City Council - Regular Meeting

I'm just wondering if ever you use your discretion not to tell ICE somebody's being released and I'd like to give one example that's in on your website right now of somebody who is convicted of robbery that was their reason for used and the conviction was in 1998. I wonder if you could use your discretion not to call ICE on that person who committed a crime three decades ago almost.

I guess the short answer is I guess I could. But to go over every single request would be, and somebody to try and figure out what my policy decision on that would be, incredibly time consuming for the organization. And so if they meet the criteria and they've been arrested or convicted or held to answer on a serious and violent felony, then they meet the criteria.

Okay.

Do you have another card?

I do have another card, yes.

We're going to kind of pivot. I did have a question actually about this. So is this the only operational sort of integration that you have around SB 54? I mean, are there any other operational things that you do around SB 54 with ICE agents?

No. So SB 54 put, like I said, strict limits on law enforcement and what that integration looks like. And so the only integration we have with immigration enforcement is for people who are in my custody, who are convicted or held to answer on serious and violent crimes. and are due to get out and ice asks for their release date which we provide and if they show up they're released to them but this is once again all initiated by ice calling us we don't call them we then let them know if they meet the criteria or not and that's the extent of it okay um john re is it john yeah john reed do you want to come up and ask your question

Hello. So I served 10 years as Green Beret, five years active duty, five years National Guard.

Sorry, I served in the military.

I was in Green Beret for 10 years. I should say it in my man voice, right? Just closer. And I was an EMT. My first job was a station officer. And, you know, I hear from the administration that ICE is coming here for violent criminals, that our communities aren't safe. And that implies to me that you're not able to fulfill your job in your office, that our communities are not safe and you need federal support. How do you reconcile that?

Well, I'll reconcile this. The immigration enforcement activity is that of the federal government. It's for them to do, not local law enforcement. And how in the manner they do that is really largely up to the federal government. I feel very confident in how we keep our community safe. We're the safest large county in the state of California two years in a row. I've got an amazing team of deputies who love working in their community. They love supporting people. They love holding really bad people accountable. And in that where the IC agents are asking for people that are in our custody that we have that have committed violent crimes and they want to pick them up, that is their choice to do. And I'm allowed to communicate with them under that very narrow set of circumstances. And so. Like I said, this last year there was 115 that met the criteria that were picked up. 164 met the criteria, about 115 were picked up. Before that it was 75 and about 45 the year before that and the year before that. So it's not that we've asked them to come in and do this, right? Their job is immigration enforcement and they're going to do it. And unfortunately, in some ways, where we're at right now, it's created this where they're going into our communities and causing a lot of terror. And I understand that, right? And part of that is because the state has created a barrier for them being able to pick people up in custody. Now they're going, like I said, those 1,300 people, they still want. But now they're having to go in the community and where prior to 2017, they were able to just apply the detainer, pick him up from custody. And there was not the level of fear and anxiety that was being driven as it is now because of the manner of which it's being done.

So just so you don't believe that there are random pickups.

No, not at all. These are targeted efforts.

So you believe that when ICE picks somebody, so let's just get the perspective. And we can find out whether the community agrees with that or not.

Well, you can agree or not, which is fine. Here's what I'll share with you. Prior to December, the ICE agents were letting us know on a great frequency of, hey, we're going to be here for this amount of time at this location or general area. It may not have been an exact address, but a corner of X and Y. I took to task our local ice agents the matter of which they were conducting operations because it was haphazard it was scaring our community and was creating a lot of harm in the relationships that we've developed with the community we're serving I was pretty harsh in my dialogue with that agent and as a result they really quit communicating with us of what they're doing now every now and then a couple times a week I I'll get noticed. Usually one agent in particular is better about notifying us. But our concern is we have these people who are showing up oftentimes masked, very low identification. And if we get a call saying that there's a kidnapping in progress and we send officers out to that. I don't want to have a blue on blue issue if they're in fact federal agents. But because they're not notifying us of all their efforts, there's no way for us to know who they are at that time. So I understand the challenges this created for all of us. And I would agree that the manner in which it's being done is substandard. But once again, this is the federal government doing what the federal government has been charged to do in the matter that they are doing it. And we could argue all day that whether or not they have the proper training or whatever, or if they're going after the violent felons or not, or if they're just going after anybody that's in the country illegally. then that's what they're doing. And once again, this becomes a policy decision that is best addressed by our congressional leaders. They need to come up with legitimate reform that protects people, protects our country, has a path for people to get here legally. And what are they going to do with all the people that have been here for a long time that are not committing any offenses? Those are the things that the federal government is required to come up with now. And I hope that there's a better emphasis on their part to try and get there because of what we're all seeing right now.

Yes, if it's quick.

So from what I understand, there's two situations. There is where people are being released from your custody and they're getting picked up. Separate thing. HSI is serving warrants in the community doing raids, correct? Correct.

Yeah, sometimes they're not warrants, right? They're just going after targeted people that they know are here illegally, and they make it a probable cause of arrest.

And the context of that is that they are going after violent individuals.

Well, I don't know that that's the context anymore. I think that when we first started talking about doing immigration enforcement, it was to go after serious and violent felons. I'm pretty confident the people they're picking up on may not fit in that criteria, but they definitely fit the criteria of people who are here illegally. And so that's What they're going after now. But once again, who they pick up, we don't get notified. We don't get notified who they picked up. I know we had at least one incident in Camarillo where they made the arrest of the individual and left their car running in the middle of the street and left it there.

