'Fear Report': Napa County Grand Jury IDs Fractures In Trust But Praise

NAPA VALLEY, CA — In Napa Valley, community groups work with local law enforcement to counter fear, correct misinformation, and support residents during ICE actions.

Napa law enforcement agencies issued a joint statement reaffirming they do not enforce immigration law, which they say is a federal — not state or local — responsibility.

Instead, agencies say they take the lead from local and California policy designed to strengthen community trust and encourage residents to report emergencies and crimes without fear.

A new Napa County Civil Grand Jury report confirmed that enforcement largely follows California's sanctuary law. However, it also found gaps that still expose deep fractures in trust.

The Grand Jury addressed these concerns in "Fear of ICE in the Valley," concluding local police do not enforce federal immigration law but warning that fear itself has become a destabilizing force.

The report found that city police and the sheriff’s office comply with California’s SB 54 and the TRUTH Act, do not ask about immigration status, and do not share automated license plate reader data with ICE, countering persistent community suspicions.

But jurors also zeroed in on the Napa County jail, administered by the Napa County Department of Corrections instead of the Sheriff’s Department, as in other counties. They reported that the jail follows SB 54 but may notify ICE of release dates for individuals charged with, but not convicted of, certain crimes, potentially affecting their legal rights.

"Compared to other Bay Area counties, Napa responded to a broader category of ICE requests for release of information, but only a few individuals were taken into ICE custody," the jurors reported.

Grand jurors identified a different problem: fear magnified by misinformation. False reports of raids, confusion over warrants, and uncertainty about residents’ rights have chilled reporting of crimes and strained relations between immigrant communities and law enforcement, according to the report.

In one finding, jurors said rumors of raids — even when false — have at times sent workers home from vineyards, discouraged parents from sending children to school, and prompted residents to avoid routine interactions in public spaces. The report argues those reactions can have real public safety consequences when fear suppresses crime reporting or deters victims and witnesses from seeking help.

Grand Jury’s investigation included interviews of local law enforcement officials, employers, members of the local community, and immigration rights advocates.

Jurors also reviewed California and local law enforcement policies and procedures, training records, automatic license plate reader logs, and records of inmates released to ICE.

A climate of anxiety spurred the formation of Napa Valley Together, a coalition created to counter misinformation and calm communities rattled by rumors.

Alongside the broader North Bay Rapid Response Network, organizers then built a rapid-response infrastructure: a 24-hour hotline, trained legal observers dispatched during suspected enforcement activity, legal defense support, family accompaniment, and widespread distribution of “Know Your Rights” red cards.

Advocates told jurors the network functions both as a legal support system and an information filter, helping verify whether suspected enforcement activity is real before panic spreads. That role, the report suggests, has become increasingly important as misinformation travels rapidly through social media and encrypted messaging groups.

Beyond responding to crises, the grand jury said, these networks also influenced prevention efforts. For example, in late 2024, immigrant advocates met with local law enforcement ahead of anticipated policy shifts under a new presidential administration, laying groundwork for coordinated public messaging before tensions escalated.

That collaboration produced an unusual show of unity when the Napa County sheriff, district attorney, corrections director, probation chief, municipal police chiefs, and the chief at Napa Valley College issued a joint statement declaring local agencies do not enforce federal immigration law.

"Our primary goal is safety. A safe community needs effective law enforcement agencies. To be effective, we need trust and cooperation between all residents and the law enforcement sworn to protect them," the agencies reported in the statement.

Law enforcement officers do not question residents about immigration status, do not assist immigration investigations, and do not use local resources for federal enforcement, according to the statement.

The report found those assurances have been reinforced in the field. Officers have appeared at churches and community forums in English and Spanish, using visual materials that show the differences between local police uniforms and vehicles and those used by federal agents. The sheriff’s office and Napa Police have also pushed back against false ICE alarms online, using official channels and trusted community messengers to correct misinformation before rumors spread.

Jurors said those outreach efforts may be as important as formal policy, because legal protections mean little if frightened residents do not trust them. Witnesses told the grand jury that reassurance delivered through churches, Spanish-language media and familiar community groups often carries more weight than official government statements alone.

The grand jury also highlighted a quieter but significant shift inside law enforcement: officers have been trained to distinguish between judicial warrants, which local agencies honor, and ICE administrative warrants, which they do not. Jurors framed that distinction as both a legal safeguard and a signal meant to reassure residents that local policing and federal immigration enforcement are not the same.

Still, jurors said distrust persists, fueled partly by national immigration headlines and partly by the speed of misinformation on Spanish-language social media. The report suggests local agencies could expand Spanish-language radio and broadcast outreach, which witnesses described as highly trusted sources in immigrant communities.

Jurors also raised questions about transparency surrounding release notifications to ICE, suggesting more detailed reporting to the Napa County Board of Supervisors could help the public better understand when those notifications occur and under what legal authority. They portrayed disclosure itself as part of rebuilding trust.

They also considered statutes and case law regarding immigration enforcement in California. "It is important to note that laws and facts regarding immigration enforcement are rapidly changing," they noted, because information provided in the report is current "only as of the date of its publication."

Overall, recommendations include continuing community collaboration, more detailed and more frequent TRUTH Act reporting to the Napa County Board of Supervisors, and examination of ICE release notification procedures.

The report stops short of alleging widespread violations of sanctuary protections. Instead, it presents a more layered warning: even where laws are followed, mistrust and misinformation can still erode public safety unless institutions and communities actively work to contain them.