County Board Debates Legality of Sheriff’s ICE Agreement

By ERIC SANTOMAURO-STENZEL
COOPERSTOWN

Members of the Otsego County Board of Representatives Public Safety and Legal Affairs Committee debated and discussed the legality of the Sheriff’s Office’s recent agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on March 12. County officials did not make any final decisions but committed to further discussion, particularly regarding the county’s contracting policy.

Representatives of the Otsego County Attorney’s Office said they had sought guidance from the New York State Attorney General’s office, but it was not offered. The AG office told AllOtsego it was not aware of such conversations.

The 287(g) agreement allows the Sheriff’s Office to execute immigration warrants on individuals in its jail at the conclusion of criminal custody, including by transporting them to ICE custody.

Representative Leslie Berliant (D-Cherry Valley, Middlefield, Roseboom) made the case that the agreement, signed by Sheriff Richard Devlin, counted as a contract under county policies, and therefore required involvement from the county attorney and county board which Devlin did not seek.

Devlin has previously asserted that he, as the independently-elected sheriff, maintains exclusive authority to sign the agreement.

“Any contract policy that we may have, the sheriff does not have to follow because he is constitutionally elected and can do that—unless he’s spending money, OK?” said County Board Chair Edwin Frazier Jr. (R-Unadilla).

“And that’s my point,” Berliant said.

“This is spending money,” said Representative Jill Basile (D-Oneonta City Wards 7 & 8).

The agreement says the Sheriff’s Office is responsible for “salaries and benefits, local transportation, and official issue material” and that ICE “may issue travel orders to selected personnel and reimburse travel, housing, and per diem expenses only.” The agreement also says the county would be responsible for its employees’ “personal expenses incurred by reason of death, injury, or incidents giving rise to liability.”

Sheriff Devlin has claimed that the agreement’s cost has been and will be “$0.”

The county contracting policy, which was last updated in 2006, was obtained by AllOtsego. The policy requires county department contract drafts to be sent to the county attorney for review and approval. After being signed by the contractor, the chair of the Board of Representatives must sign it.

Frazier responded to Berliant and Basile by reading a message from Madison County’s chair of the Board of Supervisors, James Cunningham. Madison County Sheriff Todd Hood signed a 287(g) agreement last summer and faced similar questions.

According to a review by their county attorney, Cunningham said in the July 2025 statement, “the Sheriff’s duties as conservator of the peace are both statutory and based on common law” and has a “great amount of discretion” in law enforcement methods. “Therefore, as an elected official he has the power and ability to enter into agreements with other law enforcement agencies without the approval of the Board of Supervisors,” Cunningham wrote.

Frazier also said he had directed County Attorney Denise Hollis to contact the New York State Attorney General’s Office for guidance, which they attempted several times. According to Deputy County Attorney Monica Carrascoso, also present at the meeting, they received no guidance despite eventually making contact.

Citing Attorney General Letitia James’ views critical of ICE, “I’m quite confident,” Committee Chair Daniel Wilber (R-Burlington, Edmeston, Exeter, Plainfield) said, “if there was an opportunity for her to say ‘you shouldn’t be doing this,’ we would’ve gotten that answer.”

Contacted by AllOtsego on March 17, the Office of the Attorney General said it was not aware of any conversations with Otsego County on 287(g) agreements and referred to the office’s online guidance on the matter. That guidance advises against signing 287(g) agreements but does not offer answers on the signature authority questions posed in Otsego County.

The AG’s office did not answer AllOtsego’s questions to that effect.
Hollis did not respond to AllOtsego’s requests for comment.

At the meeting, Berliant asked Hollis if it was her understanding an agreement such as the 287(g) would have required county attorney review prior to signature under the current contracting policy. Hollis replied that in recent years the county has “tightened up” on contracting.

“We are in the process of making that even tighter. There are contracts, there are municipal agreements that I don’t see. Absolutely, that happens. So, we’re trying to limit that, but sometimes it occurs,” Hollis said.

Responding to another question, Hollis said that “the crux of it, a contract, yes, goes before the board. Your committee and the county, two different things. This is a unique situation because it’s the sheriff and this is a law enforcement contract.”

Hollis and other officials said they were working on a new contracting policy to clarify these kinds of questions. She said that policy would be presented to the board’s Administration Committee in the coming months.
“I’d rather see you safe than a liability that might cost a few dollars,” Wilber said toward the end of the meeting, voicing support for the agreement. “And I’ll stand on that hill ‘til I die.”