And so if they're going out and serving these warrants or do these operations for violent people, why isn't your office serving those warrants or doing same operations for the criminal offenses in California? And also, it seems that you are separating that, hey, federal is going to do whatever they want. Why is there not some type of observer program possibly? Why not you guys ride along and have a better relationship and be able to maintain? Because you also have an obligation to enforce state laws on those federal agents.

So... The federal agents, if they commit crimes here, then we can try and address that. But I'll tell you right now that there are already court case decisions that say that if a federal agent is doing their federal agent job and they violate a state statute, the state has no authority to hold them or charge them. The federal government can, and that's where you can file your complaints with your federal local office about behavior and activities you see of these federal agents. We don't ride with them doing immigration enforcement because the law specifically prohibits that. When you look at our federal agencies and partners that we have, aside from immigration, there are a lot of other things that we do together that are not prohibited. Human trafficking, drug dealing, all those things we still work very closely with our federal partners on for resources that they have more of than we do. It's a better use of our county funds to go after, once again, people who are committing crimes that are state crimes can be charged federally as well. And those are the relations we have. So when people are upset with what ICE is doing, there's many of these federal agents we've worked with before. So I know like at the Glass House raid, the FBI agent that called me from there, I've worked on other things as well. And historically, I've worked very closely with the FBI on bank robberies and other felonies, identity theft and getting... So we have a relation with our federal government because of the way the law is written. We have to separate what is immigration enforcement versus what is not immigration enforcement. If somebody has broken a state statute and there's a federal warrant for their arrest and we can take action on that. If it's strictly immigration laws only, then we don't.

So just as a follow-up question, so I better understand, what you're saying is that if ICE agents come in, because they're federal, regardless of whether or not they break laws, you can't do anything. Is that what I'm hearing?

Yeah, that's basically correct.

Okay. Do you see that as problematic?

Yes. And once again, our federal legislators have some work to do, and they need to start doing it.

And that court case, was that a trial court level, appellate court level?

It was in Northern California, and I want to say it was the Neagle decision, but don't quote me on that. But I will find it for you and send it to you.

Okay, that would be, because obviously the community, that does not sit well.

No, I get it.

And you are our local law enforcement.

And if I arrest a federal agent for doing their job, I will be prosecuted by the federal government for interfering with federal agents. you're okay with that i'm not i follow the law my let's start with let's start with what my responsibilities are is follow the law right you you may i may be a champion for some of you who want me to interfere with federal governments but the fact of the matter is it's against the law and you'll never see your sheriff break the law it's not going to happen not on my watch

Okay, so, and we can discuss whether or not a judicial finding is binding as much as, you know, a legislative action, which is a law. Case law is different from, you know, so... But that I think is one of the really fundamental issues and the problems that the community has. And yes, it starts at the federal level, but it puts the community in a situation where they have no recourse to this violations of the Constitution. We have cases that, you know, case law that also says that. And I think that that's where a lot of the disappointment with local law enforcement comes from, because if not you, then who?

Okay, let me respond to that. I hear that. But you do have a recourse, and that recourse is with your federal legislators to change the law. That's where your recourse is, I'm telling you, that's where your recourse falls. But if your expectation is that the sheriff or the deputies who work for the sheriff are going to arrest federal agents for doing their job, that is not going to happen.

Okay, yes, would you like to come up with your question?

Yeah. Hi, I'm Tim Nafziger. Thanks for your transparency. You know, I appreciate it at the Truth Act Forum last year. You did name that the cooperation is voluntary. You didn't use the term voluntary today. So I just want to clarify that is still voluntary. Absolutely. So I've been working with VC Defense doing what I appreciate that you named as First Amendment protected documentation of ICE for the last year and a half. And we've seen time and time again what you just used, using your terms, kidnappings that are substandard. So your words, not mine.

I didn't say kidnapping, but I said- You used the term kidnappings of masked men. Well, what I'll say is this. When we don't get notified by ICE what they're doing and somebody calls in and says there's a kidnapping, we have no way to verify that it was an ICE agent without having to send officers out there because they no longer notify us. It may in fact be a legitimate arrest, but we don't know because we don't get notified at the frequency we were before December.

Okay, so I'm going to focus on a very specific question. Okay. And that is regarding the lobby at the government center. Yes. That's your jurisdiction, correct? Yes, it is. And you talked about First Amendment rights. Yes. So a couple weeks ago, during one of these ICE presences there, I was in the lobby documenting my First Amendment rights, and I was physically shoved out of the lobby by ICE officers unlawfully. How are you going to protect us as observers in the lobby when our rights are being violated as US citizens?

So one of the things that we've done-

That's a constitutional question. Yeah, absolutely. Which is really good.

Yeah, so one of the things we've recently done is we've added some additional cameras to that area because the cameras work two ways, right? We're going to be able to see if what the ICE agents are doing is proper or not, and then we can submit that information to our Attorney General here in the state of California. We can submit it to the US Attorney's Office in Los Angeles to find out what their training is, what their policy is on for interfering with people that are doing their First Amendment protected activity.

Why are your officers not in the lobby protecting us?

So they are, and then what's funny is every time we do have officers in the lobby, we get accused of helping ICE.

So we're in a very- But we're gonna ask that this conversation

So once again, I'm aware of the incentive you're referring to. The arrest doesn't have to happen right away. These are things that we can look into and work with our federal partners on. We can work with our local DAs on to council members rules point to find out if what the trigger is for the legal rule to apply versus where they're violating somebody's First Amendment activity.

