Oregon’s sanctuary state law initially was in defense of citizen’s rights when in 1977 four Polk County officers launched an interrogation on Mr. Delmiro Trevino while dining at a restaurant in Independence. Only after Trevino was identified as a long-time resident of Independence was he left alone by the police.

The program of these four was discovered that Polk County had a de facto policy to drive around Latino neighborhoods and round up people they thought were undocumented immigrants. The sheriff’s office, at the behest of Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) would detain people of color, until INS could pick them up for deportation.

Trevino brought a lawsuit that was dismissed based on the parties stipulating that the policy of INS did not have authority to authorize local law enforcement agencies to make arrests of individuals on the sole charge of illegal entry or violation of immigration status without the presence of INS officers. It took until 1987 for the legislature to agree and passed HB 2314, which prohibited racial profiling by law enforcement to detain or detect or apprehend persons without cause, and later added prohibition of using resources on persons whose only violation was being in the country without documentation. That law cracked the door to be amended into a sanctuary state law.

The 2025 legislative session took up another expansion and attempted to pass SB 820 and SB 821 to give sanctuary to sex offenders, which died in committee.

Unanimously passed was SB 277, which expands sanctuary laws on the backend and brings back deported criminals under warrant. This will counter extradition of criminals and use Oregon taxes to bring back criminals for trial. If not convicted, there is no provision for them to be returned to ICE for deportation. If convicted, Oregon pays for their incarceration, and when they are free, there is no provision to turn them over to ICE for deportation. That is what Marion County is facing now.

Marion County has initiated a federal lawsuit asking for clarification whether they should follow state or federal law when it comes to immigration enforcement. The case revolves around release of parole records for four individuals to be paroled (convicted with rape, kidnapping) whom they believe to be undocumented immigrants. Federal authorities have set a deadline of August 18 for the county to submit these records, which include details about the individuals involved. This legal action follows subpoenas issued by ICE to the county on August 1, which sought records pertaining to four individuals convicted of serious offenses, including multiple counts of rape, sexual abuse, and kidnapping/robbery. Court documents also mention a fifth subpoena directed at an individual whose identity has not been established.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The subpoenas ICE sent to Marion County requested information including each person’s address, phone number, birth records, driver’s license number, employer’s address while on parole and information about bail.

In a statement, Danielle Bethell, chair of the Marion County Board of Commissioners, said the county reached out to both federal and state officials to get clarity, but the legal path still remains uncertain. “Marion County is prepared to either provide or withhold the requested records based on what the Court determines the law requires. Obviously, we want to keep dangerous people out of our community and off of our streets. We also want to make sure the state won’t come after our community and sue us if we provide the requested records to the federal administration.”


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-08-20 21:07:42

Last Update: 2025-08-20 23:15:17