Dozens of Helena residents pressed the City Commission on Nov. 12 to convert repeated public testimony about federal immigration operations into formal policy, and commissioners directed staff to draft a resolution that codifies current practices and clarifies what the city will and will not do when federal agents operate in Helena.

The item followed a briefing from Helena Police Department lieutenant Bennett Shanks and City Attorney Becky Dofter, who summarized HPD involvement with multi‑agency task forces (Internet Crimes Against Children, drug task forces, U.S. Marshals) and said the department has no plans to sign a 287(g) agreement with federal immigration authorities. Shanks also told the commission he could not recall HPD arresting someone solely on immigration status in the last 18 years.

“Immigration enforcement is a federal nexus,” Shanks said, adding the department lacks resources and that local policy focuses on public‑safety priorities. Dofter cautioned the commission that some elements—such as sharing certain law‑enforcement information—could be legally sensitive and would need careful drafting.

Public speakers recounted community reaction after the abduction of Christopher Martinez and demanded a public, binding statement of policy. Several called for the city to adopt the group’s “five demands,” including a clear prohibition on entering 287(g) agreements, limits on requesting immigration status, and requirements for federal agents to identify themselves when operating in public. Lily Clark, speaking for organized community groups, asked the commission to “move beyond commentary into policy.”

Some commissioners said they support producing a single, public document that summarizes HPD’s current practices and requested careful legal review so staff and officers are not placed in positions that violate law. One commissioner asked that any resolution include caveats “unless required by law.”

At the end of the public comment period, the mayor announced the commission would have staff prepare a draft resolution for future consideration; the commission did not vote on, nor adopt, any resolution at the meeting.

Next steps: city staff and the city attorney will prepare draft language describing current practice and potential policy options for the commission’s consideration at a future meeting.