At a crowded public meeting last night, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Ian Parkinson defended his office’s policy of releasing certain county jail inmates into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The sheriff argued these releases are in compliance with federal and state law, but immigration advocates argued that by communicating with federal immigration enforcement, the sheriff was exceeding what is required by California law.
Attendance was so high that the SLO County Board of Supervisors chambers became standing room only. Some crowded into the lobby and an overflow room was opened to screen a livestream of the meeting.
The California Values Act
Parkinson said while his office does not enforce federal immigration law, the California Values Act, also known as SB 54, carves out specific circumstances where county jail inmates can be turned over to ICE.
SB 54 allows law enforcement to share information about someone’s release date “in response to a notification request from immigration authorities” if that person has been convicted of one or more of a wide range of felonies including assault, theft or obstruction of justice as well as certain misdemeanors.
“If somebody came in on a serious assault charge and they were arrested for the very first time and they had no prior convictions, they're subject under the protections of SB 54. They cannot be turned over to ICE,” Parkinson told the SLO County Board of Supervisors.
He added that if someone who was arrested for a low-level crime had a prior assault conviction, “then they were subject to release to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”
Presenting the numbers
Sixty-nine people were released into ICE custody in 2025, according to data from the SLO County Sheriff’s Office. That’s a large increase from the year before, when only one person was turned over.
Parkinson said his office ramped up cooperation with ICE last year after the reversal of a policy he called “open borders,” meaning lax immigration enforcement policies.
“In 2024, it made zero sense to be turning people over, even if they had a prior conviction because they would turn around and come right back in,” the sheriff said.
Customs and Border Protection data shows that in July of that year, unlawful crossings at the U.S. southern border dropped to the lowest level since fall 2020, according to CBS News.
A contentious public comment period
While most who spoke during the public comment period denounced ICE, many were also in favor of federal immigration enforcement and supported the sheriff’s actions.
One woman started her public comment by telling the audience that coughing is disruptive. The audience then responded with a chorus of coughs.
As the woman left the podium, she leaned over and coughed in the face of a man wearing a “No Kings” hat.
“Evil,” the man hissed back.
A man wearing a “Make California Great Again” hat who called himself Mark G. gave a public comment in favor of the sheriff.
“ Always keeping in mind the federal supremacy law is the law of the land, I'm in full support of Sheriff Ian Parkinson's efforts to maintain law and order,” he said.
Several people mentioned the recent killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis by federal agents as a reason to end cooperation with ICE. Many asked the SLO County Board of Supervisors to ban the agency from county-owned property by creating an “ICE-free zone.”
Juan Carlos Diaz opened his public comment by introducing himself in the Mixtec language as a community advocate for the indigenous group Ñuu Savi. He shared the story of an indigenous mother in SLO County who is afraid of being taken from her children.
“ The family left behind living here feel unsafe and need support from you, from everyone in the city,” Diaz told the board.
“Shall” versus “May”
The California Values Act gives law enforcement “discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities only if doing so would not violate any federal, state, or local law, or local policy…”
Maria Salguero, an attorney with the Immigrant Legal Defense Center, argued the sheriff was cooperating with ICE above what’s required by California law.
“ We're taught this in law school, there's a really big difference between ‘May’ and ‘Shall,’ between what is mandatory and between what is optional,” Salguero told the board.
Parkinson argued during his presentation that because state law allows for certain circumstances where he can transfer someone to ICE custody, failure to do so would mean obstructing federal immigration law.
“I believe I have a duty, otherwise I am harboring,” Parkinson said.
Samson Blackwell is a volunteer with the immigrant rights group 805 Undocufund.
“ I would ask this board to consider what is both ethical and legal,” Blackwell said “The legal is the letter of the law, the ethical is the spirit. Let's follow the spirit.”
Deliberation from the board
As the meeting stretched into the late evening, the SLO County Board of Supervisors spoke both about their criticism of federal immigration enforcement and in support of the Sheriff’s Office.
“ I've not seen hard evidence of this coordination with ICE in the field where they're acting as an arm of federal law enforcement to do federal law enforcement's bidding,” Supervisor Dawn Ortiz-Legg said.
Supervisor Bruce Gibson called federal immigration officers wearing masks ”absolutely repugnant.”
“We have the right to be angry. That anger, directed at ICE and the leadership that controls ICE, is deserved and it's righteous,” he said. “Now we need to channel that anger into appropriate action to start taking back our democracy.”
Gibson proposed a motion to create a subcommittee that would consider ways to keep ICE from using county-owned property that’s not accessible to the public.
The subcommittee would also explore creating a quarterly reporting system for ICE transfers by the Sheriff’s Office and how the county can support families affected by immigration enforcement.
The motion to create the subcommittee passed unanimously.
