Village will not pursue local ICE law; police say they will cooperate with federal agencies

MILLERTON — After a packed public meeting brought immigration enforcement to the forefront of village politics on Tuesday, July 29, trustees signaled they will not pursue a proposed local law aimed at limiting police cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Local police, for their part, said they would fully cooperate with federal agencies — including ICE — tempering hopes for the kind of change some residents had called for.

The push began this spring when six Millerton residents and 11 supporters sent a letter to village officials urging the board to “affirm its commitment to justice, constitutional rights and community trust.”

At a May 21 meeting, the request was added to the board agenda. Supporters urged trustees to draft a law that would safeguard due process and prevent local police from assisting ICE without a judicial warrant. No action was taken then, but public interest surged ahead of the July 29 follow-up meeting, which drew nearly triple the crowd and required a move to the NorthEast-Millerton Library Annex.

Though the meeting was intended to assess the feasibility of a village-specific law — the village spans just over half a square mile — discussion often touched on broader national issues and personal stories. Of the 55 attendees, 30 addressed the board during the 77-minute session, with Mayor Jenn Najdek working to maintain order during what was, at times, an emotionally charged exchange.

Speakers represented a range of perspectives, from civil liberties advocates urging protective measures to residents concerned about impeding law enforcement. Among those who spoke was Bill Kish, a North East resident and Planning Board member who helped reintroduce the proposal.

He described the goal as a “call to adopt a local law limiting the police department’s involvement with ICE,” clarifying that the request was not to obstruct federal authorities. Rather, the hope was to create legislation that would prohibit local police from collecting immigration status information or supporting ICE in detaining individuals without the presence of a judicial warrant.

Such measures, he said, would uphold constitutional protections, enhance public safety, and build community trust. He pointed to a model law published by the New York State Attorney General’s Office that outlines similar measures — offering it as a ready-made framework to eliminate legal or logistical hurdles.

Millerton Police Chief Joseph Olenik was not present at the July meeting but had played a central role in the earlier discussion in May. In a conversation with The Millerton News late Monday evening, Olenik offered clarity on several points.

Regarding the first request from residents, Olenik confirmed that the Millerton Police Department does not, under any circumstance, collect immigration status information. He elaborated that during traffic violations or arrests, officers do collect names, addresses and dates of birth — but not immigration status.

When asked directly if he or his officers would request to see a judicial warrant before aiding in an arrest spearheaded by ICE, he responded unequivocally.

“No, I would not ask for a judicial warrant,” said Chief Olenik. He went on to say, “It’s their arrest, so to speak, and we would only be there as a supporting and assisting agency. We’re not there to second-guess their policies and procedures.”

He added that federal law supersedes state and local law, and “if ICE calls us for assistance and we are on duty — we are mandated to go.”

Though his comments echoed those from the May meeting, they marked a more definitive stance. However, they did not address the legal precedent for local governments that opt out of voluntary cooperation with ICE under sanctuary or non-cooperation policies.

Constitutional concerns raised

Bryan MacCormack, co-founder of the Columbia County Sanctuary Movement, attended as both a supporter and subject-matter expert. Resident Brooke Lehman, co-founder of The Watershed Center in Millerton, ceded her speaking time so MacCormack could provide an educational perspective.

With years of experience helping municipalities implement sanctuary policies, MacCormack said policies like the one proposed have been shown to increase community safety. While he acknowledged the limits of local jurisdiction, he emphasized the village’s responsibility to uphold the U.S. Constitution — particularly the Fourth Amendment. He described warrantless searches and detentions by ICE as constitutional violations and cited them as justification for local protections.

MacCormack also highlighted his work training municipalities and businesses to develop policies that protect rights during interactions with federal agencies. This work resulted in clear policies, resolutions and executive orders within the Hudson Police Department and Columbia County Sheriff’s Department.

Some attendees expressed that even if trustees or police are unwilling to pass a law, adopting internal policies that reflect the spirit of the proposal would still be meaningful. Others expressed relief that village trustees chose not to move forward.

Next steps unclear

Although the meeting featured extensive public input — and legal counsel was present — no formal proposal was presented or made available for public review. In the end, trustees chose not to move forward with legislation.

While some trustees pointed to a “recently updated” police policy as reason to forgo a law, it’s unclear whether that policy addresses the concerns raised. A document posted on the village website appears to date back to 2021, stemming from Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order No. 203. That document does not explicitly mention immigration enforcement, ICE or warrant procedures.

Multiple requests to village officials for clarification went unanswered throughout the week. However, Chief Olenik said Monday night that the department’s policies are “currently being updated” in preparation for accreditation through the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services — and were not readily available to the public. Asked if those updates would include language related to immigration, he said “no.”