Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2025 0917 CC REG ITEM 09BCITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of September 17, 2025 ACTION RECEIVED AND FILED. BY A. Hurtado. B. Receive Update on Federal Immigration Enforcement Activities. Staff Recommendation: Receive and file report. (Staff: Kevin G. Ennis, City Attorney) Item: 9.B. 12853-0001\3155709v7.doc MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Kevin G. Ennis, City Attorney DATE: 09/17/2025 Regular Meeting SUBJECT: Receive Update on Federal Immigration Enforcement Activities SUMMARY On July 9, 2025, Kelley Smith sent an email to the City asserting that the City had a legal duty to stop armed, private immigration contractors operating within Moorpark city limits because those contractors are carrying weapons and not wearing appropriate identification in violation of certain state gun laws and laws prohibiting the impersonation of peace officers. Ms. Smith’s assertions were mentioned during the City Council meeting on July 16, 2025. Staff was asked to evaluate her assertions and provide a public agenda report responding to them at a future date. For the reasons noted in this report, the City is immune from liability if the City does not intervene in the operations of federal immigration contractors, and would likely be legally enjoined from the type of intervention Ms. Smith recommends even if federal immigration contractors are not abiding by state gun or peace officer identification laws. Rather than have the City take the actions Ms. Smith advocates, state and federal legislation has been introduced to address some of these issues. In addition, there is a federal court case being litigated by other parties that are intended to address some of the issues and concerns raised by Ms. Smith’s emailed comments. BACKGROUND Ms. Smith’s email asserts that individuals employed by G4S, a private company and subsidiary of Allied Universal, are not sworn United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents or federal law enforcement, and that these individuals are patrolling public spaces in tactical gear and carrying weapons without any visible credentials. The email further asserts that these contractors are operating in Moorpark hotel parking lots, commercial centers and in other neighborhoods across Ventura County and that these individuals are not trained, deputized, or authorized to carry firearms pursuant to the requirements of California state law. The email goes on to assert that “If Item: 9.B. 2 Honorable City Council 09/17/2025 Regular Meeting Page 2 12853-0001\3155709v7.doc one of these private contractors … harms, detains, or shoots someone and this city fails to act after constructive notice, the result is: -Foreseeable harm -Negligence in duty of care -Direct liability for the city and potentially for you as elected officials.” Based on these assertions and arguments, Ms. Smith has asked the City Council to take a series of actions to instruct the City’s police officers (Ventura County Sheriff’s Office) as follows: Direct Law Enforcement to Identify and Document These Contractors •Request Proof of [Bureau of Security and Investigative Services] guard cards and California firearm permits •Confirm whether any sworn federal agent is present •Determine legal basis for public weapon carry in your city Instruct Officers to Treat Uncredentialed Armed Individuals as Armed Civilians •Investigate under Penal Code 538d and local weapons laws Establish a Public Reporting Protocol •Armed individuals without ID •Unmarked or mismatched license plates •Reports of intimidation or false detentions Ms. Smith further asks the City Council to: Direct the City Attorney to Issue a Hotel Liability Advisory •Require verification of armed guests’ lawful status DISCUSSION A.Potential for City Liability. Ms. Smith’s email makes several assertions about potential liability for the City and elected officials individually. The basic premise of Ms. Smith’s assertions is that by allowing federal government contractors to allegedly violate state laws regarding the carrying of weapons and the impersonation of peace officers, the City and individual councilmembers are allowing crimes to occur in the City and because she has now put the City on notice of these alleged crimes, the City is civilly liable for the injuries incurred by residents on account of the activities of these contractors if the City does not take action to stop the alleged violations of state law. Even if these immigration enforcement contractors are violating state law, an assumption we have neither validated nor invalidated, the City of Moorpark and Moorpark 3 Honorable City Council 09/17/2025 Regular Meeting Page 3 12853-0001\3155709v7.doc Councilmembers are not civilly liable for the actions of these federal contractors. This is because state law provides broad and general statutory immunity from the failure to stop crime occurring within the City. The California Government Claims Act makes public agencies immune from liability for failing to enact or enforce a law, failing to provide police protection service, or failing to make an arrest (See Government Code Sections 818.2, 845, 846.). Together, these statutes mean that cities cannot be held civilly liable if a crime is committed in the City and the City failed to have police officers dispatched to prevent that crime. Further, with respect to claims that councilmembers are individually liable, Government Code Section 820.9 provides that councilmembers and mayors are not vicariously liable for injuries caused by the act or omission of the