When Two California Acts — Values and Truth — Collide

[Updated: Thu., Aug. 28, 2025, 11:50am]

The California Department of Justice (CDJ) took Sheriff Bill Brown quietly to task for failing to properly document the extent to which his department has been facilitating the transfer of undocumented jail inmates to federal immigration authorities over the past five years. The CDJ pointed to a troika of state laws written to limit cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and ICE, also known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

At issue are documents Brown submitted to the State Attorney General’s Office in accordance with what’s known as the state’s Values Act that consistently indicated that no transfers of any such inmates had taken place. But in documents Brown submitted to the County Board of Supervisors — in accordance with what’s known as the TRUTH Act — squarely contradicted that impression. 

In public hearings and in written reports made available to the public, Brown provided detailed data enumerating how between 2000 and 2024, 37 undocumented inmates had been turned over to federal immigration authorities, as well as how another 126 could have been because of criminal histories sufficiently serious to allow their release under the terms of these state laws. (These 126 were not picked up only because ICE agents were not on hand at the time, and under state law, Brown is not allowed to hold them any longer than the terms of their sentences.)

Brown, who is on vacation and could not be reached for comment, has, according to Undersheriff Craig Bonner, justified this discrepancy because the term “transfer” has never been defined under state law. Bonner stated that among law enforcement professionals, the word has a highly specific meaning that does not apply to the actual facts of the situation. Both have insisted that ICE agents have been allowed only to “re-arrest” the undocumented offenders in the county jail and then only at the actual moment of their release.

On August 4, Brown received a letter signed by Chief Assistant Attorney General for California Danielle O’Bannon, notifying him these “re-arrests” qualify as “transfers” and requesting that he submit amended documents within 30 days. The real issue, O’Bannon said, was that County Sheriff’s Office is “required to comply” with state law and that the Attorney General is constitutionally required to ensure uniform and adequate enforcement of this law. 

Initiating this unusual intervention by the state Attorney General were a number of complaints; one was filed by the activist organization Buen Vecino, and the other by State Assemblymember Gregg Hart. Spearheading the effort on Hart’s behalf was his Administrative Assistant Ethan Bertrand, also a member of the Goleta School Board. 

“I think it’s a very big deal,” Bertrand said of the letter. “If the Attorney General isn’t getting reliable information from local law enforcement agencies, then he can’t verify that these ICE transfers are legitimate. If the Attorney General doesn’t have the right data, it calls into question his ability to verify that the people being transferred are really committing these serious crimes. Santa Barbara is just one county, but the sheriff here is contributing to an undercount of the number of people the Attorney General knows are being transferred. If other counties are doing the same thing, this could contribute to a significant undercount.” 

Letter or no, Brown and Bonner both insist the definitional questions surrounding the word “transfer” still remain unresolved. But Brown — in a letter dated August 8 — agreed to comply anyway. 

The bills passed by the state legislature shortly after Trump was elected to his first term — typically known as SB 54 or the TRUTH Act — attempted to restrict cooperation between ICE and local law enforcement agencies so as to not alienate the trust of the state’s large Latino and immigrant communities in their local police agencies. 

Brown, a major player in statewide and national law enforcement circles, has never been shy about voicing his concerns. Better to apprehend those with serious criminal pasts within the safely contained confines of a county jail than for ICE agents to have to chase after them in the interstices of their home communities. Safer for residents of those communities, too. But with immigration a perpetually polarizing and paralytic issue, the debate shows no signs of resolution.

Undersheriff Bonner said of the Attorney General’s letter, “This doesn’t change the process,” because the vast majority of inmates identified by ICE as being of interest to them still will not qualify as serious enough offenders to allow cooperation from local jailers. What is changing, however, Bonner said, is how ICE is now filing judicially signed arrest warrants, which, if granted, give Brown and other county sheriffs legal leeway to hold inmates for five days past their release date determined by their sentences. That’s huge.

Under existing state law, sheriffs are barred from holding inmates past the expiration time of their sentences to accommodate ICE. Already this year, ICE has filed 21 arrest warrants against undocumented inmates in county jail. Of those, 13 resulted in inmates being remanded to ICE custody. That’s more than twice the number — six — of the inmates released according to the method approved by the state, and this year, it’s already more inmates picked up than in any of the five previous years.

Editor’s Note: This story was updated to clarify that the Attorney General’s intervention was initiated by multiple complaints and to include an additional quote from Ethan Bertrand.