| Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
On April 8, Austin Free Press obtained the Travis County Sheriff’s Office’s current ICE policy through a request under the Texas Public Information Act. The policy, last updated in 2017, states that the sheriff’s office will comply with federal immigration detainer requests unless a person provides proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful status. It also affirms that deputies may share information with federal immigration authorities and are not restricted from communicating with ICE.
Travis County officials are weighing how to comply with a new Texas law that requires the sheriff’s office to formally partner with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, years after the county was embroiled in the state’s sanctuary policy debate.
Other law enforcement agencies already have put policies in place, including the Austin Police Department. APD updated its General Orders governing how officers handle administrative warrants in March, following a controversial incident. During a domestic disturbance call in January, APD notified ICE of an individual with an administrative warrant. That led to the deportation of a mother and her 5-year-old daughter.
Immigration enforcement tensions have defined local city and county relations with the GOP-controlled Legislature for years. The new APD policy aims to ease tensions while adhering to state law.
“APD recognizes the sensitivity of this issue, not only within our city but across the nation,” Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis wrote in a memo to the Austin City Council last month. “These policies were updated to provide clarity to our officers, ensure compliance with state law, and maintain officer discretion guided by supervisory oversight and operational consideration.”
Under that policy APD officers are not required to contact federal immigration authorities on administrative warrants and cannot arrest or prolong a detention solely to do so. Instead, officers can notify a supervisor when no other criminal charge applies, triggering a review that weighs such factors as available resources, potential overtime costs, and whether delays could interfere with an investigation.
“Having those guidelines provides transparency, not just for the public, but also for the members of a department,” said former Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo. “When it’s written out in black and white, it makes the officers’ job that much easier, and I think gives them confidence in terms of knowing that they’re doing the right things.”
County sheriff departments have until Dec. 1 to comply with the new state law mandating cooperation with immigration enforcement: Texas Senate Bill 8, which took effect in January. In the meantime, the Sheriff’s department is operating under a 2017 policy.
The new law mandates that sheriffs in counties with more than 100,000 residents pursue formal agreements with ICE through the federal 287(g) program. This converts a once-voluntary partnership into a requirement. Statewide, more than 330 law enforcement agencies already have entered into agreements according to federal data. While neighboring counties and other major counties already have adopted policies, Travis County remains in the evaluation stage.
“We’re considering how each model will impact our community first and foremost,” said Travis County Sheriff’s Office Senior Public Information Officer Kristen Dark in an email. Sheriff Sally Hernandez was unavailable for comment.
The 287(g) program gives agencies three models to choose from, ranging from jail-based coordination to more expansive task-force roles that allow officers to assist in enforcing immigration laws during routine policing.
Policies across the state
In Bexar County, the sheriff’s office determined that the most cost-effective option was the warrant service officer model, assigning one deputy to serve ICE administrative warrants inside the county jail. Sheriff Javier Salazar said in January that the agreement is limited to jail operations and will not affect patrol duties or routine law enforcement in the community.
“I think for most agencies, they want to have minimal involvement in civil immigration enforcement, because they don’t have the resources, they don’t have the bandwidth, and honestly they don’t have the public support,” Acevedo said. “They would rather focus on people committing violent crimes or property crimes.”
Other counties also have taken limited approaches. Williamson County also adopted the warrant service model, while Tarrant County uses the jail enforcement model. Bastrop and Caldwell Counties, by contrast, participate in both the warrant service and task force models. Travis, Harris, Dallas, and Hays counties have not yet adopted the required ICE agreements.
Debate Over Sanctuary Policies
In January of 2017, Sheriff Hernandez introduced a policy in a YouTube video that limited when the county jail would honor federal immigration detainer requests. That sparked political backlash and contributed to the passage of SB 4.
Under the initial policy, Travis County Sheriff’s Office deputies and staff were not required to extend the detention of people booked into the county jail based on detainer requests, unless they had been charged with murder, aggravated sexual assault, or human smuggling.
Gov. Greg Abbott then directed lawmakers to draft a bill to penalize such policies. He also cut $1.5 million in approved Travis County criminal justice grant funds and threatened to remove Hernandez from office.
SB 4 went into effect in September 2017, prohibiting policies that limit cooperation with ICE. “Our policy has been updated to comply with the findings of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,” Hernandez told KUT at that time.
Dark said that revised policy remains in place: “We fully comply with state laws regarding mandatory interaction with ICE, but our peace officers are not licensed as federal agents,” Dark said.
Austin Free Press submitted a request under the Texas Public Information Act for the Travis County Sheriff’s Office’s current ICE policy. After seeking clarification on that request, TCSO has not yet provided any responsive information.
Legal experts have warned that detaining individuals based solely on ICE administrative warrants or detainers — which are not signed by a judge — may violate the Fourth Amendment and expose agencies to civil liability. Similar concerns surfaced in Houston last month after its police increased cooperation with ICE.
“Guidelines are critical to protect officers…from civil litigation if they engage in conduct that is unconstitutional and also protects the officers from a state government that seems to be focused too much on civil immigration enforcement instead of combating violent crime,” Acevedo said.
Program Costs
Beyond legal and community concerns, officials must also weigh the financial cost of participating in the program.
While ICE covers the cost of training, local agencies are still responsible for significant other expenses. “We are also considering how much additional staffing will be required,” Dark said, noting that the consideration includes the cost of equipment like vehicles, uniforms, computers, and radios.
To offset some of those costs, SB 8 created a state-administered grant program to support participating sheriff’s offices. Counties can also receive federal reimbursement through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
As counties across Texas move toward broader participation in the program, it underscores the decision facing Travis County officials as they determine which ICE-cooperation model they will adopt under SB 8.
Dark emphasized that TCSO’s primary law enforcement role will not change: “We are here to serve the local community and enforce the laws of the State of Texas,” she said. “We have already seen panic within our community. It is imperative… that victims and witnesses know they can come to us.”
