Statement from Supervisor Jimmy Paulding on TRUTH Act Forum

Author: Board of Supervisors
Date: 1/29/2026 3:29 PM

Supervisor Jimmy Paulding's statement on the January 27th TRUTH Act Forum

On January 27, the SLO County Board of Supervisors held a TRUTH Act Forum, where we heard from dozens of residents and received more than four hours of public comment. I want to sincerely thank everyone who participated and shared their perspectives. While emotions understandably ran high at times, I also want to acknowledge and appreciate that the vast majority of speakers remained civil and respectful throughout a long and difficult discussion.

For many in our community, federal immigration enforcement is not an abstract policy debate. It affects families, livelihoods, and people's sense of safety and stability. That reality was clearly reflected in the testimony we heard.

It is also important to ground this issue in facts and in the legal framework that governs local government.

How Our Sheriff Is Following State and Federal Law

At the meeting, Sheriff Ian Parkinson explained how his office works diligently to follow both state and federal law. For example, the Sheriff's Office does not conduct or participate in immigration enforcement, does not assist ICE in the field, and does not ask about immigration status. The Sheriff's Office adheres to these practices not just because they are legally obligated to do so, but because they want undocumented victims of crime to always feel safe calling 911 or seeking help from their office. They are here to serve all residents of our county-regardless of immigration status-and these practices help promote public safety in the community.

California law also limits how local law enforcement can interact with federal immigration authorities as it relates to inmates in the County Jail. The California Values Act (SB 54) prohibits the Sheriff's Office from transferring jail inmates to ICE custody except in cases involving federal warrants or qualifying convictions. The Values Act identifies which convictions qualify, and they are primarily serious violent felonies and other crimes outlined in SB 54. Only those with eligible convictions or federal warrants can be released from the jail to ICE. Sheriff Parkinson explained in detail how his office engages with ICE only under these narrow circumstances defined by California law.

"ICE-Free Zones"

In recent weeks, many in the community have called on the County to adopt policies that would establish so-called "ICE-free zones" in places such as sidewalks, parks, hospitals, schools, or other public spaces on County property. People have pointed to other counties in our state that have reportedly adopted such policies. During the meeting, County Counsel and the Sheriff's Office explained why these policies are misleading. Local governments cannot legally prohibit federal immigration agents from entering publicly accessible spaces when they are acting under federal law. The bottom line is that any place the public has access to, the County cannot exclude ICE from being there.

What local governments can do-and what many of these policies in other counties actually accomplish-is prohibit county-owned facilities from being commandeered by the federal government for the purpose of conducting immigration enforcement activities. An example of this would be if ICE began using a county-owned parking lot to establish an immigration processing center. Whether it is federal immigration authorities or a group of food trucks setting up in a parking lot without permission, local governments do have authority to ensure their properties are not being used contrary to their intended purposes.

While some in the community would like to see the Board adopt a countywide "ICE-free zone" policy regardless of its enforceability, I believe it is irresponsible and potentially dangerous to establish policies that set false expectations in our communities when they are legally unenforceable.

My Values

My values on this issue are clear. I believe in supporting our law-abiding immigrant community, and I also support local law enforcement. These values are not mutually exclusive. I am deeply concerned about the federal immigration tactics we have seen across our nation, which I believe are dangerous, unconstitutional, and not making our communities any safer. At the same time, I do not support adopting policies that would prevent the Sheriff from transferring undocumented individuals with serious felony convictions to federal authorities. Even California's sanctuary laws recognize that distinction, and there are valid public-safety reasons for it.

I also do not believe in taking performative action. Rather, we must take meaningful steps that strengthen transparency, community trust, and support for families who are being impacted-while staying firmly within the County's legal authority.

Actions Taken on Tuesday

To that end, the Board voted unanimously to create a focused task force made up of myself and Supervisor Dawn Ortiz-Legg, which will be supported by the Sheriff's Office, the County Executive Office, County Counsel, and other County departments. This task force will report back to the Board on the following:

• Support Resources: Identifying ways the County can better support local families impacted by federal immigration enforcement activity, including through existing County services and by financially supporting trusted local nonprofit organizations that serve our immigrant community. Supervisor John Peschong highlighted how children-who are American citizens-have been left behind in his district without resources or clarity about how they will be cared for moving forward.
• Transparency and Reporting: Evaluating the development of a more detailed and accessible quarterly reporting system regarding the Sheriff's Office's interactions with federal immigration officials at the jail.

The Board also directed staff, specifically the Sheriff's Office, the County Executive Office, and County Counsel, to come back within 60 days regarding the following issues:

• Protecting County Property: Examining legal and operational options to protect County property from being commandeered for federal immigration enforcement purposes.
• Jail Lobby Operations: Exploring ways to mitigate ongoing challenges and conflicts involving ICE enforcement activity and protest activity in the jail lobby, including potential changes to the lobby's public access status to improve safety and operations. There are many legal and operational challenges to this that will need to be carefully considered.

The goal of this work is not to overpromise or to suggest that the County can control federal immigration policy-we cannot. The goal is to ensure that, within our authority, we are acting transparently, responsibly, and humanely; that we are supporting community members who are experiencing fear or disruption; and that we are maintaining public trust while allowing local law enforcement to do their jobs.

This is difficult, emotional work, but it is necessary work. I remain committed to approaching it with honesty, compassion, and a clear understanding of both our values and our legal limits.

For local, trusted resources and support, community members are encouraged to consult the SLO County Immigrant Services Guide.

Sincerely,
Jimmy Paulding
Supervisor, District 4

A Note About Private Property Rights

Although it did not come up at the meeting, I want to briefly cover the rules that apply to all private property, including businesses, churches, nonprofit organizations, and other privately operated facilities. Immigration agents may enter areas that are open to the general public-such as parking lots, lobbies, or reception areas-without permission, but they may not enter non-public or restricted areas without the consent of the property owner or a valid judicial warrant. Under California law, employers and property operators are not required to provide employee, volunteer, or membership records or to allow access to non-public areas absent such a warrant.

For this reason, employers and property operators may wish to review their operational policies to clearly define which areas are open to the public, how staff or volunteers should respond if immigration agents appear on site, and who is authorized to review legal documents. If a warrant is presented, employers and property operators should carefully review it to ensure it is judicial, lists the correct address, and specifies the areas or records authorized for search. Individuals who may be at risk are advised by legal advocates to remain calm and not run, and bystanders may lawfully document interactions with immigration agents when it is safe to do so, according to the ACLU.