San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution limiting the use of county-owned property for immigration enforcement activities, but critics of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the second Trump administration want local leaders to go beyond symbolic action.
“A resolution is not a suggestion, it is a directive,” local activist Susan Mackey told supervisors at the June 16 meeting. “My concern is that without robust, transparent oversight, this policy could be bypassed through the same business-as-usual practices that SB 54 was intended to end.”’
Senate Bill 54 is the California Values Act, the statewide sanctuary law that limits the use of state and local resources for mass deportations. Since January’s TRUTH Act forum, Sheriff Ian Parkinson spoke about the bill on multiple occasions before supervisors, adding it carves out specific circumstances where county jail inmates could be turned over to ICE.
According to the Sheriff’s Office, transfers to ICE are authorized if there’s a valid arrest warrant signed by a judge, and if the inmate has certain qualifying criminal convictions like serious or violent felonies.
The resolution barring immigration enforcement on county-owned property doesn’t define what counts as such property and “non-public areas of any county facility.”
Supervisors approved the resolution in a 3-2 vote, with 1st District Supervisor John Peschong and 5th District Supervisor Heather Moreno dissenting. Peschong and Moreno said they believe the Sheriff’s Office fully complies with SB 54.
“I understand some people like the symbolic nature of something,” Moreno said. “For me, this was time that staff did not have to put into something to simply affirm what we’re already doing.”
Second District Supervisor Bruce Gibson shot back stating that while he believes Parkinson complies with SB 54, the resolution shows that the county is trying to restrict ICE “from commandeering our property.”
Fourth District Supervisor Jimmy Paulding said the resolution is more than symbolic.
“It really does reflect this board’s perspective and view of the, the problematic nature of what we’ve seen in terms of how ICE has been conducting its activities,” Paulding said. “We are going to continue to encourage our departments to ask for that judicial warrant. … We don’t want somebody who … is meeting with a social worker, for example, to feel like they are going to be essentially arrested during that meeting.”
But residents like Mackey and former Atascadero Middle School teacher Jehan Mirzaei alerted supervisors that ICE was detaining county jail inmates while the meeting was ongoing. Mirzaei quit his job because of concerns about the school administration’s response to ICE.
“I would ask for more enforcement … because right now actually the ICE is on its way to the jail,” he told supervisors. “We have video of the ICE officers entering the jail into the lobby with weapons and then further entering through the blue door, where people are released, with those weapons, which is not safe for anyone.”
On June 23, Indivisible SLO Coalition sent a letter to local press claiming that a person was taken into ICE custody at the SLO County Jail on June 16, two people were taken from the jail lobby on June 17, and a third person was taken on June 18.
“A community witness who responded verbally to ICE agents in the public lobby was accosted and dragged by a federal agent, requiring an emergency ambulance response,” the letter said about the June 18 ICE arrest. “ICE requested assistance from the Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff’s staff arrived, took witness statements, and instructed witnesses to remain in the lobby. ICE was allowed to leave.”
Indivisible stated in a previous press release that video of the incident was being withheld to protect the detainee and pending legal action.
Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Tony Cipolla told New Times that deputies responded to a disturbance call in the jail lobby around 7:10 a.m. on June 18.
“Based on the preliminary investigation, it appears a physical altercation occurred between an ICE agent and a protester,” he said. “No injuries were reported. Deputies took an incident report, and the Sheriff’s Office is currently investigating the circumstances surrounding the incident. We have no further comment at this time.”
Indivisible stressed that county supervisors have the authority to set conditions on the sheriff’s budget, issue formal directives, and establish civilian oversight of the Sheriff’s Office’s alleged cooperation with ICE.
“Supervisors Moreno and Peschong voted against Tuesday’s resolution. Supervisor Moreno called it ‘symbolic.’ She may be right—but not in the way she intended,” Indivisible’s letter said. “It is a statement. Statements do not protect people. Enforcement does.” ∆
This article appears in June 25 – July 2, 2026.
Once again Sheriff Parkinson and the Sheriff’s Spokespersons, seem to have conflicting stories from day to day.
It sounds like the Sheriff’s Department will follow SB54 when it wants to, and not follow it when they feel like being a racist arm of ICE.
Parkinson and his spokesperson obviously have never cared about transparency when it comes to following the Law. Especially if the Sheriff’s politically biased opinions differ from conducting the Sheriff’s operations legally.
Parkinson and his spokesperson are just talking out of both sides of their mouths.
[written October 2025] Nothing has changed! It has only gotten worse.
If we don’t stop ICE and “constitution sheriffs” like Parkinson from skirting CA Law, then we are living in a Putin styled dikkktatorship, right now!
Any California law or resolution or ordinance from SLO that purports to prohibit a Federal law enforcement official (ICE) from enforcing the law is illegal and ICE can ignore it with impunity. Thus, ICE can enter any public space, e.g., the public lobby of the Jail, and arrest people there.
California and SLO can prohibit its officers from cooperating with ICE, and can bar them from non-public areas of State and Local buildings.
If activists want to have a scrum with ICE agents doing their duty in a public lobby, then the activists may hoot and holler and have a great PR event. But they will lose legally.