Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 DISCUSSION OF SENATE BILL 54 AND PROPOSITION 47MEETING DATE TO FROM Correction to AGENDA REPORT SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER MATT WEST, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DAVID KENDIG, CITY ATTORNEY Agenda Item Reviewed: City Manager Finance Director SUBJECT: CORRECTION; DISCUSSION OF SENATE BILL 54 AND PROPOSITION 47 There is a typographic error in the staff report regarding the above -referenced item. The reference to the increase in Part 1 Crimes after implementation of Proposition 47 should state that there were 2,401 Part 1 Crimes reported, not 2,041. With that correction, the first full paragraph on the third page of the staff report will read as follows: "In the three years prior to the implementation of Proposition 47 (from 2012-2014), Tustin averaged 2,079 Part 1 Crimes reported per year. In the three years after implementation of Proposition 47 (during which many criminal sentences were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors) (2015-2017) Tustin averaged 2,401 Part 1 Crimes reported each year, reflecting a 15.5% increase in Part 1 Crimes reported since the implementation of Proposition 47." 1340658.2 Agenda Item 16 Revied AGENDA REPORT City Man Cit Manager Finance Director A MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 TO: JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER FROM: MATT WEST, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DAVID KENDIG, CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF SENATE BILL 54 AND PROPOSITION 47 SUMMARY: Discuss SB 54 and Proposition 47 and provide direction. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign Resolution Number 18-66 reaffirming the City's March 22, 2017 letter of opposition to SB 54; and 2. Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign Resolution Number 18-67 declaring the City's support to repeal Proposition 47 (the "Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative"). FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended actions would have no fiscal impact. Other options discussed below could have varying fiscal impacts. The options to approve a minute order, adopt a resolution or to receive and file this staff report would have no fiscal impact. Filing an amicus brief in, or intervening as a party to, already -pending lawsuits would involve expenditures for legal fees in uncertain amounts, estimated at: $20,000 to prepare and file an amicus brief; $5,000 to review, prepare and file a joinder in an existing amicus brief (assuming one is consistent with the City's position); or $100,000 to intervene as a party to an existing lawsuit, through trial, excluding appeals. CORRELATION TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN: Tustin's Strategic Plan Goal B: Public Safety and Protection calls for the City to "Ensure Tustin is an attractive, safe and well maintained community in which people feel pride." Goal D calls for the City to "Foster strong relationships within the community and to provide leadership within the region." 1341391.1 Agenda Report: SB 54 and Proposition 47 September 4, 2018 Page 2 3«:, -OW. ON 0117_\ Z 17-967141,6M101TF I. Summary of SB 54. SB 54, sometimes referred to as the "sanctuary state law" or the California Values Act ("CVA") became effective on January 1, 2018. The key part of this legislation is codified at Government Code section 7284 et seq. In general, SB 54 was intended to limit the involvement of state and local law enforcement agencies in federal immigration enforcement efforts. As to the CVA in particular, the Legislature declared the following purposes: "to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of the people of California, and to direct the state's limited resources to matters of greatest concern to state and local governments." [Cal. Govt. Code § 7284. 2(f).] The CVA regulates the activities of state and local law enforcement agencies. The legislation generally prohibits California law enforcement agencies from doing all of the following: a) Inquiring into an individual's immigration status. Detaining an individual based on a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") request that the law enforcement agency maintain custody beyond the person' s release eligibility to facilitate transfer to ICE. b) Providing information about an individual' s release date unless the information either is: i) publicly available; or (ii) in response to an immigration authority's notification request and involves an individual who has been convicted of a designated crime' or who is registered on the California Sex and Arson Registry. c) Providing personal information about an individual, such as a home or work address, unless the information is publicly available. d) Making or participating in an arrest based on a civil immigration warrant. e) Participating in certain border patrol activities, including warrantless searches. f) Performing the functions of an immigration officer. g) Placing peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies. h) Employing peace officers who have been deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies for purposes of immigration enforcement. i) Using immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in custody. j) Transferring an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judge or unless the individual has been convicted of a designated crime. k) Providing office space exclusively dedicated for immigration authorities for use 1) within a city or county law enforcement facility. m) Contracting with the Federal Government to house federal detainees. 