AURORA | City lawmakers delayed making a decision Monday night whether to approve a proposed agreement governing how local police respond to emergencies at the city’s federal immigration detention facility.
The delay came after discussion highlighting deep divisions over public safety, immigration enforcement and community trust of police.
The proposed memorandum of understanding, or MOU, between the Aurora Police Department and the privately operated ICE detention center, run by Florida-based GEO Group, would clarify when and how officers respond to incidents ranging from detainee escapes to sexual assault allegations at the facility.
The GEO ICE facility has been the center of controversy and allegations of mistreatment of prisoners for years. Scrutiny by members of Congress and local activists has accelerated since the re-election of President Donald Trump and his mass-deportation policies.
The Aurora City Council voted 10-1 to postpone the measure for at least two weeks, citing the need for more public input and possible policy changes.
Councilmember Stephanie Hancock was the lone vote against postponing the measure.
The updated agreement stems from a 2025 incident in which two detainees escaped the Aurora ICE Processing Center during a power outage, sparking a public dispute between federal officials and local police.
At the time, officials with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement blamed Aurora police for failing to respond quickly to the escape of two detainees. Aurora police leaders pushed back, saying they were not notified until hours after the escape and therefore the report did not meet the criteria for an urgent response under the existing agreement.
Police Chief Todd Chamberlain has said previously the episode exposed gaps and ambiguities in the previous pact, especially how incidents are categorized and when officers are expected to respond.
While police and legal officials said that an escape from the facility constitutes a criminal offense, regardless of the detainee’s immigration status, the pact would give local police options on how to respond.
City legal officials said the pact would allow police supervisors to assess the level of risk rather than relying on rigid definitions like “hot” or “cold” escapes.
Addressing city lawmakers last month and again Monday night, police officials said the revised agreement is intended to eliminate confusion.
“This is about defining roles,” Deputy Chief Mark Hildebrandt told council members. “Without this document, there will be ambiguity, and it becomes difficult to separate what is a criminal response versus immigration enforcement.”
Under the proposed MOU, Aurora police would respond to criminal incidents at the detention center similarly to how they respond anywhere else in the city, but with explicit guardrails to ensure officers are not engaging in federal immigration enforcement, police and city legal officials said.
The agreement dictates how police would respond to escapes from the facility, allegations of sexual assault and civil disturbances.
Hildebrandt and other police officials repeatedly said the policy makes clear the limits of police interaction with federal agents and prison employees at the detention center.
“The Aurora Police Department does not enforce immigration,” he said. “That’s why it’s important to have this document to explicitly state that.”
One key section addresses sexual assault investigations. Under state law, Aurora police would take the lead on investigating allegations inside the facility, even though it is federally operated.
City Attorney Pete Schulte said jurisdiction depends on the nature of the alleged crime.
“For the federal government to have jurisdiction, there has to be an interstate commerce component,” Schulte said, referring to the Prison Rape Elimination Act. “A crime like sexual assault typically occurs in one place, so it falls to state or local authorities.”
If federal personnel were involved, he added, federal agencies could still pursue their own charges, but Aurora police would investigate at the state level.
The MOU also attempts to address the longstanding issue of gaining access to the facility.
Schulte said the agreement obligates GEO to allow Aurora police into the detention center during investigations. The provision is designed to prevent situations where local authorities are denied entry.
“If they don’t allow access, that’s a breach,” of the contract, he said, adding the agreement creates leverage that did not exist under earlier versions.
Council members asked city officials on what would happen if GEO refused to cooperate.
In that scenario, Schulte said, police could pursue search warrants, arrest warrants or escalate the issue to federal authorities, including the Department of Justice.
Members of the public and some city lawmakers raised questions about transparency and oversight.
Councilmembers Alison Coombs and Gianina Horton raised concerns about whether the public has had enough opportunity to weigh in, especially given past reports of limited access to the facility by outside agencies.
“There’s a lot of opportunity here to proactively engage the public,” Horton said, noting that even local health officials have struggled to obtain information from the detention center in past investigations.
She didn’t detail how in the next few weeks the city might engage the public on the proposal.
Some members of the public and local activists appearing Monday night for the hearing on the proposal balked at the proposed agreement, arguing that the agreement would deepen ties between local police and federal immigration enforcement.
“This MOU is not a neutral cooperation agreement,” said Aurora resident and activist Jeffrey McFarland. “It’s a 10-year partnership between a local police department and a federal agency tearing families apart.”
Some speakers criticized the use of local resources, including drones, canine units and patrol officers to respond to incidents at the facility, saying that many detainees are held on civil immigration violations, not criminal charges.
Others brought up numerous recent reports of poor conditions inside the detention center, including allegations of inadequate medical care, food and limited oversight.
Some activists questioned whether the agreement would erode trust between immigrant communities and local police.
“If you sanction APD to hassle people under suspicion of immigration offenses, people will lose trust,” said Zachary Cotton, a member of the Denver Aurora Community Action Committee.
Police have repeatedly pushed back on those characterizations, emphasizing that the agreement explicitly prohibits officers from enforcing civil immigration law.
“This has no association with immigration enforcement,” Chamberlain said in earlier remarks about the policy. “Aurora PD is not in the immigration business. We are in the public safety business.”
Horton, who introduced the motion to continue the item, said she wanted more time to explore potential policy changes before locking in a 10-year agreement.
“I think it’s important for us to understand what the other policy options are,” she said.
Other council members questioned whether additional delay would meaningfully change the outcome, saying that the proposal had already gone through committee review and study sessions.
Still, the majority supported postponement.
Lawmakers are expected to revisit the agreement at its next regular meeting.
We have seen what happens when police departments abdicate their responsibility to public safety when it involves anything even remotely related to immigration enforcement; the community becomes far less safe. We have seen left-leaning politicians place their ideologies above public safety time and time again. Then when citizens end up getting hurt as a result, they blame ICE or immigration enforcement policies.
I think we are on the right track with this agreement, but I understand the postponement. We need to make sure the public is heard and we need a council that is behind an agreement that removes ambiguity, while keeping police activity separate from immigration enforcement. Our police are tasked with public safety and not immigration issues. Blurring these lines will only serve to confuse the public and inhibit needed communication between the police and the people they serve. I believe our Chief gets that. It makes our community MORE safe to have a clear separation of duties. If the issue is criminal activity, the police department WILL be involved, regardless of immigration status, as they must be. Criminals violating state or local law should be handled by local and state safety officials.