Mesa County is in court over SB 25-276, a new Colorado law that limits local police cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The county filed suit on August 8, 2025, arguing the law is too vague. State officials say the law protects due process and public safety.
How the dispute escalated
A traffic stop on June 5 became the flashpoint. A deputy shared a young student’s details in a law enforcement group chat that included federal agents, and that student was later detained by ICE. The state then sued a deputy for alleged information-sharing that violated SB 25-276, and Mesa County responded by filing a countersuit against Governor Jared Polis and Attorney General Phil Weiser.
What happened in Mesa County
- On June 5, Deputy Alexander Zwinck stopped 19-year-old Caroline Dias-Goncalves, a Brazilian national and Utah nursing student, for a traffic violation. He shared her details in a law enforcement group chat that included ICE and Homeland Security agents. She was later detained by ICE.
- In mid‑June, the Sheriff’s Office opened an administrative review and faced strong public pushback.
- In late July, Attorney General Weiser filed the first lawsuit under SB 25-276, saying the deputy violated the state’s limits on immigration cooperation.
- On July 30, Sheriff Todd Rowell disciplined five deputies, including Zwinck, and apologized to Dias‑Goncalves. He pledged better training on SB 25‑276 and set up a community feedback line at 970-244-3533.
The August escalation
- August 5: Mesa County commissioners voted to countersue Governor Jared Polis and the Attorney General after the state sued the deputy.
- August 7: The Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition (CIRC) condemned the county’s move, calling it a “dangerous step backwards.”
- August 8: Mesa County filed its own lawsuit, arguing SB 25‑276 is too vague to be constitutional and asking the court to clarify the limits on local–federal cooperation.
What SB 25-276 does
SB 25‑276, enacted in late May 2025, restricts when local police can share information with or assist federal immigration agents. Key goals of the law include:
- Stopping warrantless holds
- Reducing unlawful information‑sharing
- Reinforcing due process for immigrants
State leaders argue the law improves public safety by making people feel safer calling police when they are victims or witnesses.
Mesa County’s legal claim
Mesa County leaders argue the statute is:
- Unclear, putting deputies at risk for routine actions (e.g., sharing data in mixed law enforcement chats)
- A burden on local budgets and operations
- Potentially an infringement on county authority
Their lawsuit asks the court to:
1. Halt enforcement while judges decide the case (injunction)
2. Define exactly what officers can and cannot do under SB 25‑276
The state’s position
Attorney General Phil Weiser filed the lawsuit against Deputy Zwinck seeking the first court order enforcing SB 25‑276. The state’s central points:
- Local officers should not act as immigration agents
- Officers should avoid actions that lead to civil immigration enforcement without a proper legal basis
- The state seeks a clear statewide standard for compliance
Voices from the ground
- Sheriff Todd Rowell: Accepted responsibility for the June 5 incident, disciplined his team, promised better training, and criticized the state lawsuit as political. He said internal discipline is the appropriate fix.
- CIRC and immigrant advocates: Warn the county’s challenge risks racial profiling, deters crime reporting, and harms families. They urge courts to uphold the law and protect trust with immigrant communities.
- County commissioners: Say they are defending employees’ rights and seeking clarity, worried SB 25‑276 exposes staff to legal trouble for everyday interagency communications.
“We need the courts to tell our deputies what’s allowed and what isn’t,” Mesa County officials say, arguing SB 25‑276 is too vague and threatens routine police work.
CIRC calls the county’s lawsuit “a dangerous step backwards.”
Sheriff Rowell: “We own our mistakes,” noting discipline and training are underway and urging solutions focused on policy fixes, not politics.
Why this matters beyond Mesa County
Legal experts view the case as a major test of state power to limit local roles in federal immigration enforcement. Possible implications:
- If Mesa County’s vagueness claim succeeds, similar laws in other states could face new challenges.
- If the state wins, SB 25‑276 could become a model for how far states can go to limit local–federal cooperation.
Practical effects right now
For different groups, the immediate impacts include:
- Law enforcement:
- New training on SB 25‑276
- Ongoing administrative reviews
- Public reporting channels and internal discipline
- Leadership pledges more guidance to prevent repeat problems
- Immigrant families:
- Advocates warn a rollback would increase fear, keep victims silent, and risk more detentions after minor stops
- Emphasis on making people feel safe calling police regardless of status
- County budgets:
- Added training costs, policy changes, and potential legal exposure
- Concerns that the law’s vagueness could drive up litigation risk
The human story
Dias‑Goncalves — a 19‑year‑old with no criminal history and an expired visa — was swept up after a simple traffic stop. Her case illustrates how a minor local action can trigger serious immigration consequences and underlines why training and clear rules matter for both officers and residents.
How the lawsuits could unfold
Expect litigation steps including:
- Motions over whether SB 25‑276 is unconstitutionally vague
- Arguments about whether the state can enforce the law as written
- Requests for a temporary injunction to pause enforcement while cases proceed
- Likely appeals that could extend the dispute
The outcome will determine how strictly Colorado can restrict local assistance to federal immigration agents and may guide other states.
What local officers should do now
- Follow department training and written policies on SB 25‑276.
- Avoid sharing personal data with federal immigration agents unless a clearly lawful exception applies.
- Document decisions and seek supervisor guidance when in doubt.
- Use the Sheriff’s Office channels for questions and feedback.
What families and advocates can do
- Keep records of any police interactions and ask for badge numbers.
- Contact trusted local groups, such as CIRC, for support and legal referrals.
- Know your rights during stops and arrests.
- Review official DHS guidance on immigration enforcement priorities and civil rights for federal context.
Official resources and links
- Colorado Attorney General’s Office: statements and legal filings relating to state policy.
- Department of Homeland Security: policy pages on immigration enforcement and civil rights. See the DHS page on immigration enforcement and priorities for federal guidance.
- USCIS forms (use official USCIS pages and current versions):
- Form I‑589 (Asylum): uscis.gov/i-589
- Form I‑130 (Family Petition): uscis.gov/i-130
- Form I‑485 (Green Card): uscis.gov/i-485
Political context and policy stakes
The case reflects national tension over “sanctuary” policies and the boundary between local and federal roles. With removal efforts drawing nationwide attention, states are testing how to protect due process while maintaining public safety.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, lawsuits like Mesa County’s often become benchmarks that other jurisdictions watch closely.
What to watch next
- Court rulings on injunctions and the vagueness claim.
- Whether the state’s case against the deputy sets a clear precedent.
- Any policy updates from the Sheriff’s Office and training timelines.
- Responses from Governor Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser, and the Colorado legislature if courts order changes to SB 25‑276.
Bottom line for Mesa County
The community needs clear rules that officers can follow and residents can trust. While courts work through SB 25‑276, departments should focus on:
- Training
- Transparency
- Consistent communication
This approach can lower legal risk, protect rights, and keep people safe—no matter their status.
This Article in a Nutshell