1 The list of designated crimes includes: assault; battery; burglary; driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; child abuse; elder abuse; felony drug possession or trafficking; gang -related offenses; rape; and unlawful possession or use of a weapon. 1341391.1 Agenda Report: SB 54 and Proposition 47 September 4, 2018 Page 3 There are several exceptions to the CVA's prohibitions. The exceptions include authorization for a California law enforcement agency to respond to a request for information about an individual's criminal history, as accessed through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. They also include authorization for an agency to participate in joint law enforcement task forces with the Federal Government if (i) the task force' s primary purpose is not immigration enforcement, (ii) the enforcement or investigative duties are primarily related to a violation that is unrelated to immigration enforcement, and (iii) participation in the task force does not violate a local law or policy. The City's Statement of Opposition to SB 54. The Tustin City Council considered SB 54 when it was a pending bill on March 21, 2017, and unanimously directed the Mayor to send a letter of opposition to the legislation on March 22, 2017. Thus, the City of Tustin voiced its position on SB 54 early on, and well before the issue gained such heightened public notoriety. A copy of the City's letter opposing SB 54 is attached as Exhibit 1. The Effect of SB 54 on Tustin Police Department Operations. SB 54 has not had a significant impact on Police Department operations in part because Tustin police officers are neither trained for, nor cross -designated by the Federal government to enforce immigration laws. In addition, the City does not operate a jail, only a holding facility. Those arrested for serious crimes are booked into the County Jail, which is operated by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. And the City continues to enforce judicial immigration arrest warrants, just as it did prior to the implementation of SB 54. II. Proposition 47 Proposition 47 (the "Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative") was enacted in November 2014. That initiative reduced certain crimes from felonies to misdemeanors and authorized re -sentencing for those serving a prison sentence for any of the offenses that the initiative reduced to misdemeanors. The result has been the early release from prison of thousands of individuals who had been convicted of certain felonies but who's crimes were retroactively reduced to misdemeanors. III. Comparison of Crime Rates in Tustin After SB 54 and Proposition 47. The term "crime rate" refers to the ratio of crimes in an area to the population in that area. The types of crimes which are tracked are referred to as "Part 1 Crimes". Those crimes include the most serious violations, including murder, robbery, rape, theft, aggravated assault, etc. The City has experienced ebbs and flows in its crime rates over time due to a number of factors. In the seven months prior to the implementation of SB 54 (e.g., July -December 2017), Tustin had 1,039 reported Part 1 Crimes. In the seven months after the implementation 1341391.1 Agenda Report: SB 54 and Proposition 47 September 4, 2018 Page 4 of SB 54 (the period from January - June 2018), Tustin had 910 reported Part 1 Crimes, or a 12.42% decrease in Part 1 Crimes since the implementation of SB 54. In the three years prior to the implementation of Proposition 47 (from 2012-2014), Tustin averaged 2,079 Part 1 Crimes reported per year. In the three years after implementation of Proposition 47 (and during which many criminal sentences were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors) (2015-2017) Tustin averaged 2.041 Part 1 Crimes reported each year, reflecting a 15.5% increase in Part 1 Crimes reported since the implementation of Proposition 47. While the adverse effect of Proposition 47 on the Part 1 crime rate is fairly evident over the three years, the effect of SB 54 is less clear given the much smaller sample size of data examined. Based solely on the existing data, however, the Part 1 Crime rate in Tustin has actually declined since SB 54 was implemented, not risen. IV. Pending Litigation A. U.S.A. v. State of California. On March 6, 2018, the Federal Government filed a federal lawsuit against the State of California challenging the validity of SB 54 and other legislation. Concerning the CVA, this lawsuit contends that the restrictions on state and local cooperation with federal officials are an obstacle to the Federal Government's enforcement of immigration laws; that they discriminate against federal immigration enforcement; and that they violate a federal immigration statute. On July 5, 2018, Federal District Court Judge John Mendez issued an Order on the Federal Government's Motion for Preliminary Injunction that rejected the Federal Government's arguments challenging SB 54. The Federal Court concluded that SB 54 does not violate Federal law nor the Federal Constitution because Federal law does not, and cannot Constitutionally commandeer State and local police departments to enforce Federal immigration law, and found that declining to assist Federal authorities enforce immigration laws in some situations (as SB 54 does) is not the same as impeding Federal enforcement of Federal laws. B. City of Huntington Beach v. State of California On April 4, 2018, the City of Huntington Beach filed a state court lawsuit against the State of California challenging the validity of SB 54. This lawsuit asserts that the CVA is an unconstitutional interference with charter cities' authority over