McDonnell said, to applause. “I think it is causing excessive fear and terror and trauma and distrust in all of our community members, not just our immigrant community members.”

Livingston said his office received 578 requests for notification in 2024 and complied 132 times, though many of those were regarding the same person. Notifications for 96 separate inmates were granted.

“The issue for me as sheriff, but no one yet has talked about, is victims,” Livingston said. “We have to deal with crime victims throughout this county. And when we have people that are here undocumented or illegal or whatever term you want to use, and then they’re committing new crimes and victimizing others, that’s just unacceptable. And that’s why there’s a very narrow group of people who have been convicted of serious or violent felonies are eligible to be released or notified to ICE.”

Livingston said his department doesn’t facilitate transfers to ICE, nor does it allow ICE agents into the facility, other than to wait in the public waiting area.

ICE discovers who’s been detained in Contra Costa because when they’re fingerprinted, that information automatically goes to federal law enforcement agencies, Livingston said.

Supervisor Ken Carlson, a former Concord police officer, asked Livingston if people have served their time, why notify ICE? Especially if the community – many members of which were at the hearing – is against it?

“If you’re an American citizen and you’re convicted of that prior conviction, and you’ve served your time and done your penance – even though you might get in trouble again – you’re not getting hit with another crime based on a previous crime,” said Carlson.

Livingston said it “astounds” him that anyone would advocate for not advising ICE on the release status of a sex offender, for example.

Board Chair Candace Andersen clarified with county counsel that, because the sheriff is an elected official, the board has authority over the sheriff’s budget, but not his operational decisions.

Contrary to many requests made by dozens of speakers during nearly two hours of public comment, the board couldn’t fashion an ordinance regarding ICE notification, First, doing so wasn’t on the meeting agenda, and then it wasn’t clear such an ordinance would even be enforceable over a publicly elected sheriff.

Livingston said he’s open to dialogue with community groups concerning what should be reportable and agreed to come back with more data. His scheduled quarterly report on crime statistics had to be pushed back to a future meeting because of time constraints.