public entity, and Government Code Section 821 provides that public officers are not liable for an injury caused by their adoption of or failure to adopt an enactment or by their failure to enforce an enactment. Furthermore, as explained more fully later in this report, when such contractors are performing the federal government’s detention operations, they are immune from state, and, by extension, municipal control. Accordingly, the City cannot be liable for failing to take what would qualify as an unconstitutional action. B.City’s Legal Ability to Intervene in Federal Immigration Enforcement Activities. Moving past the threat of City liability for failure to intervene in federal immigration enforcement activities, there is a substantial question as to whether the City even has the legal ability to undertake the actions requested by Ms. Smith. This is because the City and state, are largely precluded from restricting federal government activities, including activity of federal contractors. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated A.B. 32 (2019), which prohibited ICE’s contractors from running detention facilities. The court declared: “Whether analyzed under intergovernmental immunity or preemption, California cannot exert this level of control over the federal government’s detention operations” [Geo Group, Inc. v. Newsom, 50 F.4th 745, 751 (2022)]. The reporting actions that Ms. Smith requests the City to undertake could subject the City and its employees to federal enforcement actions against the City and the employees involved. Recently, the Santa Ana City Council considered a policy to provide public notice of ICE operations. In response, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a June 6, 2025, letter warning that impeding ICE’s work will result in criminal prosecutions for interfering in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The direction that Ms. Smith wants the City Council to provide to the Sheriff’s Office is also inconsistent with the “Agreement for County to Perform Certain Services and Functions for the City of Moorpark” entered into on June 6, 1984, between the City and County of Ventura. In that Agreement, it is clear that the direction, supervision, standards of performance of Sheriff’s personnel and all other matters incidental for the delivery of 4 Honorable City Council 09/17/2025 Regular Meeting Page 4 12853-0001\3155709v7.doc general law enforcement services to the City are determined by the Sheriff, who retains exclusive authority over the activities of personnel working in the City. If the City Council were to direct the Sheriff to implement Ms. Smith’s requests, the City would likely be overstepping its role and authority in its contractual arrangement with the Sheriff. This is not to say that there are not legitimate questions as to a clash of state versus federal laws, and more particularly, issues of U.S. Constitutional compliance raised by the manner in which these immigration enforcement contractors are conducting their activities. As more fully explained below, these clashes are being addressed in the courts, in Sacramento and in Congress. As it relates to the issues addressed, Chief Odenath has stated that the Moorpark Police Department responds, and will continue to respond, to calls for service related to individuals who may be impersonating a law enforcement officer or reports of a possible kidnapping. The Moorpark Police Department encourages anyone who believes they are witnessing one of these crimes, or any crime, to call 911 immediately. C.Request for Liability Advisory to Hotels. The email also asserts that hotels “are exposed under the Innkeeper’s Act” by allowing these contractors to be guests in their hotels and suggests that the Council direct the City Attorney to issue a hotel liability advisory. First, the City Attorney is retained by the City, and does not provide legal opinions about potential liability to third parties, such as hotels. Thus, it would not be appropriate for the City Attorney to provide legal advice to hotels in how they should comply with state laws. The State Attorney General’s Office would be the more appropriate entity to do so, if at all. Second, even if the City Attorney were to provide such a hotel liability advisory opinion, the contention that this situation creates liability exposure for hotels under the Civil Code Section 1859 et seq. may not be correct. In key part, Civil Code Section 1859 et seq. addresses an innkeeper’s liability for losses to a guest’s personal property such clothes, suitcases and jewelry if and when such property is lost or stolen while the person is a guest of the hotel. That law does not address an innkeeper’s duty to preclude certain persons from occupying a guest room or verifying the guests identify for purposes of excluding those guests. D.Proposed Legislation and Pending Litigation Relating to Recent Immigration Enforcement Activities. We understand that Ms. Smith and others have concerns with respect to federal agents conducting enforcement activities without identification and potentially in violation of state and federal laws and Constitutional requirements. As a result, there is proposed federal and state legislation pertaining to immigration enforcement activities, including: 5 Honorable City Council 09/17/2025 Regular Meeting Page 5 12853-0001\3155709v7.doc •S 2212 (Padilla)/HR 4667 (Gonzalez). This bill would amend Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to mandate that all immigration enforcement officers display visible identification during public-facing enforcement