An Amador County law enforcement leader has sparked controversy by openly challenging California's sanctuary state legislation that restricts cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
According to Fox News, Sheriff Gary Redman announced he will violate the California Values Act by notifying U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when undocumented individuals in local custody pose serious public safety risks.
Redman serves as the only sheriff in California who has publicly pledged to defy the 2017 law, also known as SB 54. The legislation was enacted during Trump's first term to prevent local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration officials. Redman's jurisdiction lies in a rural county located 135 miles east of San Francisco.
Rural sheriff prioritizes public safety over state mandate
Redman justified his stance by emphasizing his duty to protect Amador County residents. He expressed particular concern about Asian gangs involving undocumented immigrants who have established marijuana growing operations in the area over the past decade.
The sheriff's February announcement came through a Facebook post responding to residents' questions about immigration enforcement during President Trump's second term. While other California sheriffs have indicated they would work around SB 54's restrictions, Redman's declaration stands out for explicitly acknowledging his intent to violate state law.
His position has drawn attention from California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office, which emphasized its commitment to defending immigrant communities and upholding SB 54. The attorney general's office noted that federal courts have validated the law's compatibility with federal statutes.
Political support and controversy surrounding the decision
As sheriff of a county where Republicans comprise 49% of registered voters compared to Democrats' 27%, Redman has found considerable local backing for his position. A petition calling for his removal has gained minimal traction, attracting only 53 signatures since March 1.
Redman, who describes himself as a moderate Republican, shared a statement from California Republican Party Chair Corrin Rankin supporting his stance. Rankin criticized the sanctuary law for hampering law enforcement's ability to address violent crime.
The sheriff revealed that his announcement's timing was influenced by the Trump administration's presence, expressing greater confidence in avoiding federal repercussions under current leadership compared to the previous administration.
Real-world implications of sanctuary policies
Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., highlighted the tragic case of David Mora to illustrate the potential consequences of sanctuary policies. After overstaying his visa, Mora was released from custody despite an ICE detainer request, due to SB 54's restrictions.
Kiley recently introduced federal legislation aimed at enabling local authorities to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of state laws. He characterized California's sanctuary law as legally questionable and connected it to the state's immigration challenges.
Two California cities, Huntington Beach and Oroville, have also declared themselves non-sanctuary cities in defiance of state policy. Redman shared this perspective from Sheriff Vernon H. Warnke regarding the Mora case:
There is no doubt in my mind that if I was able to cooperate with ICE, this tragedy could have been avoided. Under current law, nationwide law enforcement's hands are tied with policies that have a significant impact on our communities and their quality of life.
Moving forward in uncharted territory
Sheriff Gary Redman's defiance of California's sanctuary state law represents a significant challenge to the state's immigration policies. The Amador County sheriff maintains his position despite potential legal consequences, citing his primary responsibility to ensure public safety in his jurisdiction.
The controversy highlights the ongoing tension between state and local authorities regarding immigration enforcement. As Redman continues his stance against SB 54, supported by many local residents and Republican leaders, the situation sets up a potential showdown between local law enforcement priorities and state immigration policies.
