At its regular meeting Tuesday, among other items, the Benicia City Council voted to adopt a resolution affirming the city’s commitment to being an inclusive city.
Economic Development Department Manager Mario Giuliani introduced the agenda item as the second part of Mayor Patterson’s request for a two-step process to consider adopting the resolution. The council, he stated, considered the request at its Jan. 3 meeting and supported it without objection and Part Two of the two-step process was for discussion of the item.
The original wording of the resolution had been revised since publication of the meeting packet and the revised document was available at the side table at the meeting. The revised language, he explained, addressed some staff concerns of ambiguity and provided clarity specifically for the Benicia Police Department.
Vice Mayor Steve Young offered his view of the importance of adopting the resolution. He stated that it was brought on by the recent executive order by President Donald Trump that effectively revived the Secure Communities Act, which had asked local police to hold immigrants without documented status in jail until they were picked up by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security. That program ended in 2014 when a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional because it forced cities to do the work of the federal government, which violated the Tenth Amendment. In fact, Young added, the dean of the law school at the University of California-Irvine stated that the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from coercing state and local governments into administering a federal program. Young asked City Attorney Heather McLaughlin if she agreed with that interpretation of the amendment and she replied that it “seems like a fairly reasonable interpretation.”
Young emphasized his conviction that all residents in Benicia and elsewhere deserve to live in peace, and not in fear of police. He stated that the executive order basically asks to empower local police to work with immigration agents to identify people they believe are illegally in their cities and towns. He added that in fact, a recent Los Angeles Times article stated that plans were already in the works to train local police on enforcing immigration laws.
Young summarized that the council wished to address the issue publicly, and provide direction to police on how to handle the issue.
Councilmember Campbell noted that in effect, every city in California is already effectively a sanctuary city, by virtue of the state’s TRUST Act (State Assembly Bill 4) which states, in part, “All counties in California must follow this law, which limits cruel and costly immigration ‘hold’ requests in local jails. With TRUST, immigrant crime victims and witnesses will be able to come forward and cooperate with police without fear of deportation.”
Campbell indicated that he did not feel that the revision to the original resolution was necessary. Mayor Patterson pointed out that the revision was an attempt not to correct but only to clarify. For example, the revised wording states, in part, that:
1) No person shall be contacted, detained or arrested based solely on his or her immigration status; and
2) The Benicia Police Department will equally enforce the laws and serve the public without regard to immigration status. The immigration status of a person and the lack of immigration documentation shall have no bearing on the manner in which the officers execute their duties.
Further, the revised resolution states, in essence, that a police officer’s suspicions of a person’s immigration status shall not be used as the sole basis to initiate contact, detain or arrest that person, unless such status is reasonably relevant to the investigation of a crime such as trafficking, smuggling, harboring and terrorism. Sweeps intended solely to locate and detain undocumented immigrants, it reads, are not permitted. Police personnel may however provide support services during an ICE operation upon the specific request by ICE for assistance.
Mayor Patterson reiterated that the proposed resolution is not a legal document but simply a resolution of city policy.
Campbell stated that he objected specifically to Section B of the resolution which regards written reports. It seemed to him to suggest that if immigration status came up during the course of a police activity, then the police were to delete that information from the record. Council agreed to delete that portion of the wording.
Patterson also reminded council that the intent of the resolution was to align policy with current state law.
“We are simply stating that we are in alignment with state law,” she specified. “We are affirming to our residents and our business people in town that we are consistent with state law, in clear and simple English.”
Councilmember Mark Hughes stated that he felt differently.
“One of the primary responsibilities of a council member,” he stated, “is to protect the health and safety of citizens in this community. We need to be sure the police department has the tools and resources and discretion to enforce the law.”
He continued, “I don’t think it’s proper for us to dictate to the police department which law we want them to enforce because we have a personal feeling or ideology. We need to let the police do their job.” He cited from the police manual, “The city may not prohibit its officers or employees from cooperating in official capacities with immigration officials.”
“I want to give the police department the flexibility it needs to enforce the laws,” Hughes concluded. “I’m not going to be able to support this resolution.”
Vice Mayor Young stated that he wasn’t sure to which policy Hughes was referring. He also cited from the police manual: “An officer may detain an individual if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual entered into the U.S. in violation of federal law. Federal authorities should be notified as soon as possible.” He stated that the passage was “basically is 180 degrees different from what we’re talking about here tonight. If this resolution passes, we will ask the police department to re-write this section to conform with the council’s direction.” He added, “I don’t believe the police have the authority to enforce immigration. It’s a federal law. Local police do not enforce federal laws.”
Mayor Patterson offered that in adopting the resolution, the council in fact seeks to clarify the city’s alignment with state law. She added that those communities that are clear about their position on undocumented immigrants have significantly lower crime rates, because of the trust that exists between the police and the community. “When you begin to develop fear and uncertainty within a community, bad things can happen. We are preserving our sense of public health and safety. We are not re-writing laws, but simply stating that we are in alignment with state law and consistent with best practices for local policing.”
Councilmember Alan Schwartzman asked Lt. Mike Greene, who was in attendance as the representative for the Benicia Police Department, when police might ask people where they’re from. Greene responded that the police do not ask about people’s immigration status. They are more interested, he stated, in their local address for citations, warrants, etc.
Schwartzman then asked what a police officer would do, under current conditions, if it came out during the course of any police activity that a person was in the country illegally. Greene responded that such a circumstance would not trigger any further action. Schwartzman then cited from the policy manual, “Section 4.28.4, an officer may detain an individual when there are facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the individual entered the U.S. in violation of federal criminal law. Federal authorities shall be notified as soon as possible.” He then asked the city attorney if there was a conflict there.
McLaughlin responded that the policy manual was provided for information and not for council to edit. As a whole, she stated, the policy does in fact comport with what Lt. Greene was saying.
The issue was then opened up to public comment. Speakers commented that they didn’t want our local police to become arms of the federal government; that there was fear and concern in the community; that undocumented immigrants here need to know the city’s official policy regarding the issue; that it was important that the city state clearly where it stands; and that they were uncomfortable with the ambiguity of the current written policies.
One speaker offered that a recent study released from the University of California-San Diego, by Tom K. Wong, found that jurisdictions that resist cooperating with federal immigration enforcement are safer and enjoy stronger economies. Crime rates are lower when localities stay out of the business of immigration enforcement. Implications include reluctance to come forward to report as a witness or victim of a crime, or being hesitant to seek health care. That speaker concluded that people should not generally be fearful of going to the police.
Councilmember Hughes stated that he was comfortable with existing policy and did not agree that any resolution was necessary.
“It can’t be one-sided,” he argued. “We have to be sure we are also protecting the rights of documented U.S. citizens. I want to make sure that the pendulum is not swinging so far that we are not able to do that. “
The council ultimately voted to adopt the resolution, with the deletion of that portion that specified that any immigration-related information should be deleted from police reports, with Councilmembers Schwartzman and Hughes voting no.

Sharing is caring!