Frederick County

Who Does Frederick’s Values Act Cover—and Who Keeps the Record?

Bill 26-11 defines law-enforcement officers broadly but ties its restrictions to immigration enforcement. Before the October 20 vote, the Council still needs to clarify who is covered—and what record will exist when an exception is used.

Original FredCo Paper Trail illustration. Three generic officers wait at a County threshold while an employee records the encounter in an open incident log.

Frederick County’s proposed Values Act tells County employees what to do when an officer seeks access, information, or assistance for immigration enforcement. Before the Council votes, it needs to answer two basic questions: Which officers and agencies does the bill cover, and what must happen after an enforcement encounter or emergency entry?

That question surfaced October 6. Councilmember Jerry Donald said the bill concerned federal officers, not Frederick County Sheriff’s deputies. Council Vice President Kavonté Duckett, the sponsor and presiding officer, said that was correct.

Seconds later, Councilmember Steve McKay read the bill’s definition of “law enforcement officer.” It includes federal, state, and local officers authorized to enforce civil or criminal law.

Those statements may be reconcilable because the bill’s restrictions apply only to immigration-enforcement operations. But employees and residents should not have to construct that answer themselves.

Evidence At A Glance

Bill 26-11 defines a “law enforcement officer” as a federal, state, or local officer authorized to enforce civil or criminal law.
Its restrictions apply only to immigration-enforcement operations, not ordinary policing.
Amendment 1 defines an emergency-entry exception but does not require an incident record when an officer invokes it.
The bill still does not clearly resolve its application to the Sheriff’s Office, detention operations, complaints, or public reporting.

What The Bill Says

The Record. Bill 26-11 defines an “immigration enforcement operation” as an action primarily intended to identify, apprehend, detain, remove, or deport someone based on immigration status. It defines a “law enforcement officer” as any federal, state, or local officer authorized to enforce civil or criminal law.

The bill would bar a County employee from voluntarily admitting an officer to a nonpublic County area for an immigration-enforcement operation unless the officer presents a qualifying judicial warrant or states that an emergency requires immediate entry. It would also restrict County assistance with records, information, equipment, or databases without a signed judicial warrant.

In Plain Language. Ordinary work by a Sheriff’s deputy may fall outside the bill. A federal, state, or local officer participating in immigration enforcement may fall within it. The filed text offers no examples showing where that line sits.

Horn’s Take. The Council should identify which County agencies, facilities, and officials are covered, then show employees when a federal, state, or local officer triggers the law.

The October 6 Exchange Did Not Settle The Scope

The Record. Donald said the bill did not concern Frederick County Sheriff’s deputies and instead involved federal officers. Duckett replied, “That is correct and has been stated repeatedly.” McKay then read the broader federal, state, and local definition into the record.

No one reconciled those statements before the Council moved on. McKay said he would support Amendment 1 but opposed the bill.

In Plain Language. A sponsor’s explanation can clarify intent. The enacted text is what employees must apply. If the explanation and the definition point in different directions, the Council should fix the text, the official guidance, or both.

Horn’s Inference. Duckett may have meant that the bill targets federal immigration enforcement rather than ordinary local policing. McKay exposed the missing explanation: what happens when a state or local officer assists with an immigration-enforcement operation?

Amendment 1 Defines The Emergency, Not The Paper Trail

The Record. The Council adopted Amendment 1 by a 7–0 vote on October 6. It defines “exigent circumstances” as a situation requiring immediate action to address a public-safety threat without waiting for a valid judicial warrant. Examples include imminent harm, hot pursuit, and imminent destruction of evidence.

The underlying bill permits entry to a nonpublic County area when an officer states that such an emergency exists. Amendment 1 defines the exception. It does not require an incident report when the exception is used.

The bill’s public timeline is:

September 22: Public hearing.
October 6: Amendment 1 passed 7–0; no final vote on the bill.
October 13: Public hearing.
Tomorrow, October 20 at 5:30 p.m.: Legislative day scheduled.

As of October 19, the official bill index shows no final disposition.

In Plain Language. Employees have a definition of an emergency. They still have no rule saying who records the officer’s claim, what facts must be preserved, or who reviews the decision.

Horn’s Take. An emergency definition is not an accountability system. Without a required record, residents cannot tell whether the exception was rare or routine.

A Recordkeeping Proposal Is Already Before The Council

The Record. During public comment, Frederick County resident Grady O’Rear supported the bill’s purpose but asked the Council to strengthen it. He requested:

County Attorney review before County assistance under the emergency exception.
An incident report within one business day when an immigration-enforcement encounter involves County employees, facilities, information, or property.
A complaint process.
Public reporting at least every six months by the Office of Equity and Inclusion, in consultation with the Immigrant Affairs Commission.
Clear application to the Sheriff’s Office, Adult Detention Center, and other County entities.
Voluntary disclosure of protected immigration information only when legally required.

O’Rear spoke as a resident. The meeting record does not establish that he represented an organization.

In Plain Language. An incident report would preserve what happened. A complaint process would give employees and residents somewhere to raise concerns. Aggregate reporting could reveal patterns without identifying people involved in immigration matters.

Horn’s Take. The one-business-day report is the strongest immediate proposal. The Council can debate who reviews it and what becomes public. Protecting private information does not require keeping no record.

The Strongest Case For The Current Approach

The Record. Bill 26-11 assigns substantial implementation work to the County Executive, including internal guidance, model policies, sample scripts, warrant and detainer guidance, training, and signs marking public and nonpublic areas. It also says employees may not interfere with officers and must follow applicable federal and constitutional law.

Supporters can reasonably argue that scripts, forms, and training belong in executive guidance rather than the County Code. They can also argue that poorly designed reporting could create administrative work or expose sensitive information.

In Plain Language. The law does not need to contain every operating detail. But the Council still decides whether a minimum incident record and public accounting are required at all.

Horn’s Take. Detailed procedures can remain with the Executive. Institutional scope and minimum accountability should not. The Council can require records and aggregate reporting without exposing names or immigration information.

What The Council Should Answer Tomorrow

The Record. Tomorrow’s legislative day is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. The official bill index does not show a final adoption result. The October 6 amended bill remains Draft No. 2, with its enacted and effective fields blank.

The unresolved questions are specific:

Does the definition of “law enforcement officer” apply to federal, state, and local officers participating in immigration enforcement?
Which provisions apply to the Sheriff’s Office, Adult Detention Center, and independently elected officials?
Who documents an emergency claim and the County’s response?
Which office receives and reviews complaints?
Will the County publish aggregate implementation data without exposing personal or immigration information?
When will the Executive’s guidance, training materials, and signage rules be available for public review?

In Plain Language. Residents need to know which employees follow which rules, what happens when an exception is claimed, and what evidence will exist afterward.

Horn’s Take. A Values Act should state who is bound by the County’s values and leave a record showing whether the promise was kept.

Evidence Boundaries

Verified. The filed bill defines “law enforcement officer” to include federal, state, and local officers.
Verified. The access and information restrictions apply to immigration-enforcement operations.
Verified. The October 6 recording contains Donald’s description, Duckett’s response, and McKay’s reading of the definition.
Verified. O’Rear made the accountability requests summarized above during public comment.
Verified. Amendment 1 passed 7–0. It was not a final vote on Bill 26-11.
Unresolved. Application to the Sheriff’s Office, detention operations, independently elected offices, and state or local officers participating in immigration enforcement.
Unresolved. Whether the Council will require incident documentation, a complaint process, or aggregate public reporting.

Source Desk

Corrections: FredCo Paper Trail welcomes corrections supported by source records. Read the corrections policy. Material changes will be dated and described on this article.