One more. Yeah, it's a conversation, so I appreciate they're investigating, but what recourse do you have? You just said you're never going to arrest an ICE officer. I didn't say that. I just said that there may not be the recourse. What is the situation where you would arrest an ICE officer?

So I'll say this, and I would do this for any of our officers too. If they are excessively beating somebody and that person is not resisting, I would step in and our deputies would step in and put an immediate stop to it and arrest them for the battery that's occurring.

Excuse me, I'm going to ask that we don't shout out because that's going to interrupt the conversation. So thank you.

So once again, excessive force versus use of force. There is a difference. We use force, not a lot, but we do, to enforce rules. Because not everybody is compliant. And as of last year, I think we had 165,000 contacts and we used force about 480 times. a pretty small amount where force is used, and then whether that constitutes excessive force, right? And the other thing that I'm very cautious about with our deputies is, if they're, and this is just straight state law issues, if they're arresting somebody and they're using what appears to be egregious force, Before they stop that officer, they better find out why they're using force. Because if the answer after they interfere is, he's got my gun, and that officer ends up dead, we've got a problem on our hands. So they need to make sure that they're aware of what they're doing first before they interfere with the force being used. And then we can investigate it from there. And if it requires termination or charges being filed, then we have the time to do that.

Okay. So here is a question, and I think it's been answered. So, oh, yeah, it was River's question. It actually has been answered, so I'll just briefly go over what I understand the situation to be is if...

Yes, it's very difficult.

I mean, I'm just trying to figure out how to actually- But I think to your point, right?

I think you're struggling with trying to how to ask this because this is not easy. If it was easy, anybody could do it, right? We have a federal government who doesn't work for me, who's operating under federal guidelines, which are different than mine, with a different goal in mind than mine. And there are certain activities that I can help intervene with. And I've explained we're like an excessive force scenario where we would step in. But if it's any use of force, then no. One of the issues that we struggle with our federal agencies are is that they don't seem to have the authority to make an arrest for a non-immigration violation that's occurring in their presence. And so I haven't had a chance to really dive into this with our federal agencies yet. But if I see them pepper spray a lot of people and then walk away. We would never do that. If we pepper spray you, we're taking you to jail because you were interfering with us. But we have that authority to make that arrest on the spot. I don't know if the federal government has to wait for them to get an indictment from the U.S. Attorney's Office before they can make an arrest on it, which would make sense, or if they're just literally focused on their target. And if the pepper spraying is part of their training and allowable, For us, pepper spray, bless you, hitting somebody with a baton, using a taser fits into a very specific category of force, which requires certain activities by the person we're using force on before we can use that force. I think what we're going to find out is whether or not the federal government has those same parameters that fall for them that they do for us. And some of this is going to take a little bit of time because we've not had to deal with this ever before. Local law enforcement has had enough case decisions, legislation to guide how we operate for so long that I think we do an exceptional job of it. There's always room for improvement, right? We're not perfect. But I think our federal partners who have not ever done this before are showing really how bad it looks when you have no training and no experience in the realm of doing policing. Because that's really what they're trying to do and they're not very good at it.

Right, so I'm going to move on from the question, but I just want to sort of wrap this up in an understanding, because you understand how defenseless the community feels and really does feel that it is our local law enforcement's responsibility job to protect us, whether it's pepper spraying or whatever it happens to be. And I'm hoping that the community better understands your perspective. But in the end, it still leaves the community with no recourse. It's nice that we can talk it through.

I can see the frustration. Trust me. And you're not the only ones that feel the frustration. How they do things is not how we would do things. And I'm stuck with how they do things. And the matter of which they're doing them, they don't have to run it through me. They don't have to tell me what they're doing. Even though I'm the sheriff of this county, they work for a federal government that also has jurisdiction over this county. And they're enforcing laws that are specifically federal to enforce. And I get it. People want us to step in the way and stop them from doing it. We can't.

Okay, okay, okay.

Well, I'm not calling them. They're calling us.

Ann is going to come up and ask her question. I think we understand, we could sit here and argue about this and what this looks like. But what I wanted really, at least in this conversation, is for the community to understand what they can expect. and for the sheriff to understand how defenseless and vulnerable, not necessarily the people in this room are, but our neighbors, our friends, and things like that. And apparently we're at a place where we have no recourse other than to go to our legislators. And that also is... You know, I mean, I appreciate it.

But anyway, I'm going to let you finish that. Right. So one of the things about city councils and the board of supervisors and your sheriff is we're the most visible sign of government. It's way easier to get a hold of me because I'm here with you. Right. You're you're my community and I'm responsive to you. I want to share with you why I'm making the decisions that I'm making. You don't have to agree with them. I just want you to understand that the challenging place that I've been placed in because of the lack of effort by your federal legislators to do something. And they are the only ones that can fix immigration through a form that they have to figure out. Ann, welcome.

Hello, sir, thank you. I'm actually going to ask an Ojai Valley related question. I live down in the humble, unincorporated area of Oakview. We've lived there on Kunkel Street since 2020. My understanding now, we did have an ICE detention occur at the start of Kunkel in front of the same businesses where I purchased this T-shirt from your wonderful deputies some years ago when you guys were out doing community building. And the impact of these ICE agents who barged into a business trash talked the firefighters who were there and left again leaving i did not witness it but i came right afterwards my understanding is you were not informed in advance of this activity they are not giving you a heads up anymore so you couldn't give a heads up to our brave firefighters is that correct

So yeah, even when the federal government notifies us, which is very infrequent now, we don't notify anybody about their activity, right? If they tell us they're going to be at the corner of X and Y, I don't tell anybody that they're doing that. That's so that we don't have a blue on blue. I don't let the fire department know either. I can tell you that I'm not happy with the manner which our federal agents are conducting themselves. I can tell you that. I've told them that. I told them that the harm they're creating in our community, and you're right, they don't care. And even when I talked to the chief of Border Patrol about their substandard operations, he said, this is what he quoted, and I said back to him, he goes, you know, we're not apologetic about doing the job that we've been told to do. And they said, you don't have to be terrible at it, though. And they're terrible at it. And that's my reaction to what I see. It's a reaction that I get from listening to my community who's terrified or their neighbors are terrified about what's happening. And once again, we've been thrust into this position because of a lack of action by federal legislators for over 40 years.

