San Francisco pier killing casts light on Sonoma County policy on immigration holds

The recent fatal shooting of a young San Francisco woman by an undocumented immigrant has raised concerns among Sonoma County residents calling for stricter border enforcement, with some demanding a review of local policies that prohibit cooperation with federal immigration agents.

Immigration advocates, however, call the shooting an aberration and say the alleged killer does not reflect the overwhelming majority of immigrants, whether they are here legally or not.

Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who reportedly was deported five times and had served many years in federal prison for felony illegal re-entry, is accused of killing 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle on San Francisco’s Pier 14 with a stolen gun.

The July 1 shooting, which is causing an uproar across the country, has cast a spotlight on policies that seek to limit local cooperation with immigration agents such as San Francisco’s 1989 Sanctuary Ordinance and the state’s 2013 Trust Act. It is also renewing discussion over a Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office policy to decline federal requests for an immigration hold in the local jail unless the requests are supported by probable cause, such as an arrest warrant.

Critics say policies such as these are to blame for Steinle’s death.

Edelweiss Geary, chairwoman of the Sonoma County Republican Party, said all laws should be enforced locally, including federal immigration laws.

“The laws are not being followed, or they don’t appear to be,” Geary said.

Though Sonoma County has not declared itself a sanctuary county, she said its refusal to enforce immigration laws makes it one by default.

“If you don’t enforce the immigration laws, which are laws, haven’t we made this a sanctuary city?” she said.

But Jesus Guzman, an organizer with the Graton Day Labor Center who has been active in the local immigrant community, said Steinle’s death is leading to a blanket condemnation of all undocumented immigrants.

“All Mexican immigrants are being lumped into the same boat. It’s absolutely ludicrous,” he said.

Guzman said that deportation of all undocumented immigrants, as some are calling for, is not a solution. He pointed out that Lopez-Sanchez previously had been deported five times.

“Deportation as a remedy to prevent something like this is not really the best tool,” he said. “Can there be other measures, such as investing more in mental health or job creation?”

But to those calling for stricter border enforcement, such measures would reward lawbreakers in the same way that the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office’s policy benefits undocumented immigrants who end up in jail.

That policy, which was enacted in the spring of 2014, was a response to court decisions that found local law enforcement officers potentially could expose themselves to civil rights lawsuits for honoring immigration detainers issued by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, without a showing of probable cause.

“Our legal counsel has always said we can’t volunteer to do that unless ICE meets that threshold of probable cause or a warrant,” said Randall Walker, assistant sheriff for the detention division of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office.

Warrant needed under policy

Under the Sheriff’s Office policy, undocumented immigrants who are convicted of a crime in Sonoma County and complete the legal process are released, unless ICE provides an arrest warrant, Walker said. However, jail staff can notify ICE when a specific “individual” is about to be released, he said.

In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, ICE’s parent agency, is currently working with local law enforcement officials throughout the country to develop new policies and procedures around the release of undocumented immigrants in jail.

ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice said one such initiative, the Priority Enforcement Program, supports community policing and focuses on “dangerous criminals before they are released into the community.”

Kice said ICE is now issuing detainers and is requesting notification of pending releases for those who meet priority enforcement criteria - criminals and people who threaten public safety.

“ICE is committed to working with its law enforcement partners in Northern California and nationwide to achieve that mission,” Kice said.

SF, Sonoma County differ

Richard Coshnear, an immigration attorney and advocate, said Sonoma County’s local policy of limiting cooperation with federal ICE officials should not be mistaken for a “sanctuary” policy. He said that San Francisco’s policy was implemented in the spirit of protecting undocumented immigrants whose offense was simply being in the country without proper authorization.

“Theirs was motivated by a spirit of protecting families and the immigrant community, whereas Sheriff Freitas was motivated by a defensive position,” he said, adding that Freitas knew honoring ICE holds without probable cause would put the county at risk of 4th Amendment legal challenges.

“The 4th Amendment created this warrant requirement that some neutral person review the evidence before someone gets arrested or their house gets searched,” Coshnear said.

Supporters of stricter policies on immigration say the San Francisco shooting underscores the need to crack down on illegal immigration. Geary said it points to the immediate need to “secure the borders.”

Karen Mason, a longtime resident of Sonoma, agrees.

“Everybody wants better border security,” she said, adding that “the time is ripe” for tougher measures to be taken at the border.

She said Congress should not wait for “comprehensive immigration reform” before dramatically increasing border enforcement.

You can reach Staff Writer Martin Espinoza at 521-5213 or martin.espinoza@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @renofish.