municipal affairs. The lawsuit also contends that the legislation unconstitutionally impairs Huntington Beach's contractual relationship with the Federal Government. C. Los Alamitos Community United v. City of Los Alamitos On April 16, 2018, the Los Alamitos City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2018-03 declaring that the City of Los Alamitos "exempted itself' from the CVA. The next day a community association, a local reverend, and a resident jointly filed a state court lawsuit against the City of Los Alamitos challenging the validity of the ordinance. The plaintiffs are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. This 1341391.1 Agenda Report: SB 54 and Proposition 47 September 4, 2018 Page 5 lawsuit asserts that the ordinance is preempted by state law. The lawsuit also contends that a local official cannot, without a court having determined that a statute is unconstitutional, deliberately refuse to enforce the statute because he or she believes that the statute is unconstitutional. V. Options for City Council Consideration If the City Council desires to take a position regarding SB 54 (and/or Proposition 47), then there are a variety of options available. Among the options are the following: A. Adopt Minute Order Expressing Position. Adoption of a minute order or Resolution expressing opposition to or support for SB 54 and/or Proposition 47 would allow the City Council to memorialize its position. A minute order may include, for instance, the Council directing a letter of support to the Federal Government and the State of California encouraging cooperation among all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. B. Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution Expressing Position Directing staff to prepare a resolution expressing opposition to or support for SB 54 and/or Proposition 47 would allow the City Council to memorialize its position in a way that is more formal than a minute order. Such a resolution would be placed on a future agenda for consideration by the City Council. C. Adopt a Resolution Reaffirming the City's Opposition as Expressed in the City's Letter of March 22, 2017. As summarized above, the City Council approved its opposition to SB 54 while the legislation was pending. The City Council could adopt a Resolution reaffirming its March 22 letter. A possible form for such a Resolution is attached as Exhibit 2. D. Adopt a Resolution to Support Repeal of Proposition 47. If the City Council wishes to register opposition to Proposition 47, the City Council could also adopt a Resolution in the form attached as Exhibit 3. E. File, or Join in, an Amicus Brief. Filing an amicus brief would allow the City Council to express opposition to or support for SB 54 in a way that would be considered by a court. An amicus brief, informally known as a "friend of the court" brief, is a way of presenting legal arguments to a court without being an active participant in litigation. Numerous states, counties, cities, and interest groups have already filed amicus briefs in the federal court litigation, and it is possible to file a brief that "joins" in a brief submitted by a different entity. An appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will present another amicus brief opportunity. Both of the state court cases are in the early stage and there will be an amicus brief opportunity in each. Filing an amicus brief would involve attorney fees to prepare the brief, though the amount could be reduced (but not eliminated) if the City filed a brief joining in whole or in part with another entity's brief. 1341391.1 Agenda Report: SB 54 and Proposition 47 September 4, 2018 Page 6 F. Intervene in a Lawsuit. Intervening in a lawsuit would allow the City Council to express opposition to or support for SB 54 in a way that would make the City of Tustin an active participant in the litigation. The cost of this option would be significantly higher than the other options. G. Receive and File Report. Given the many issues surrounding SB 54, including the varying levels of support and opposition to the it among the City's communities, and the Federal District's Court's determination upholding the Constitutionality of the CVA, the City Council may wish to consider taking no position on the controversy until the courts determine the validity of the law and instead receive and file this report. Exhibits: 1. March 22, 2017 Letter Opposing SB 54 2. Proposed Resolution Reaffirming the City's Letter of March 22, 2017 Opposing SB 54 3. Proposed Resolution Declaring the City's Support to Repeal Proposition 47 (the "Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative") 4. City FAQ: "Clarifying the Record Regarding Tustin and SB 54" 1341391.1 EXHIBIT 1 Office of the City Council March 22, 2017 Honorable Kevin de Leon California State Senate California State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Senate Bill 54 (Oppose as amended 3/6/17) Senate President Pro Tempore de Leon: The City of Tustin regrets to inform you of our opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 54, which would limit California law enforcement from using agency or department moneys, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for inn -migration enforcement purposes. Although immigration enforcement is not the duty of state or local law enforcement, these restrictions will have negative consequences and threaten to create safety concerns within our communities. Public safety is the primary concern of local law enforcement, not immigration. Legally, California's law enforcement agencies lack the authority and jurisdiction to enforce federal immigration law. Beyond the