actions. •HR 4004 (Velazquez). This bill would require that immigration enforcement agents not wear facial coverings during enforcement operations and display name/affiliation on a visible garment. It would further provide exemptions when responding to imminent threats and/or for safety/medical reasons. •SB 627 (Weiner). This bill would make it a misdemeanor for any law enforcement officer to wear masks or personal disguises that obscure their identity while interacting with the public. It would further provide exemptions for medical masks, protective gear for hazardous situations and SWAT/undercover operations. It would also require that agencies planning operations likely to involve masked personnel to notify local law enforcement at least 12 hours in advance of the location, time and length of the operation. •SB 805 (Perez). This bill would require law enforcement officers operating in California to visibly display identification when performing enforcement duties. It would further provide exemptions for undercover activities. Additionally, a case was filed in Federal District Court (Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem) that relates to the use of “suspicionless” immigration enforcement activities and stops. On July 11, 2025, the Federal District Court for the Central District of California, which covers portions of southern and central California including Ventura County, issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) which, in part, prohibited immigration agents from stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion and from relying on four factors – alone or in combination – including apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or English with an accent; presence in a particular location like a bus stop, car wash, or agricultural site; or the work the person does. On August 1, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the federal government’s request for a stay. On August 7, 2025, the Department of Justice filed a motion to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of the District Court’s TRO. On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the federal government’s application for a stay pending the appeal in the Ninth Circuit of the District Court’s injunction. This means that that the federal government is not bound by the TRO while the Ninth Circuit considers the appeal of the TRO. The case remains active. In summary, the City does not have a legal duty to intervene in federal immigration enforcement activities, will not be civilly liable if it fails to intervene, could expose itself to federal law enforcement actions if it does intervene, and would be contradicting its contractual agreement with the Sheriff’s Office if it does intervene in the manner requested by the public comment. The court case of Vasquez-Perdomo v. Noem is a venue in which many of the underlying concerns about federal immigration enforcement actions are being addressed with respect to compliance with state, federal and Constitutional law. In addition, state and federal legislation is also pending to also 6 Honorable City Council 09/17/2025 Regular Meeting Page 6 12853-0001\3155709v7.doc address some of the other issues raised by the comments regarding masks and identification. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it does not constitute a project, as defined by Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, no environmental review is required. FISCAL IMPACT None. COUNCIL GOAL COMPLIANCE This action does not support a current strategic directive. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and file report. Attachment: July 9, 2025, Public Comment from Kelley Smith 7 8 2 Not DHS Not police Not peace officers under California law They are CONTRACTORS from G4S (a subsidiary of Allied Universal). ICE contracts with these two private companies for transportation and detention contracts. They do not contract for enforcement authority (nor can they). This is not speculation. Their contract is on the GSA website. You can also google: ICE and HSI contracts with either firm. We have photos, license plates and firsthand reports on these contractors operating vehicles without license plates, switching license plates, different plates on the front vs the back. We have documented video and photographic evidence of contractors from these 2 private companies (G4S & Allied Security) committing assaults, posing as law enforcement and carrying out other crimes. These men are operating, unchecked, in Moorpark hotel parking lots, commercial centers and in other neighborhoods across Ventura and LA counties. Why This Matters Under California Law These contractors from G4S and Allied Security are not trained under California POST. They are not deputized and cannot be deputized under SB 54 and California Attorney General guidelines. They do not qualify as peace officers under Penal Code 830. To legally carry firearms in public in California, a person must: Hold a valid BSIS guard card Possess a CA firearm permit Be actively working for a licensed entity with legal public carry authority Be under the direct supervision of a sworn federal agent, physically present on scene These men (in our area) are operating alone. No visible FEDERAL agents. No supervision. That makes them armed civilians under California law and subject to state prosecution. And this means this city and our sheriff’s dept are not “impeding a federal investigation or action” if they intervene or cite these contractors for breaking the law. Because that’s not who this is. These are not federal employees in the eyes