Thank you and one more question and I apologize I do not have the exact date because it's hot and it was a while ago but I believe it was back in 2025 that I heard that there was possibly ice activity down at the Oakview Park and Rec Center on Mahoney and the next morning i went and talked to staffers there at the park and rec center who confirmed that your deputies have been there to apprehend a man carry out sort of a field operation to apprehend an individual who had been posing a threat and a menace to the community at the center and these folks confirmed that ice had assisted that there were ice agents the Park and Rec Center property as well, which caused panic among the Head Start families who were rushing over there to pick up their children in absolute terror. And the people who confirmed this to me were ones who supported the action because they said they were with the sheriff department, we have a long relationship with them, and we can trust them. And I don't understand what, it sounds to me like it was a rather spontaneous brothers in arms kind of operation. But I don't understand what broke down that day to cause that to occur.

I don't have any of the details of that specific, but one thing that's interesting is if our deputies are taking an action of any kind that's on some state violation or whatever, ICE agents can help us control somebody that we're trying to arrest. There's no law that stops them from helping law enforcement. We just can't help them with immigration enforcement.

Just to quickly follow up to be aware of the damage that did to the Head Start families and their trust in your brave deputies.

Yeah, it's unfortunate. Obviously, anytime that anybody sees ICE agents anywhere near our deputies, it causes a lot of fear. And I can tell you this, and I'll be very clear about this. If I find out that one of my deputies is helping immigration authorities do immigration enforcement, I'll be the first to arrest them. It's against the law. Okay.

Okay. And you see the problem with having ICE support you?

Well, for sure. But if one of my deputies is getting beat to death, I would pray that somebody would step in, and if it's an ICE agent, I'll take it.

Right, but this was at a head, okay. That's an extreme example. This was at a Head Start. In other words, you see the problem- Well, the event was at a Head Start.

The person they were arresting was not a student at Head Start, right? Okay. Somebody that was causing a disturbance in the community, according to what Ann was saying.

Okay, so we're gonna, let's see, is John Cushman, John Cushman? Cushmon. Cushwon.

Cushwon. Okay.

I even forgot what my question is.

Did he write it down?

Let him refresh his memory with what he wrote down.

My belief is that

The entire illegal immigration situation has created somewhat of a black market. Everybody here has been talking about the fear of the people here that are undocumented. That drives them into not being able to report to the police when crimes are being committed against them, when they are being extorted by their own community. when they're being trafficked by their own community? And could you say who preys on the vulnerable in the undocumented community most? Is it the violent people that are in the country illegally?

without any specific facts, I would say most likely based on my experience, but I don't have the data to provide you. But that's also why local law enforcement doesn't do immigration enforcement because when they are being victimized, they can call us and we will respond and protect them. Now the person that is violating those crimes, if they're here illegally, they've been either previously deported where it's a felony or they get held to answer or convicted of a serious or violent crime, then they would be eligible

For release to ice should ice call and want them so the so the vulnerable in the community So the vulnerable in the community Do they have fear of reporting incidents from their own people

Well, I'm sure that they do. One of the things that we see is there's an effort to constantly show that we're doing immigration enforcement when we're not. There are people out there who are trying to show that we are doing something that we're not. And I know that causes fear for this vulnerable community. I've talked to a lot of members of our community who are very supportive of me making sure that I'm communicating with ICE on these serious and violent felons because they are, in fact, targeting that community. And they're very thankful that we do that communication. And to that gentleman's point, Tim's point, it is voluntary, right? The way the law was written, it said the sheriff may communicate with ICE. It doesn't say shall. It doesn't say shall not. It says the sheriff may. And so I have to make a decision on whether or not I'm going to communicate with ICE on serious and violent felons. And I have made the decision to communicate with ICE to protect our community from people who have already shown that they have the propensity to commit crimes against our community.

Okay, thank you, thank you. So I'm gonna move on to another topic, because it's seven o'clock, and while I'm really concerned about basically constitutional violations, and the clear fact that those are happening. But I'm going to move on to elections because they're upcoming. And I have a couple of questions specific to elections that I think we need to... discuss and once again get a sense of where you stand on this. So I'm going to thank Randy Roth for giving me this little blurb. President Trump has declared that California's elections are corrupt and rigged. Homeland Security Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen has stated that any local election official who disobeys an order from a federal official will be arrested and prosecuted. Given this, two questions arise. And Randy, you want to come up and ask your questions? So as we move into election season and we find this crossover from federal to state and, you know, I will let Randy.

Jim, welcome back to OHI, Jim. Thank you, Randy. It's good to see you.

It's good to be back.

Jim, in the unlikely event, very unlikely event, that President Trump orders you to seize ballot boxes, how will you respond?

So the state of California recently passed a law prohibiting us from doing that. So once again, although the president can order whatever he wants, I have a California law that I also have sworn to uphold that will not allow me to pick up ballot boxes. I will not.