legal limitations, any attempt by local law enforcement to target non -criminals for immigration violations would only erode public trust and curtail the ability of our departments to carry out their primary mission. Because community relationships are so important, the California Police Chiefs Association has a track record of standing behind California's large immigrant community, which includes supporting legislation to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain a driver license, and shield victims of human trafficking from deportation. However, there are instances when providing public safety entails partnering with federal law enforcement agencies, including immigration enforcement. Consistent with existing state laws and current department procedures, we strongly believe that undocumented immigrants who commit violent and serious offenses against members of our community should be subject to the immigration laws of this country. By doing so, we prevent dangerous individuals from creating more victims - including within our own immigrant communities. As such, our departments routinely engage with federal law enforcement agencies - including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) - for the purpose of eliminating drugs, violence, and crime from our streets. Mayor Dr. Allan Bernstein • Mayor Pro Tem Al Murray • Rebecca "Beckie" Gomez • Charles E. "Chuck" Puckett • Letitia Clark 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 (714) 573-3010 • www.tustinca.org Honorable Kevin de Leon March 22, 2027 Page 2 Currently, local law enforcement agencies have the discretion to partner with ICE or HSI, and do so through targeted operations to apprehend identified criminals. For example, ICE may request tactical support from a local police department during an operation to arrest members of a gang or drug cartel for civil or criminal immigration violations. Additionally, local law enforcement also engages in federal joint task forces with various federal law enforcement agencies, including ICE and HSI. These task forces all focus on organized crime, human trafficking and national security; however, immigration enforcement often plays a role in carrying out those missions. For instance, if during a joint investigation into a drug trafficking operation, HSI or ICE identifies one of the suspects as an individual with an immigration violation, the task force may use that violation to apprehend that suspect. In those such instances, it is typical for local law enforcement to supply information, resources, or even manpower to physically assist in making the arrest. In every case, these are fluid and dynamic partnerships that require constant communication. SB 54 creates roadblocks, hurdles, and ambiguity when it comes to local law enforcement's participation in any of the examples above. Under the proposed Government Code Section 7284.6(b)(2), SB 54 does appear to exempt local law enforcement agencies who are "(p)articipating in a joint law enforcement task force, so long as the purpose of the joint law enforcement task force is not innrnigration enforcement" However, what this section does not clearly elucidate what "the purpose" of the task force would be considered. The intent of SB 54 is to prevent local law enforcement from ANY immigration enforcement, so it is Unclear whether 7284.6(b)(2) distinguishes the overall purpose of the federal -state collaboration from the incidental operations that may be utilized to achieve that purpose. In the task force example from above, it is unclear whether "the purpose" would be considered reducing drug trafficking (the overall mission), or immigration enforcement (the operation). If the latter, it is also unclear what reduced role local law enforcement would have to take in the task force would we be forced to simply recuse ourselves from making the physical arrest, or would we be forced to sever all ties with the operation at that point, including blocking any information sharing? Moreover, during a collaboration with ICE to serve a criminal warrant, local police should not be liable if ICE makes any additional detentions after the discovery of an immigration violation. Again, in this example, it would be unclear how local law enforcement should limit their participation, In total, the task force exemption does not adequately protect our ability to maintain these partnerships, even when the focus is on major crimes. An equal, if not greater concern, is the unintended consequence SB 54 will have by preventing ICE from conducting immigration enforcement operations in our jail facilities. Currently, jails in California may allow ICE access to specified inmates, but the state agency overseeing the jail must provide those inmates with a notification of their rights. Under SB 54, ICE will no longer be allowed access to our jails for immigration enforcement purposes. As a result, ICE will be forced to carry out more field operations in our communities. Even during targeted Honorable Kevin de Leon March 22, 2017 Page 3 immigration operations, this will result in more collateral detentions - where undocumented individuals at the scene of an arrest and were not the initial targets are detained by ICE. These collateral detentions often cause the most confusion and fear amongst our immigrant communities, and any increase is likely to cause additional problems. Furthermore, forcing ICE to make public arrests does not actually prevent detentions, but instead only increases the likelihood of escalated situations that may lead to dangerous encounters in our neighborhoods. Although SB 54 does allow state prisons and jails