After a marathon five-hour meeting that drew a crowd to Plymouth Town Hall, the Select Board unanimously voted to adopt the Plymouth Police Department’s immigration enforcement policy as official town policy, ending months of debate over how the town should respond to federal immigration enforcement activity.
The Jan. 6 meeting began at 6 p.m. and ran past 11 p.m., filling the Great Hall to overflowing and requiring simulcasting to a second room. The gathering represented the culmination of weeks of community discussion about Plymouth’s response to increased Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity across Massachusetts.
At issue were two competing approaches: Selectman Kevin Canty’s proposed policy governing all town employees, and the existing Plymouth Police Department policy presented by Chief Dana Flynn. After extensive debate and public comment, the board adopted the police policy while committing to annual reviews and requiring notification of any changes.
Chief Flynn opened with a detailed presentation of the department’s immigration enforcement policy, developed and implemented in Feb. 2025. The policy establishes clear guidelines for how Plymouth police interact with federal immigration authorities while adhering to Massachusetts law.
“Enforcing federal immigration law is not the mission of the Plymouth Police Department,” Flynn stated. “Accordingly, it is not appropriate for a member of the Department to inquire about, or investigate a non-citizen’s immigration or travel status if the sole purpose is to determine an individual’s immigration status or whether the person is in the country lawfully.”
The policy prohibits officers from holding individuals solely based on ICE civil detainers—administrative requests from federal authorities to keep someone in custody beyond normal release time. This aligns with the 2017 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in Commonwealth v. Lunn, which ruled state and local law enforcement lack authority to detain individuals based solely on federal civil immigration detainers.
Under the policy, Plymouth officers may share information with ICE when individuals are arrested for violent felonies including murder, assault with intent to murder, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, armed burglary, rape, mayhem, and armed robbery. Information sharing is also permitted for terrorism-related offenses, human trafficking, fraudulent assimilation of individuals into the United States, and suspected criminal street gang activity involving violence or distribution of illegal drugs or weapons.
The policy prohibits Plymouth officers from participating in ICE raids or operations solely for civil immigration enforcement, except to provide officer safety support such as traffic control or emergency assistance.
Chief Flynn explained his department’s communication with ICE, “anytime ICE comes into Plymouth, and we’re notified of their presence, if you will, they have to notify local police departments that they’re operating in your area,” Flynn said. “If it’s related to civil immigration enforcement, we do not engage.”
The chief cited two specific incidents that raised community concerns: an Aug. 20, 2025 incident where ICE vehicles nearly caused a collision while running a red light in North Plymouth, and a Sept. 23, 2025 incident where ICE agents left a vehicle abandoned at a busy intersection after removing an individual from it. Flynn said he immediately contacted ICE’s liaison about both incidents.
Canty’s proposal would have established a town-wide policy governing all municipal employees, not just police. While similar in substance to the police policy, it used different language in key areas, including references to “subversive” activities as a category where information could be shared with ICE.
“I personally have misgivings about the broad application of subversive,” Canty said. “I understand the Chief’s intents, but I just think it is a broad term.”
Town Counsel Kate McKay raised concerns about having two separate policies on the same subject. “I think when there are two different policies, that is a legal concern,” McKay said. She also warned about potential federal funding implications, noting ongoing litigation between the federal government and cities like Boston over immigration policies.
The public comment period, which Board Chair David Golden structured to alternate between supporters and opponents, showcased deep community divisions. More than two dozen residents spoke.
Supporters emphasized the importance of making immigrants feel safe. Steve Franzino of Precinct 15 argued Canty’s proposal “provides civil oversight that is responsive to the public concern,” noting that “when part of the community fears interaction with local law enforcement or town officials for that matter, crime goes unreported, victims remain silent, and trust breaks down.”
Critics argued the police policy was sufficient and the discussion distracted from Plymouth’s budget crisis. Tim Lawler charged the meeting represented “Kevin Canty’s personal agenda” rather than taxpayer priorities. Wrestling Brewster, chair of Precinct 15, suggested the board should simply review the existing police policy annually.
Former Selectman Charlie Bletzer, who managed a Plymouth restaurant for 25 years, emphasized immigrants’ economic importance. “Our number one industry in Plymouth is tourism,” Bletzer said. “The service industry cannot survive without the immigrants.”
The turning point came when Golden ruled the board would not vote that evening, citing recently adopted procedures requiring introduction at one meeting before voting at another. Canty challenged the ruling, arguing the restriction applied only to procedural policies governing board operations, not substantive town policies. The board voted 3-2 to overrule Golden (Bill Keohan, Canty and Deborah Iaquinto yes; Golden and Richard Quintal no), allowing debate to continue as Quintal left for another engagement.
In the final hour, Canty and Flynn worked toward compromise. Canty proposed adopting the police policy in its entirety as it applies to police employees, subject to annual review and requiring notification of changes.
“Chief, we’re trying to do the same thing, but I’m doing six in one hand and you’re doing half a dozen in the other,” Canty said. “The police policy wasn’t publicly available, so we can fix that now, and we can move forward in a collaborative way.”
Flynn expressed concern about seeking board approval before updating policy but agreed to annual reviews and notification. “The intent of my suggestion to advise you is to get it out, to make sure there are no questions, and to alleviate the insinuations that we are working under the cloak of darkness and working hand-in-hand with ICE,” Flynn said. “Nothing would be further from the truth.”
Under the compromise, the police immigration enforcement policy becomes official Select Board policy for Plymouth Police Department employees. The policy will be subject to annual review, with Flynn notifying the board and potentially presenting any proposed changes, though his contract authority to set departmental policy remains intact. Canty indicated he may return with a separate policy governing other town employees.
The final vote was unanimous among members present: Keohan, Canty, Iaquinto and Golden all voting yes. Golden, who had expressed reservations about Canty’s original proposal, praised the compromise.
“My concern has been that we are not tying the hands of our law enforcement officers,” Golden said. “We need to trust the people on the ground to make the right decisions. Mr. Canty’s concession to adopt the police department’s policy is magnanimous and shows we are moving to a more collaborative place.”
Keohan called the evening “an example of how when we all start to communicate at a higher level, we actually get things done.” Iaquinto said it was “never a waste of time to take residents’ concerns seriously.”