Likewise, if a federal agent asks you to protect other federal agents while they seize ballot boxes, how will you respond?

Well, that's a great question. I would not protect them while they're doing that unless they're being attacked by somebody. If they're being attacked by somebody, then I'm going to protect them from being attacked. It's a difference that's a nuance, right, of no different than like... If they pick up the boxes, they pick up the boxes. The state law does not control what they do. If they are federal agents who are involved in collecting ballot boxes that are from a federal election, if they have the authority or they're granted a warrant to do so, then they're going to do that. And then we'll have to go through the legal battle to find out whether or not they have the authority to do that. So right now, I know there was a case down in Riverside where the sheriff down there collected ballots based on a search warrant he had a judge sign, which then caused the legislature to pass a bill and assigned by the governor to prohibit any sheriff from basically conducting investigations into voter fraud. And that would fall under the Attorney General. That is right now before the state Supreme Court to determine whether or not the Attorney General has the authority. to stop a sheriff from investigating a crime that's well within their jurisdiction. So a lot of things that are happening right now, both on the federal side and the state side, are things that haven't been tackled before, like I mentioned earlier. And so we're taking these things a little bit at a time to find out which way the courts are going to rule. But basically what the attorney did and our legislature did was they unilaterally got rid of the sheriff and judicial courts, so the executive branch of government and the judicial branch of government locally, and took away our authority. So that's going to go to the courts and they're going to have to determine whether or not the state has the authority to take away local control on things that are within our control to investigate. And I suspect that they'll have that in the not too distant future. So we'll know some other guiding principles and then that'll beg the question, okay, if local authorities can't do it, what are the federal authorities allowed to do and if they go to the elections office to get it or to a ballot location what what are they required to have do they have to have a warrant who signs that warrant what judge has the authority to give it so those are things that we have to still get answered jim do you think it's your responsibility to protect do you think it's your responsibility to protect elections Yeah, of course. I mean, we don't want to have anybody that are protesting within the parameters of an election center that are dissuading people from voting, right? All those things apply and we would take enforcement action on if people were stopping from doing that. But the reality is, well, I know that right now there's a huge grapple over what's considered a secure election and not. And our legislature and the federal government is working on that right now. And I know the Supreme Court just... gave a ruling, which I'm sure will have some other ripple down effects for the states on what mail-in voting looks like and who can mail-in vote. And so these are, like I said, this is all happening right now. And I was not issued a crystal ball when I got elected. And so we are going to try and work this out the best we can, have some answers, hopefully some more clarity long before the election comes. So we know exactly what we can and can't do as it relates to the elections.

Jim, I appreciate your honesty, but I must say that I'm really concerned.

I appreciate that, and I will say this. I wish I had better answers for that. It's a moving target currently, and we'll hopefully have some better answers long before November. Thank you, Randy.

I'm not gonna editorialize, even though I could. Delaney, would you like to come up and ask your, so we're on elections now. This is the MO, is make everything as vague as possible so that you can do whatever you want. And once again, the community is gonna be the ones who bear the brunt of what happens.

Well, and I'll say this along that line. Remember, there was a period of time as these raids were taking place where ICE agents had gone to a Home Depot in the Southland, and the courts put a freeze on their ability to do that, which the ICE agents complied with the freeze. And then that same court then removed the freeze and said they had the authority to do it. So it's very frustrating, right, for all of us to watch and to have the vagueness that we have. There's not a lot of clarity. And we're still learning as we go with a lot of these things because they've never been done before. Yes, ma'am.

Good evening. Our concern obviously is more of what we've seen the federal government doing, going down to Georgia, Chad Bianco's attempt out in Riverside County. So I'm wondering if you have met with or plan to meet with Michelle Ascension's office to review security. Do you have a plan of security protocols around the elections in terms of voter intimidation, knowing like ICE agents hanging around just right outside of whatever the number of feet they're allowed to be near a ballot box. So especially, I mean, Ojai we're not so worried, but Oxnard we're really worried about. that you know that there's just going to be ice all over the place and so that even people who are citizens because clearly they're not making any differentiation um they're picking up lots of american citizens and who are spending months in detention and not getting any justice so Have you met, the real question here is, have you met with Michelle's office? Are you planning anything? What is the plan to secure safe elections for the people?

So to answer your question, no, Michelle and I have not met yet. to talk about what security is. And we've worked before on election security, but on a much lighter scale because, like I said, this is all new. What is being threatened by the federal government on what that interference looks like or having ICE agents near the polls as an intimidation tactic for people who are trying to vote. Those are things that Michelle and I will discuss to find out what security measures are necessary to make sure people are safe to be able to vote.

I hope we'll be informed about that.

I will share the notes that I have with Michelle with council member rules so she can share it. I mean, obviously, everybody's here. I don't know if there's a mechanism where we just post it on the website or whatever, put a flyer up.

I think that that's a really important process to go through. At least there will be clarity if there's not actual ability to enforce. April, do you want to come up? This is sort of the same question. I just want you to know that there are other questions around this. People are very worried. Will there be officers assigned at polling centers to protect voters? That's really the big question because there is no differentiation between citizens, non-citizens, registered to vote, not registered to vote. It's a free-for-all. okay let's see does anyone have a question that they would like to ask yeah come on up oh well I you know why don't you come up we actually have a lot of questions I know. I would say that I did not develop the most efficient process. That's all I can say. You live and you learn. I'm like trying to read them and I do whatever. But we will always give youth a voice.

Hello, Mr. Fryhoff. Hello. What do you think is gained for public safety by separating parents from their children?

