SB 54, sometimes referred to as the “sanctuary state law,” became effective on January 1, 2018.  The key part of this legislation enacted the California Values Act (“CVA”), which is codified at Government Code Section 7284 et seq.  In general, SB 54 is intended to limit the involvement of state and local law enforcement agencies in federal immigration enforcement efforts.  As to the CVA in particular, the Legislature declared the following purposes:  “to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of the people of California, and to direct the state’s limited resources to matters of greatest concern to state and local governments.” ^[1]  

The CVA regulates the activities of state and local law enforcement agencies.  The legislation generally prohibits California law enforcement agencies from doing all of the following: 

• Inquiring into an individual’s immigration status.
• Detaining an individual based on a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) request that the law enforcement agency maintain custody beyond the person’s release eligibility to facilitate transfer to ICE.
• Providing information about an individual’s release date unless the information either is:  (i) publicly available; or (ii) in response to an immigration authority’s notification request and involves an individual who has been convicted of a designated crime^[2]or who is registered on the California Sex and Arson Registry.
• Providing personal information about an individual, such as a home or work address, unless the information is publicly available.
• Making or participating in an arrest based on a civil immigration warrant.
• Participating in certain border patrol activities, including warrantless searches. 
• Performing the functions of an immigration officer.
• Placing peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies.
• Employing peace officers who have been deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies for purposes of immigration enforcement.
• Using immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in custody.
• Transferring an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judge or unless the individual has been convicted of a designated crime.
• Providing office space exclusively dedicated for immigration authorities for use within a city or county law enforcement facility.
• Contracting with the Federal Government to house federal detainees.

There are several exceptions to the CVA’s prohibitions.  The exceptions include authorization for a California law enforcement agency to respond to a request for information about an individual’s criminal history, as accessed through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. They also include authorization for an agency to participate in joint law enforcement task forces with the Federal Government if the following criteria are satisfied: (i) the task force’s primary purpose is not immigration enforcement; (ii) the enforcement or investigative duties are primarily related to a violation that is unrelated to immigration enforcement; and (iii) participation in the task force does not violate a local law or policy.

Brea Police Chief Conklin has determined that SB 54 has not had a significant impact on Police Department operations.  His memo analyzing the legislation is attached.

A. U.S.A. v. State of California
On March 6, 2018, the Federal Government filed a federal court lawsuit against the State of California challenging the validity of SB 54 and certain other legislation.  As to the CVA, this lawsuit contends that the restrictions on state and local cooperation with federal officials are an obstacle to the Federal Government’s enforcement of immigration laws; that they discriminate against federal immigration enforcement; and that they violate a federal immigration statute.
 

B. City of Huntington Beach v. State of California
On April 4, 2018, the City of Huntington Beach filed a state court lawsuit against the State of California challenging the validity of SB 54.  This lawsuit asserts that the CVA is an unconstitutional interference with charter cities’ authority over municipal affairs.  The lawsuit also contends that the legislation unconstitutionally impairs Huntington Beach’s contractual relationship with the Federal Government.
 

C. Los Alamitos Community United v. City of Los Alamitos
On April 16, 2018, the Los Alamitos City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2018-03, which declares that the City of Los Alamitos exempts itself from the CVA.  The next day a community association, a local reverend, and a resident jointly filed a state court lawsuit against the City of Los Alamitos challenging the validity of the ordinance.  The plaintiffs are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.  This lawsuit asserts that the ordinance is preempted by state law.  The lawsuit also contends that a local official cannot, without a court having determined that a statute is unconstitutional, deliberately refuse to enforce the statute because he or she believes that the statute is unconstitutional^[3]
 

A. Receive and File Report 
Given the many issues surrounding SB 54, and given the many lawsuits involving the legislation, it may be prudent for the City of Brea to take no position and for the City Council to receive and file this report until the courts resolve the validity of the law.

B. Adopt Minute Order Expressing Position

Adoption of a minute order expressing opposition to or support for SB 54 would allow the City Council to memorialize its position this evening. This minute order  may include the Council directing a letter of support to the Federal Government and the State of California encouraging cooperation among all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. 

C. Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution Expressing Position
Directing staff to prepare a resolution expressing opposition to or support for SB 54 would allow the City Council to memorialize its position in a way that is more formal than a minute order.  Such a resolution would be placed on a future agenda for consideration by the City Council.

D. File an Amicus Brief
Filing an amicus brief would allow the City Council to express opposition to or support for SB 54 in a way that would be considered by a court.  An amicus brief, informally known as a “friend of the court” brief, is a way of presenting legal arguments to a court without being an active participant in litigation.  Numerous states, counties, cities, and interest groups have already filed amicus briefs in the federal court litigation.  The federal court will soon issue rulings on a preliminary injunction motion filed by the Federal Government and on a dismissal motion filed by the State of California.  Regardless of the decisions on those motions, an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is likely and such an appeal would present another amicus brief opportunity.  Both of the state court cases are in the early stage and there will be an amicus brief opportunity in each. 
 

E. Intervene in a Lawsuit
Intervening in a lawsuit would allow the City Council to express opposition to or support for SB 54 in a way that would make the City of Brea an active participant in the litigation.

[1] Govt. C. § 7284.2(f). 
[2] The list of designated crimes includes:  assault; battery; burglary; driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; child abuse; elder abuse; felony drug possession or trafficking; gang-related offenses; rape; and unlawful possession or use of a weapon. 
[3] The lawsuit invokes the California Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Lockyer v. City & County of San Francisco, 33 Cal.4th 1055 (2004).  In that decision, the Court declared:  “[T]here are thousands of elected and appointed public officials in California’s 58 counties charged with the ministerial duty of enforcing thousands of state statutes.  If each official were empowered to decide whether or not to carry out each ministerial act based upon the official’s own personal judgment of the constitutionality of an underlying statute, the enforcement of statutes would become haphazard, leading to confusion and chaos and thwarting the uniform statewide treatment that state statutes generally are intended to provide.”  [Id. at 1108 (citation omitted).]