In April, a News-Press investigation found 99 people were arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at local jails in 2025. The number that Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown reported to the California Attorney General’s Office was only 12.
That discrepancy in numbers, and whether Brown’s office played in the additional arrests, is set to be the central topic of Tuesday’s meeting of the Board of Supervisors, and at least one county official saying the investigation has already raised “legitimate questions” about protocols in the jails. At the same time, the Sheriff’s Office has yet to answer other questions or to release other public records that would shed light on their handling of migrants in jail.
Investigation: ICE arrests at county jails far more frequent than official reports show
The California Values Act, a state law passed in 2017, bars law enforcement agencies from cooperating with immigration detention of most people, except for those already convicted of certain major crimes. Most people in county jails — convicted of lower-level offenses or not yet convicted while awaiting a trial — are not allowed to be handed over to federal agents.
The law, also known as SB 54, requires sheriffs to hold annual meetings, sharing data with county supervisors and the public about how many times they have transferred people from their jails into immigration custody.
Santa Barbara County’s annual meeting, called a Truth Act Forum, happens at 2 p.m. Tuesday in Santa Maria.
What Sheriff’s Office already knows
The Sheriff’s Office has already reported to the state that in 2025, it transferred 12 people to ICE under the tenets of SB 54. The office says in those cases, qualifying inmates are notified about the transfer, and when the time comes, are taken to a secure set of doors known as a “sally port,” where an ICE vehicle is waiting.
But the News-Press investigation found dozens more people were arrested in the lobbies and parking lots of county jails, including many for whom ICE records do not disclose any conviction, much less a conviction that meets the SB 54 threshold.
After those results were published, during a Board of Supervisors meeting on April 21, Brown acknowledged the findings, saying, “There are instances, some that we’re aware of, apparently a lot more that we haven’t been aware of, where ICE does use our parking lots and lobbies at times to go there when they know that someone is going to be released and make an arrest.”
The News-Press investigation found the office had a variety of information about ICE arrests in and near jails, and about when agents took an interest in jail inmates. In email exchanges between Sheriff’s Office personnel and ICE agents from January 2026, which were released to the News Press through a public records request, both parties mention ICE arrests taking place in the parking lots of jails. In response to questions from the News-Press, a representative of the Sheriff’s Office said that ICE agents “sometimes” alert jail personnel when they are planning to be in the lobby or parking lot.
When ICE agents ask for local cooperation to arrest a jail inmate, they send an official request known as an I-247. Local officials are supposed to respond to these requests only if they pertain to inmates who qualify under SB 54. But the existence of the requests give the Sheriff’s Office a partial idea of which inmates ICE may be seeking to arrest. The News-Press analyzed unique identifier codes in ICE data and found that over a third of the people arrested by ICE at Santa Barbara jails last year were the subjects of those formal inquiries.
While the arrests in lobbies and parking lots may not be considered official handovers to agents, they happen at a rate of roughly two a week, mere feet from where jail employees are working.
Jail protocols under scrutiny
In May, after the News-Press investigation, Laura Capps, county supervisor for the 2nd District, sent a letter to Sheriff Brown asking further questions about the system.
“Beyond official transfers, does the Sheriff’s Office track how many individuals are released from County Jail custody and subsequently detained by ICE while still on Sheriff’s Office property?” Capps wrote. “If this information is not currently tracked, could you please explain why and whether implementing such tracking is possible moving forward?”
The News-Press report included an interview with an immigrant who was released from jail in January. The low level of his crime — for which he had not yet been tried, much less convicted — mean he did not qualify for an ICE transfer under state law.
A judicial order shows he was required to be fitted with an ankle monitor device prior to release. But the man told the News-Press he was released without a monitor — and as soon as he was freed, he was handcuffed by ICE agents waiting outside.
In a response to questions from the News Press, a commander with the Sheriff’s Office confirmed that it is the responsibility of jail personnel to check and make sure ankle monitors are installed. Asked whether jail staff ever deviate from this requirement because they know ICE is planning an arrest after the inmate is released, the office did not reply.
In her letter to Brown, Capps asked for clarification during Tuesday’s forum of “steps being taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.”
Possible policy changes
In other counties, like Los Angeles, supervisors have passed resolutions requiring ICE to obtain judicial warrants to arrest any jail inmates, even those with felony convictions. As a result, all ICE arrests at jails in Los Angeles County have plummeted to zero.
Capps and other supervisors did not provide any plans to restrict the Sheriff’s relationship with ICE.
Angela Chan, a public defender in San Francisco who assisted in drafting the state law that limits collaboration between local law enforcement and ICE, said county governments can set tougher limits on cooperation with ICE. “When we drafted the bill we made sure to allow space for local governments to set the ceiling,” she said.
She said another potential avenue to limit ICE arrests at local jails would be through an immigrant filing a lawsuit. Just one lawsuit could have far reaching effects for ICE presence in the county, she said. “We’ve found a decrease in ICE activity overall when a jurisdiction decides not to work with ICE.”
Capps, in response to questions from the News-Press, seemed to concur. “It’s important for the public to understand that SB 54 sets limits on cooperation with ICE,” she said. “It does not require it.”