Great question. So from, uh, from what we, and how we participate with immigration authorities are for people that have been arrested or convicted of serious and violent crimes. These people have already shown their willingness to hurt other people in our community. And so when I says asking when they're getting out, it's not the separation between their family that I'm more worried about. It's the harm and the violence that they're doing to others. And that's who I'm protecting.

So you've been up.

He hasn't been up. Oh, you haven't. I'm sorry.

My bad. I'm sorry. I apologize. I thought you had.

On the topic of data sharing and constitutional concerns, more than half the flock cameras in the county belong to you. They surveil us 2.5 million times every month. That data is available to DHS through the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, who accesses that data, your entire network of cameras, 700 times a month. We know that from the FOIA requests. That is definitive. Not to mention, you had a data breach last year. where that data was at, your entire network was accessed 400,000 times by agencies outside of our state, which is violating the state law. After that, Oxnard dropped the contract on principle. The LAPD just dropped their contract due to privacy and ethical concerns. Why haven't you dropped it?

That's a great question. Great question, and because of the nexus that it has to DHS, I believe it meets the criteria for this town hall that we're in.

Public safety. Public safety, okay.

So I want to make sure I'm answering something that I'm allowed to. We're good. So once again, we're going to talk about what the law says, what it allows for, and then a balance between privacy and public safety. Yes, there was a breach caused by Flock and the data was in fact searched by people outside of the state of California in violation of state law. It wasn't our officers that flipped the switch. It was a technical glitch on Flock's part that created it. And as a result, we have done additional safeguards including our own audit to make sure that our information is not being searched outside of the state of California. And that even our employees are searching it within the parameters that are required. We have penalties in place both as far as the disciplinary up to termination and arresting our folks if they are misusing the data. What I want to let everybody know is technology, it doesn't have to be perfect. It doesn't have to be perfect for us to use. Because we need it to solve crime, and it's a very good tool in solving crime. Very good tool.

Yeah.

So hang on, I'm not done answering. I'm not done answering.

Yeah, no, no, we're good. Everybody's good. You can certainly follow up. There are a lot of questions around Flock.

We've used license plate readers since about 2013. We had other companies like 3M and Vigilant that we used prior to Flock. Flock obviously has an AI component that does just beyond license plate. It can pick up stickers off of cars, et cetera. And it has been, I think when we did our press release after the breach, we listed several success cases that we had that were used by Flock. What I want to be careful of is, and so no, we haven't dropped them. Yet, but I want to be very careful how I walk this line is when we go out to RFP requests for proposals. There are some guidelines that I make sure you need. I don't need to overstep to make sure I don't ruin that part of the process. And so are you familiar with RFPs? Because whenever we spend a lot of money, we tend to go out to what's called a request for proposals. We say we're looking for this specific type of tool that you have. This is what we wanted to cover or do. And then they give us a proposal on what they are going to provide, how much it's going to cost, what are they able to meet our security parameters. And with new technology in particular, now flock cameras, and I suspect that in the not too distant future, there'll be a whole lot more new technology because of how fast technology is moving. That we're very rarely the first to use technology because it's very expensive if you get it wrong. So I'm pretty fiscally conservative. So I want to make sure that we're using technology in the best way possible to help protect our public, balance privacy rights, understanding that's a significant concern with flock cameras. And how did that intersect with public safety? And so I know that once again, it's for some people, it's a very unpopular decision for me to continue using license plate readers of any kind, specifically with Flock. And there are others who support it because when there's a violent crime, we have another tool to help solve that crime and protect people. It's a balance.

So after that breach, no one here, no one in the public was allowed to see anything about that audit. That was internal. So all we know is what you've told us. That's the first point. The second point is you just described yourself as fiscally conservative. Then why are you requesting a $7 million drone program from Axon and two full-time drone operators to further surveil our community?

So... I'm not asking for them. The cities that want to run a Drone as a First Responder program, well that's because both Thousand Oaks and Camarillo, who want to start a Drone as a First Responder program, contract their services with the sheriff's office. So for me to add the positions that they want to add, I have to go before the board to get those positions allocated, and then we bill those positions to those cities, including all the equipment that comes with it. And so we still have to go before the board because they're our contract, and so the board is the one that dictates whether or not we're going to get those positions. The cost to the county is zero. They're not likely to object to it because Thousand Oaks and Camry are the ones that are wanting it. Now, whether they had their own police department and just did it on their own, they could. Or right now they contract with us because we provide very good service and they're asking for it. Once again, we're not the first agency to have a drone as a first responder program. Chula Vista was actually the very first agency to pioneer it. And when it first came out, I'll be honest, I was like, you're doing what? I couldn't believe it. And other agencies have done it and they've had a lot of successes with it. I know regionally Oxnard's using it now. Been very successful because it gets eyes on scene very quickly when a call goes out because a drone can respond and get on scene much quicker than a car. If you haven't noticed how bad traffic is in Ventura County recently, I let you know traffic is really bad. And so the drone can get there first. It can lay eyes on it and the dispatcher or the drone operator can provide that information to the responding officers or if it's a the perpetrator leaving the area, they can follow that car, give out directions, direction of travel, so that the officers can triangulate. We've been using drones for a lot of other things beyond the DFR program. First was search and rescue, which we have a great search and rescue program with our volunteers. We also use it for photographing evidence, which is way cheaper than flying a helicopter. We've used them when our patrol deputies have responded to scenes of burglaries, and once the scene is stabilized, they've used them to search hillsides looking for suspects or other information. So it's not necessarily a quote unquote new. Toronto as a first-rounder is a new addition to our existing UAS program, our Unmanned Aerial System program. And it's not out of line with what is happening across the state. But once again, I understand the concerns from a privacy perspective. I know that Thousand Oaks gave the presentation last night, and it passed 5-0 for them to move forward with the DFR program. And so for us, it's just a way to have more information to the officers responding to the scene quicker, because traffic is not good.

