(Image Credit: IMAGN) Jun 6, 2021; Sonoma, California, USA; Sonoma County Sheriff’s Deputies patrol the grounds during the Toyota-Save Mart 350 at Sonoma Raceway. Mandatory Credit: Stan Szeto-USA TODAY Sports
San Diego, California – The San Diego County Sheriff’s Office has defended its 2023 transfer of a jail inmate without legal immigration status to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, asserting the action was legal under California’s sanctuary law, SB 54.
The defense comes after nearly a year of criticism from immigrant rights advocates, including the ACLU, who flagged the transfer as a potential violation of the California Values Act. The case involves a man with a 2002 assault with a deadly weapon conviction.
Sheriff Kelly Martinez’s office, in an email response to KPBS, cited a section of SB 54 that allows transfers when “the individual has been convicted of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison system.”
“The individual did meet the transfer qualifications under Government Code Section 7282.5 Section 2,” spokesperson Kimberly King wrote.
However, this justification conflicts with another section of SB 54, which Martinez has publicly cited. That section permits transfers only if “the individual has been convicted within the past five years of a misdemeanor … or has been convicted within the last 15 years of a felony for 31 specific criminal offenses.”
The 2002 conviction, being 21 years old, falls outside this 15-year timeframe, prompting advocates’ concerns.
The ACLU, in a statement, acknowledged the cited section could justify the transfer but questioned the delay in its disclosure. “We raised this potential SB 54 violation to the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office during last year’s TRUTH Act Forum and never received a response,” the statement read. “Now that there is public attention on this individual’s case, the Sheriff’s Office is denying state laws were violated. SDSO has failed to explain why they took so long to address this matter.”
The conflicting provisions of SB 54 have created confusion. At a May 2024 public forum, advocates highlighted the 2002 conviction’s age as a potential violation. Martinez, while present, did not address these concerns, instead reiterating her interpretation of SB 54, focusing on the 15-year conviction timeframe.
During the forum, Martinez emphasized public safety and noted that other individuals transferred in 2023 had convictions for serious crimes. The section regarding felonies punishable by imprisonment was not mentioned.