of the law (and their own contract). They are private individuals working for a private company. Think Blackwater. Iraq. Early 2000s. Remember how that turned out? 9 3 After the 2007 Nisour Square massacre, four Blackwater contractors were prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) and convicted of manslaughter and weapons charges — even though they were working under a U.S. State Department contract. The law was clear then and still stands now: being a federally funded contractor does not give you immunity. The same applies here. If private immigration contractors are illegally armed, impersonating agents, or violating civil rights, then they, and the companies deploying them, can be held criminally and civilly liable under California and federal law. Just like Blackwater. They Cannot Be Deputized in California Well what if ICE or HSI just deputized them? Deputization has to happen by a local entity. There is no lawful path for the LA, Ventura County Sheriff or any local department to deputize these individuals because of existing laws already on the books preventing this. Under Gov. Code 7284.6(a)(1) (California Values Act, SB 54), CA law enforcement is: Prohibited from using city resources to assist in civil immigration enforcement Prohibited from entering into 287(g) or similar agreements Required to treat private immigration contractors as civilians — not law enforcement Even if DHS wanted to ask our sheriff’s department to deputize them, California law preempts it. This was upheld in United States v. California (921 F.3d 865), confirming California’s right to restrict local cooperation. The Only Exception (Which Is Not Happening) If a sworn ICE or HSI agent is physically present, with these private contractors and directing the action, then contractors may legally support an operation. But: There is no visible federal supervision here in the Conejo valley operations There are no badges, IDs, or marked vehicles These men are acting on their own Without a sworn FEDERAL agent on-site, they are impersonating law enforcement and carrying weapons illegally. Under California law, that triggers: Penal Code 538d – Impersonating a peace officer Penal Code 207 – Kidnapping Penal Code 25400 – Carrying a concealed firearm without a permit Penal Code 25850 – Carrying a loaded firearm in public 10 4 Legal Exposure to the City If one of these private contractors from G4S or Allied Security, harms, detains, or shoots someone and this city fails to act after constructive notice, the result is: Foreseeable harm Negligence in duty of care Direct liability for the city and potentially for you as elected officials Additionally: Hotels housing these men may also be liable under the California Innkeeper’s Act (Civil Code 1859–1865) for failing to verify authority or protect other guests and employees from armed individuals. What’s happening in Moorpark directly impacts the economic health of the region: Families are canceling hotel stays Visitors are avoiding retail zones Fear is reducing foot traffic Local businesses are seeing economic impact without understanding the cause This will show up in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and sales tax data, but by then, the damage will be done. And if businesses or their customers are harmed either physically, mentally or economically and it can be shown the city or business community had constructive notice and failed to act, there is legal exposure. 5 Actions City Council Can Take Now 1. Direct Law Enforcement to Identify and Document These Contractors o Request proof of BSIS guard cards and California firearm permits o Confirm whether any sworn federal agent is present (they aren’t) o Determine legal basis for public weapon carry in your city 2. Instruct Officers to Treat Uncredentialed Armed Individuals as Armed Civilians o A 911 call for a man with a gun and no badge assaulting someone is not presumed to be ICE; it should be treated as an emergency by this city and the sheriff department it contracts with o Investigate under Penal Code 538d and local weapons laws 3. Direct the City Attorney to Issue a Hotel Liability Advisory o Hotels are exposed under the Innkeeper’s Act o Require verification of armed guests’ lawful status 4. Establish a Public Reporting Protocol o Armed individuals without ID o Unmarked or mismatched license plates o Reports of intimidation or false detentions 5. Agendize This Issue for Your Next Meeting o I formally request you place this item on the public agenda: Investigation of armed immigration contractors operating in Moorpark and legal compliance with state law, municipal code, and liability under the California Innkeeper’s Act. 11 5 This council has the legal authority and responsibility to enforce California law and protect our community from the physical harm AND the economic damages these raids are creating. History shows us that Southern US cities in states like Virginia, Alabama & Arkansas once used every tool available, local laws, bureaucracy and even defiance to resist federal civil rights enforcement. If that kind of resistance worked to uphold INjustice, surely we can flip the script to uphold protection. Our goal should be to make it legally impossible for these private immigration contractors to operate in our cities without consequence. 12 6 13 7 The loophole is federal. But the liability is local. Now that you know, the only legal question is: What will you do about it? I’m available to meet with any of you to review federal contracts, images, reports, and legal codes. Thank you for your time and public service. Kelley Smith 14