So Amaryll Wilson, Amaryll? Amiris, I'm sorry, I couldn't read it, Ms. Wilson. No? Okay. Basically the question is just, can ICE access FLOC?

So no, California has a very strict law on the data sharing with FLOC. And so the law passed about a year and a half ago, it says we're not allowed to share our data nationally. We can only share it within agencies within the state of California. The data breach obviously proved that the technology is not perfect. And it does show that the data was searched hundreds of thousands of times. But let me explain to you how that can happen. I mean, we don't know what the effect of that was, if any. But if you're an officer in a state that has... does not have the restrictions that California does. And you're researching a burglary that occurred and you have a vehicle that you're searching and you search that the widest net you can cast, which most investigators would do, and that would be a national search. The national search for I'm looking for this license plate or this type of car with this particular sticker, whatever. and it hits that national search database. Well, for a month, our database was on that national database. Now the officer that searched it probably had no idea that Ventura County was ever searched for it, but because they searched nationally, it shows as our data was in fact searched. It wasn't like somebody was specifically targeting a Ventura County data. It was just that it was shared on a national stage. As soon as, well, I won't say as soon as it, as soon as we found out we took, I, we took, um, flock to task on it. They were trying to tell us that it was, that we had done it. And I said, listen, you want me to believe that 30 some odd agencies, uh, all decided to collaborate together and flip a switch to violate state law at the same date and time, I go, that's not accurate. I go, so you need to own this. I have concerns about that initial ownership, but like I said, we do have the ability to have an RFP process to find a company that's more responsive, takes more ownership of their product, But once we told them what our expectations were and what we needed from them, they have complied. And that's really what I'm looking for is both as an agency head, using technology that's not super popular by everybody, is trying to balance both public safety and privacy, and then looking at If this company wasn't willing to make the changes necessary for me to feel like our information is not being shared in violation of the law, I would have cut contract with them immediately. But they have made those changes. We internally have made our own changes so that we can audit the data too.

I will just mention, I think we're getting close to 7.30? 7.18. There are lots and lots of concerns about flock in here. And so I would say, sure. Okay, sure.

Hi. So I wanted to speak to something. You asked the question, what happens when children get separated from their parents with ice? So back to the glass house. Did you know that 13 children were left in the fields after ice took all those people away?

No. No.

13 children were abandoned in the fields. So how do we feel safe that you're protecting us and our families? A friend of mine who works there had to take those children into her home and try to find relatives to come and pick them up. I also was walking down Maricopa Highway and witnessed ice come and grab a man that I had seen every day walking who was an older man. They didn't ask him one single question. Two of them grabbed him, threw him in the car and took off. How do I feel safe walking down the streets of a town that I've lived in for 30 years when this is happening? These masked goons are harassing us. What are you doing to protect us?

Once again, not knowing who they arrested, that moment in front of you, somebody you'd seen here before. I know who it is. I found out. Okay. And so I don't know if they're here legally or not or what their status is. They didn't ask him any questions. Well, I can tell you this. We do a lot of research on the people we arrest. And if I know they're a person that I'm arresting and I can identify who they are, I don't ask them any questions either. I throw them in handcuffs as soon as I can. So that's what we do. So that's probably what happened in that case is that they had a targeted event that they went after and they made an arrest. And so when we do the same thing, if I know I have somebody who's, let's say they're a violent felon or whatever, or I know they're gonna run, I'm not going to give him that opportunity to run. I'm pretty fast, but I don't. He wasn't.

I know who he is. He worked for a friend of mine's son. He was an older gentleman. He was on his way to work. He had no criminal record. The family were able to get him. Thank you, VC Defensa and 805 UndocuFund. But back to the kids too. I mean, you all were there and 13 kids got left in the field.

We were there to protect the value agents from, or to keep them separated from each other. And then when we opened up the roadway, that's what our focus was because we were not involved in that. Now, of course, anybody there could have called us and said, hey, we have all these kids here who are now alone. Can you send child protective services over? They can call all their family members or send people to the home to find out if there's somebody that can take these kids. We do have that process. Okay. That doesn't mean they shouldn't call us. So if you don't want them to call us because you think they should be afraid, then exactly what's going to happen is that the people that are there are going to make those calls instead, hopefully.

Okay, so... I'm not going to, no, I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let you come up and say he's lying. Okay? Yeah, we're not here. Okay? All right. All right? Are you good? Okay.

Just so everybody knows. Come on. Okay, dude. What actually happens at the jails? I'm a volunteer with VC Defensa, a lot of us are, and other rapid response groups. What actually happens at the jails? What actually happens at the jails?

No, here's the doubt.

Yeah, he's five and crazy. I'll talk to you.