to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigations of the release date of violent felons, or those in custody with violent felony priors, that does not include those who may have multiple significant misdemeanors - such as spousal abuse or child endangerment - and it still limits our ability to make the transfer in a safe custodial setting. Clearly, the cost of removing ICE from our jails, where they can focus solely on convicted criminals, does not outweigh any perceived benefits to our immigrant communities. California law enforcement agencies have no intention, or desire, to become the primary enforcers of federal immigration law. Even under ongoing federal changes, local police will keep doing what local police do best - partnering with our community members to ensure everyone is protected. The City of Tustin does recognize that there is a balance that needs to be struck on immigration enforcement - one that takes the focus away from those not posing a threat, and allows law enforcement to expend resources protecting our communities from those with ill -intent. Unfortunately, SB 54 will make it more difficult to work with our federal law enforcement partners in apprehending dangerous criminals, and threatens to create more fear in our communities by forcing federal immigration operations out of our jails and into our communities. For those reasons, The City of Tustin must oppose SB 54. Thank you for your consideration. Thank Dr. Allan Bernstein Mayor City of Tustin EXHIBIT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 18-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REAFFIRMING THE CITY'S MARCH 22, 2017 LETTER OF OPPOSITION TO SB 54 WHEREAS, the members of the City of Tustin City Council have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the State of California has enacted Senate Bill 54, which the Legislature calls the California Values Act ("SB 54"); and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2017, prior to the enactment of SB 54, the City Council of the City of Tustin unanimously directed that a letter opposing the proposed law be sent to the State Legislature; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2017, the Mayor of the City of Tustin dispatched a letter to the President Pro Tempore of the State Senate voicing the City's opposition to SB 54. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that among its key priorities is protecting the safety of the public from those who commit violent crimes and other serious offenses, and that undocumented immigrants who commit such crimes should be subject to Federal immigration laws. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER that the City Council hereby reaffirms its March 22, 2017 letter opposing SB 54. ELWYN A. MURRAY Mayor �rr��5 ERICA N. YASUDA City Clerk Resolution No. 18-66 Page 1 of 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Erica N. Yasuda, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 18-66 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 4th day of September, 2018, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: ERICA N. YASUDA City Clerk Resolution No. 18-66 Page 2 of 3 Exhibit A Letter Dated March 22, 2017 Opposing SB 54 Resolution No. 18-66 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A Office of the City Council March 22, 2017 Honorable Kevin de Leon California State Senate California State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Senate Bill 54 (Oppose as amended 3/6/17) Senate President Pro Tempore de Leon: The City of Tustin regrets to inform you of our opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 54, which would limit California law enforcement from using agency or department moneys, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes. Although immigration enforcement is not the duty of state or local law enforcement, these restrictions will have negative consequences and threaten to create safety concerns within our communities. Public safety is the primary concern of local law enforcement, not immigration. Legally, California's law enforcement agencies lack the authority and jurisdiction to enforce federal immigration law. Beyond the legal limitations, any attempt by local law enforcement to target non -criminals for immigration violations would only erode public trust and curtail the ability of our departments to carry out their primary mission. Because community relationships are so important, the California Police Chiefs Association has a track record of standing behind California's large immigrant community, which includes supporting legislation to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain a driver license, and shield victims of human trafficking from deportation. However, there are instances when providing public safety entails partnering with federal law enforcement agencies, including immigration enforcement. Consistent with existing state laws and current department procedures, we strongly believe that undocumented immigrants who commit violent and serious offenses against members of our community should be subject to the immigration laws of this country. By doing so, we prevent dangerous individuals from creating more victims - including within our own immigrant communities. As such, our departments routinely engage with federal law enforcement agencies - including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) - for the purpose of eliminating drugs, violence, and crime from our streets. Mayor Dr. Allan Bernstein • Mayor Pro Tem Al Munn -ay • Rebecca "Beckie" Gomez • Charles E. "Chuck" Puckett • Letitia Clark 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 a (714) 573-3010 9 www tustima.org