TRUTH or CONSEQUENCES -Investigation underway could lead to St. Mary’s losing millions in Federal funds due to Sheriff Hall’s Sanctuary policies

Federal Investigation Underway Over Sheriff Steve Hall’s False Claims on ICE Cooperation

BY JOHN E. O’CONNOR
THE CHESAPEAKE TODAY

UPDATE: After seven days, ICE refuses to confirm Sheriff Hall’s account of being fully cooperative with federal directives. St. Mary’s County Jail remains on the Department of Homeland Security Non-Cooperative Agency List.

LEONARDTOWN, MD—As of March 3rd, 2025, nearly two weeks after St. Mary’s County Sheriff Steve Hall sat before the County Commissioners, touting that he fully complies with the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the facts show that Hall was not truthful.

THE CHESAPEAKE TODAY has learned that St Mary’s County remains on the “Non-Cooperative List” issued by the Department of Homeland Security.
In addition, Sheriff Hall is under federal scrutiny for manipulating the system through misleading language in a presentation to the Board of Commissioners of St. Mary’s County to obscure the county’s sanctuary status.
A federal investigation led by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General is now underway, focusing on Hall’s claims that St. Mary’s County has always cooperated with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) despite DHS officially classifying the county as a “Non-Cooperating Agency.”

At the heart of the controversy is Hall’s deliberate use of wordplay regarding detainers and warrants, an attempt to mislead both local commissioners and federal authorities. While St. Mary’s County officials insist they “cooperate” with ICE, the reality is that the county only honors detainers if a judicial warrant accompanies them. This distinction aligns with Maryland’s sanctuary policies and directly contradicts full ICE cooperation, which requires holding individuals solely on ICE detainers. Hall’s statements appear to be an effort to blur this distinction and falsely present St. Mary’s County as fully compliant.
Federal investigators must now determine whether Hall and a Special Agent knowingly misled ICE officials, local policymakers, or both. The most substantial evidence supporting this claim comes from Hall’s own words during the February 11th, 2025, Commissioners of St. Mary’s County meeting, which was recorded and posted on YouTube.
In the video, Hall explicitly asserts full cooperation with ICE, a claim that directly contradicts DHS’s official classification of St. Mary’s County as a non-cooperative jurisdiction. This recorded statement, alongside internal communications under review, could provide clear proof of intentional misrepresentation.
If proven, this deliberate effort to mislead officials could constitute an illegal act to protect federal funding under pretenses. Records currently with the DHS Office of the Inspector General suggest that Hall’s actions were not an oversight but a calculated attempt to manipulate perceptions, maintain access to law enforcement grants for jurisdictions that fully comply with ICE directives, and mislead the public through wordplay.
This case could set a precedent by revealing how local officials exploit legal loopholes and ambiguous language to bypass federal immigration enforcement policies while gaining financial benefits.

MILLIONS ARE AT RISK

If DHS and the Department of Justice determine that St. Mary’s County intentionally misrepresented its policies, Hall and other officials could face severe administrative or legal consequences. While the exact penalties remain uncertain, at the very least, St. Mary’s County might lose millions of dollars in federal funding allocated for law enforcement operations. This funding, which supports vital public safety initiatives, could be stripped entirely if investigators confirm that the county misled federal agencies about its cooperation with ICE.
Calls for transparency and accountability continue to increase.

Federal authorities have been asked to investigate the correspondence between the St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Department and the Baltimore ICE Field Office, including emails, phone call transcripts, and internal memos.

Additionally, investigators will analyze the video recording of the St. Mary’s County Commissioners meeting on February 11th, 2025, during which Sheriff Hall publicly claimed full cooperation with ICE, corroborated by a Department of Homeland Security Special Agent in Charge, despite DHS’s official designation of the county as non-cooperative.
These materials are expected to reveal whether Hall misrepresented the county’s policies to mislead federal officials and local policymakers and whether the federal agent was unwittingly drawn into another Hall situation or was an active participant. The investigation aims to determine if Hall’s statements were part of a broader attempt to mislead federal agencies, local policymakers, and the public regarding the county’s actual position on immigration enforcement and what role, if any, the federal employee played in the deception.

If the investigation confirms wrongdoing, the consequences for St. Mary’s County could go beyond funding cuts. The county might have to repay previously awarded federal law enforcement grants, putting a significant financial strain on local resources. Moreover, additional oversight measures may be introduced to prevent similar misrepresentations in the future, changing how federal law enforcement funds are distributed and monitored.
Meanwhile, government watchdogs, advocacy groups, and legal analysts are closely watching the case, arguing that federal resources should not be allocated to jurisdictions that manipulate enforcement definitions to seem compliant while actively restricting ICE’s reach.

As the inquiry unfolds, the case against Hall may extend beyond misrepresenting immigration policies, possibly revealing a larger issue of how local officials use unclear language to mislead federal agencies for financial gain. If proved true, this investigation could lead to new federal oversight measures to prevent similar abuses and ensure that jurisdictions receiving federal law enforcement funding are held accountable for their compliance with immigration enforcement policies.

TECHNICALITIES VS. VAGUENESS

The St. Mary’s Sheriff’s Department does not hold federally wanted inmates but notifies ICE in some of the situations below, which makes them not fully cooperative, according to the Department of Homeland Security:
In the context of immigration and detainers, a warrant is a formal legal document issued by either a judge or an immigration official authorizing the arrest or detention of an individual suspected of violating U.S. immigration laws.
There are two key types of warrants in immigration enforcement:

Judicial Warrant – Issued by a federal judge or magistrate, this type of warrant is required for most criminal arrests and searches under the Fourth Amendment. Local law enforcement agencies are generally required to comply with judicial warrants.

• Administrative Warrant – Issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), this is an internal immigration enforcement document used to arrest or detain individuals suspected of being in the country unlawfully. Unlike a judicial warrant, a judge does not sign an administrative warrant. It does not provide the same legal authority as a judicial warrant for local law enforcement to hold an individual beyond their standard release time.
• Key Difference Between a Detainer and a Warrant:
• • A detainer is a request from ICE to a local law enforcement agency to hold someone beyond their scheduled release so that ICE can take custody.
• St Mary’s County Sheriff’s Department DOES NOT HONOR DETAINERS – A judicial warrant carries legal authority and requires compliance.
• St Mary’s County Honors a Judicial Warrant – An administrative warrant issued by ICE is not binding on local law enforcement, meaning jurisdictions can choose whether or not to comply with it.
• St Mary’s County DOES NOT honor administrative warrants.
• Many sanctuary jurisdictions do not honor administrative warrants or ICE detainers unless accompanied by a judicial warrant, arguing that honoring detainers without a judge’s order could violate constitutional rights. This is the case with the St Mary’s County Sheriff’s Department.
• The Department of Homeland Security was requested to provide a comment specific to this article, but they did not reply to THE CHESAPEAKE TODAY before publication. When a comment is received, this article will be updated.