So what actually happens at the county jail is that the ICE agents are in direct communication with the people that work for the sheriff's office that may or may not be deputies, but they sit behind the desk in the lobby where people go to put money on commissary and get information about their loved ones that are being released. And the sheriff's office is in direct text and phone call communication with the ICE agents. We have video evidence of it. We have proof. We have video evidence of the ICE agents saying, they just texted me, it'll be 90 seconds. They just texted me, it'll be five minutes. They just texted me, another 20 minutes. We have video evidence of them on the phone talking with your employees. So we want to know, will you fire, maybe they're not deputies because you were slick with your language, but will you fire the employees of the county and of the sheriff's office that hand over our family members, our friends, and our neighbors to ICE? And I want to share an anecdote. You say that you know exactly who you're arresting at all times and that you do a lot of research on it. Two weeks ago, someone was arrested for allegedly driving a stolen vehicle. He was driving his boss's work truck, and it was reported stolen, and the boss called the sheriff's office and said, you just arrested my best worker. He is not driving a stolen vehicle. He is my best worker. You need to let him out right now. He's undocumented. ICE showed up because your guys called them and said, here's a list of names, anybody on this list that you want. They showed up and arrested him, and so now his kids don't have their dad home, and his wife does not have their husband home. So for you to be flippant and dismissal about the fact that you say that you do not cooperate with ICE, we know you cooperate with ICE. You say that the SB 54 thing, the California 54 thing, that only dictates whether or not you let people behind your gate It doesn't dictate the fact of whether or not you're cooperating with ICE, giving them the exact up to the second release time for them to stand right outside the release gate and put them in handcuffs and walk them out. And you know what you did to respond to our violent protesters?

Your employee assaulted our volunteers the other day, and you did nothing to them. Yes, yes. Please. Okay. And so... Reply as you will. Yeah, no problem.

So I don't have any information that any of our employees are texting ICE agents. If that is occurring, then they also can be prosecuted for violating the law. As far as the ones that are being picked up behind the gate, those are the ones that meet the criteria for SB 54. We handle it like any other transfer from one county to another. Those that are being released out the door, the ICE agents are there waiting for them because they know the release date. If there's information that you have or you have proof that you can show, then Assistant Sheriff Shane Matthews, who runs my jail, is right here. I would like you to reach out to him and show him the proof you have so we can get a warrant to search their phones to find out if, in fact, they're texting information to federal agents in violation of the law.

Okay. It's being recorded.

It's being recorded right here. It's being recorded right here. And as far as the assault that occurred, it's being investigated. I don't want to get into a whole lot because it's an active case.

Okay. I'm going to let, yes. But yeah, just a quick question. It's very fast. Hi, my name's Kate.

I agree with that. Thank you.

My name is Kate, and I live in East End, and I have a question about flock.

So China is one of the safest countries in the world in many cities, major cities. This is largely due to aggressive surveillance. And China is an authoritarian government. So I would like to know, what differentiates you using flock technology from an authoritarian surveillance?

The difference is we're not trying to control behavior for anything. We're enforcing the law that was created by legislators and we're using a tool that's been made available for us to use to solve that crime quicker, right? There's no doubt that flock cameras are very valuable in helping identify suspect vehicles. And I was talking to somebody earlier today and she had been the victim of a pretty violent crime when she was younger. and oftentimes people don't know to just look at the license plate but they might see something specific about a car it was a blue truck and maybe there's a sticker that stuck out that they were able to see this technology now allows us to search that where we didn't used to have that ability and so once again it's balancing the privacy rights from the public safety benefit That I have to constantly weigh, and every time there's a breach or something, I have to reevaluate whether or not the privacy rights are being maintained in the manner in which they should, and whether or not the crimes are being enforced, or is the benefit there. And right now I'm still there with the benefit being good to protect our community because the flock cameras that we currently use have made the changes that we've asked them to make. If they can't protect their, if they continue to show that their data can be breached, then rest assured I will cut the contract. We have an obligation to uphold the law of the state of California, which says they don't want the data shared. And I'm going to, I'm going to uphold that.

Okay. Okay. I'm sorry, we're at 7.30 and I promised that we would end. Yeah, thank you. I'm sorry, we're at 7.30.

We're going to... Where's Ryan?

We can get that information for you.

We'll have them put it on the study's website.

not likely but it'll be the board the board the board will put it out okay so so i wanted to thank you it's going to be at four in the afternoon at the government at the board of supervisors we can also um the city can also uh put something out for that um i want to thank everybody i want to thank you for the questions i want to thank you for coming i hope that we are in a better shared space understanding constraints understanding I hope we built some trust. I don't know if we did. I hope we did. At least we have conversations around what this looks like. We have a better understanding. We understand Sheriff Fryhoff's position, although his perspective, his position, which is his right to do and to have that position. He's an elected official. He's elected to have his positions. I want to respect that and I want to thank him for coming here. Likewise, the community has his, you have your positions. We all are afeared. We're afeared of what's happening now. We're afeared of what's gonna happen in November. We're afeared of what's gonna happen in two years. We are a community in fear and we don't know what to do. so we look to you and we have to look to each other and the organizations that stand up for us okay a good one a good one only if it's a good one only if it's a good one

Thank you very much. Yes. I'll say this. One, I want to thank you all for coming. We may not see eye to eye on everything, but I believe the only way we're going to be able to have a better understanding is to talk about it. I'm sorry we're all in this position. I really am. I'm sorry that the federal government is not operating in the manner that we would want them to. So as far as the limits on SB 54, I'm going to continue to comply on it. I cannot see a good reason whatsoever to not hand over a rapist. So I'm going to thank everybody. Thank you all for coming.

I'm going to thank everybody for coming. We understand. Yes, we, thank you. All right, thank you all.

Thank you all for coming.

No, no worries. No, no, no, I would never do that. I would never do that. I looked at the shirt. I apologize. It was my bad.

No, I thought it wasn't my intention to grab the microphone.

No, no, it's okay. It's all good. It's all good.