Honorable Kevin de Leon March 22, 2017 Page 2 Currently, local law enforcement agencies have the discretion to partner with ICE or HSI, and do so through targeted operations to apprehend identified criminals. For example, ICE may request tactical support from a local police department during an operation to arrest members of a gang or drug cartel for civil or criminal immigration violations, Additionally, local law enforcement also engages in federal joint task forces with various federal law enforcement agencies, including ICE and HSI. These task forces all focus on organized crime, human trafficking and national security however, immigration enforcement often plays a role in carrying out those missions. For instance, if during a joint investigation into a drug trafficking operation, HSI or ICE identifies one of the suspects as an individual with an immigration violation, the task force may use that violation to apprehend that suspect. In those such instances, it is typical for local law enforcement to supply information, resources, or even manpower to physically assist in making the arrest. In every case, these are fluid and dynamic partnerships that require constant communication. SB 54 creates roadblocks, hurdles, and ambiguity when it comes to local law enforcement's participation in any of the examples above. Under the proposed Government Code Section 7284.6(b)(2), SB 54 does appear to exempt local law enforcement agencies who are "(p)articipating in a joint law enforcement task force, so long as the purpose of the joint law enforcement task force is not immigration enforcement" However, what this section does not clearly elucidate what "the purpose" of the task force would be considered. The intent of SB 54 is to prevent local law enforcement from ANY immigration enforcement, so it is unclear whether 7284.6(b)(2) distinguishes the overall purpose of the federal -state collaboration from the incidental operations that may be utilized to achieve that purpose. In the task force example from above, it is unclear whether "the purpose" would be considered reducing drug trafficking (the overall mission), or immigration enforcement (the operation). If the latter, it is also unclear what reduced role local law enforcement would have to take in the task force - would we be forced to simply recuse ourselves from making the physical arrest, or would we be forced to sever all ties with the operation at that point, including blocking any information sharing? Moreover, during a collaboration with ICE to serve a criminal warrant, local police should not be liable if ICE makes any additional detentions after the discovery of an immigration violation. Again, in this example, it would be unclear how local law enforcement should limit their participation. In total, the task force exemption does not adequately protect our ability to maintain these partnerships, even when the focus is on major crimes. An equal, if not greater concern, is the unintended consequence SB 54 will have by preventing ICE from conducting immigration enforcement operations in our jail facilities. Currently, jails in California may allow ICE access to specified inmates, but the state agency overseeing the jail must provide those inmates with a notification of their rights. Under SB 54, ICE will no longer be allowed access to our jails for immigration enforcement purposes. As a result, ICE will be forced to carry out more field operations in our communities. Even during targeted Honorable Kevin de Leon March 22, 2017 Page 3 immigration operations, this will result in more collateral detentions - where undocumented individuals at the scene of an arrest and were not the initial targets are detained by ICE. These collateral detentions often cause the most confusion and fear amongst our immigrant communities, and any increase is likely to cause additional problems. Furthermore, forcing ICE to make public arrests does not actually prevent detentions, but instead only increases the likelihood of escalated situations that may lead to dangerous encounters in our neighborhoods. Although SB 54 does allow state prisons and jails to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigations of the release date of violent felons, or those in custody with violent felony priors, that does not include those who may have multiple significant misdemeanors - such as spousal abuse or child endangerment - and it still limits our ability to make the transfer in a safe custodial setting. Clearly, the cost of removing ICE from our jails, where they can focus solely on convicted criminals, does not outweigh any perceived benefits to our immigrant communities. California law enforcement agencies have no intention, or desire, to become the primary enforcers of federal immigration law. Even under ongoing federal changes, local police will keep doing what local police do best - partnering with our community members to ensure everyone is protected. The City of Tustin does recognize that there is a balance that needs to be struck on immigration enforcement - one that takes the focus away from those not posing a threat, and allows law enforcement to expend resources protecting our communities from those with ill -intent. Unfortunately, SB 54 will make it more difficult to work with our federal law enforcement partners in apprehending dangerous criminals, and threatens to create more fear in our communities by forcing federal immigration operations out of our jails and into our communities. For those reasons, The City of Tustin must oppose SB 54. Thank you for your consideration. Thank Dr. Allan Bernstein Mayor City of Tustin EXHIBIT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 