EPCSO Adopts Detention-Based WSO Model Under SB 8 Immigration Law

(EL PASO, TEXAS) The El Paso County Sheriff’s Office has chosen the detention-based Warrant Service Officer (WSO) model to meet new state demands under Senate Bill 8, positioning EPCSO to carry out immigration duties only inside county jails rather than on the streets. Sheriff Oscar Ugarte confirmed the selection, saying the approach keeps immigration work limited to detention settings and avoids field-level enforcement.

Under SB 8, which takes effect on January 1, 2026, Texas sheriffs in counties with more than 100,000 residents must sign a federal 287(g) program agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Agencies must pick one of three options: the Jail Enforcement Model, the Warrant Service Officer approach, or a Task Force model. EPCSO chose the WSO path, which is the narrowest of the three.

Policy choice and scope

EPCSO’s decision means detention officers will serve ICE administrative warrants only to non-citizen inmates who are already in custody. The office will:

• Not run broader immigration interviews in the jail.
• Not conduct street-level immigration checks tied to traffic stops or patrol activity.

Sheriff Ugarte said this setup allows the county to follow the law while keeping day-to-day policing focused on local public safety concerns, not immigration. “Immigration is not the focus,” he stressed.

If ICE approves the agreement, EPCSO expects to use its current detention staff. No new personnel would be hired to carry out WSO duties. That point matters for county budgeting: El Paso County’s population tops one million, which means it is not eligible for the limited state grant support SB 8 offers to smaller counties. Any costs of training and implementation would come from the county’s own funds.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the WSO model is widely seen as a more limited tool than the Jail Enforcement Model. It restricts immigration enforcement to serving paperwork inside the jail and does not allow deputies to run broad interviews about immigration status after booking. It also does not allow task force–style operations outside the jail.

Legal timeline and enforcement

The statute sets a clear timeline:

1. Counties must pursue a 287(g) agreement with ICE by the start of 2026.
2. Beginning December 1, 2026, the Texas Attorney General may sue sheriffs or counties that do not request or carry out a required agreement.

That creates a legal backstop aimed at driving full statewide participation.

The federal partner, ICE, must still review and approve EPCSO’s request. The 287(g) program, created under federal law, allows local officers to perform certain immigration tasks after federal training and agreement. Readers can find official program details on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 287(g) Program page: https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g. Federal approval is a standard step before any local plan begins.

As of March 2025:

• 20 Texas counties and one police department had WSO agreements.
• 28 counties had Jail Enforcement Model agreements.

Those numbers reflect a split approach across the state. Many urban or border jurisdictions have looked for ways to comply without expanding street-level immigration policing. EPCSO’s choice fits that pattern.

What WSO means for El Paso County

The practical change will be felt most in the jail:

• Detention officers designated under the WSO model would deliver ICE administrative warrants to non-citizen inmates already in custody.
• This does not change how EPCSO responds to calls for service or makes arrests in the community.
• It does not allow field enforcement based on immigration status.

For families, attorneys, and community groups, the move provides a clearer lane. If a loved one is booked into the county jail and flagged by federal records, a WSO-designated officer may serve an ICE warrant inside the facility. But people going about daily life in El Paso will not face immigration checks by EPCSO as a result of this choice.

From a budgeting standpoint, the “no additional staff” plan may soften the impact on county finances. Still, training, coordination with ICE, and recordkeeping will require resources. Because El Paso County is above the one-million population threshold, it cannot rely on the small, state-funded grants set out for less populous counties. Those costs, even if limited, will land on the local budget.

Community advocates who track detention trends note the broader regional context. The area has seen movement to expand detention capacity, including large federal facilities near Fort Bliss. While SB 8 is a state law focused on local collaboration, it operates within a wider national system that affects how long people remain in custody and when they transfer to federal hold.

Key takeaway: Under the WSO model, the primary immigration enforcement risk for residents becomes contact with the jail—not routine street policing.

Why not the Jail Enforcement Model or a Task Force?

• The Jail Enforcement Model (JEM) would have allowed broader interviews and immigration processing inside the jail after booking. It is more expansive because it enables active screening beyond serving warrants.
• The Task Force model would have gone further, permitting immigration enforcement during routine field operations such as traffic stops.

By choosing WSO, EPCSO draws a clear boundary: immigration actions stay inside the detention setting. This approach may ease concerns among residents who fear local traffic stops could become a gateway to immigration checks. It also aligns with Sheriff Ugarte’s message that county deputies should focus on local crime and safety.

Politically, SB 8 has been championed by state leaders who want a stronger local role alongside federal enforcement. Supporters argue that local-federal coordination helps manage high border traffic and public safety. Critics warn that field-based enforcement risks racial profiling and could deter victims and witnesses from calling for help. EPCSO’s model selection positions the county in a middle lane—following the state mandate while avoiding the widest enforcement tools.

Implications for immigrants, legal counsel, and community services

• For immigrants in El Paso County, the main risk point becomes contact with the jail, not with standard street policing.
• Defense lawyers will likely factor that into advice to clients.
• Families should prepare for possible ICE actions after a jail stay.
• Legal aid groups may increase jail outreach to help those who receive immigration warrants while in custody.

Looking ahead, the key administrative and legal dates are set:

• SB 8’s core requirements begin in 2026.
• The Attorney General’s enforcement power starts December 1, 2026.
• EPCSO must secure ICE approval and complete training for detention officers assigned to WSO duties.
• County leaders will need to allocate funds for training, coordination, and recordkeeping, since El Paso is not eligible for small-county grants.

For now, EPCSO’s move offers clarity. The office will comply with Senate Bill 8 through a Warrant Service Officer framework that emphasizes detention-based actions, not field operations. That choice keeps immigration enforcement out of daily patrol work in one of the busiest border communities in the United States 🇺🇸, while still meeting the letter of the state law.