18-67 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE CITY'S SUPPORT TO REPEAL PROPOSITION 47 WHEREAS, Proposition 47 (entitled the "Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative") was enacted by the voters in November 2014; and WHEREAS, Proposition 47 reduced certain crimes from felonies to misdemeanors and authorized re -sentencing for those then serving a prison sentence for any of the offenses that the initiative reduced to misdemeanors; and WHEREAS, one result of the enactment of Proposition 47 has been the early release from prisons throughout the state of thousands of individuals who had been convicted of certain felonies but whose crimes were retroactively reduced to misdemeanors; and WHEREAS, in the three years prior to the implementation of Proposition 47 (2012- 2014), the average number of Part I crimes reported in Tustin was 2,079 per year; and WHEREAS, in the three years after implementation of Proposition 47 (2015-2017) the average number of Part 1 Crimes reported in Tustin averaged 2,401, reflecting a 15.5% increase in those crimes reported since the implementation of Proposition 47; and WHEREAS the City Council finds that among its key priorities is protecting the safety of the public from those who commit violent crimes and other serious offenses, and that the earlier release of criminals as a result of Proposition 47 increases the risk of crime in communities throughout California, including Tustin. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER that the City Council supports the repeal of Proposition 47. ELWYN A. MURRAY Mayor ATTEST: ERICA N. YASUDA City Clerk Resolution No. 18-67 Page 1 of 2 1341638.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Erica N. Yasuda, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 18-67 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 4th day of September, 2018, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: ERICA N. YASUDA City Clerk Resolution No. 18-67 Page 2 of 2 1341638.1 EXHIBIT 4 Clarifying the Record Regarding Tustin and SB 54 Q: 'Why doesn't the Tustin City Council declare its opposition to SB 54? A. The Tustin City Council has already declared its unanimous opposition to SB 54, in a 2017 public meeting of the Council, and in a public letter sent to the State Legislature. Q: Is the City's letter opposing SB 54 being kept secret? A. No, the letter is and always has been shared publicly, and the public can view it here: [insert link] Q: Is the City of Tustin a "sanctuary city"? A. No. The Tustin City Council has never declared Tustin to be a sanctuary city. Q. Has SB 54 had any practical impact on the ways in which the Tustin Police Department protects the residents and businesses in the City? A. No. Q: Doesn't SB 54 affect who the Tustin Police Department notifies when it releases inmates from jail? A. Tustin doesn't operate a jail and is not involved in the process of releasing inmates from jail. The Tustin Police Department books inmates into the County jail system operated by Orange County Sheriff. The Orange County Sheriff, in turn, publishes on the Internet the information on all inmates who are scheduled to be released, regardless of their immigration status. Federal officials have full access to that public information online. Q. Does Tustin coordinate with Federal authorities (including immigration authorities) about gangs, murderers, rapists and other serious felons? A. Yes, SB 54 does not prevent coordination with Federal immigration or other law enforcement authorities about gangs or others convicted of murder, rape or other serious felonies. Tustin Police officers continue to communicate with all relevant Federal agencies in the same manner they always have to protect the public, and the Tustin Police Department will continue to participate in coordinated law enforcement raids cracking down on gangs and other felons even if legal or illegal immigrants may be involved. Q. If Tustin doesn't declare its opposition to SB 54, will law -breaking immigrants flock to Tustin? A. Tustin has declared its opposition to SB 54, and Tustin continues to enforce the laws protecting its residents and businesses in the same manner it did before SB 54 was adopted. Individuals who break the law and endanger the public, whether they are immigrants or not, will find no sanctuary in Tustin. Q. Does the Tustin City Council support the United States Constitution? A. Absolutely! Each Council member supports the U.S. Constitution and has sworn the following oath as required by California law: "I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter." Q: Doesn't that oath mean the City must fight every State law that may be preempted by the Federal Constitution or Federal law? A. No, the Tustin City Council has already unanimously declared its opposition to SB 54 in a public meeting and in writing, and supporting and defending the Constitution does not require the City to go further by spending Tustin's limited taxpayer dollars on litigation whenever a State law may be inconsistent with a Federal law. Must cities expend limited public resources fighting the legalization of cannabis in California, for instance, simply because that law may be inconsistent with Federal law? No. SB 54 is already being aggressively challenged in Federal Court in Fresno by the Federal Government and other well - funded organizations. As explained above, SB 54 does not affect how Tustin's Police Department goes about protecting the public and enforcing the law in Tustin, and Tustin prefers to invest its law enforcement funds and resources here at home, in support of that continuing commitment to public safety.