Doddridge County ICE / 287(g) tracker

What is known—and what remains unverified

Verified participation: ICE’s October 2, 2026 participating-agency spreadsheet lists the Doddridge County Sheriff’s Office, West Virginia, under the Task Force Model (TFM). Its agreement-date field is February 25, 2026. The entry links to the county’s memorandum of agreement (MOA). Download the dated ICE roster.

Verified document terms: The signed agreement names Sheriff Clinton E. Boring and ICE Deputy Director Charles Wall. Boring’s signature is dated February 23, 2026; the ICE signature date line is blank in the reviewed copy. The roster’s February 25 date should not be mistaken for the sheriff’s signature date. Read the agreement or its archived copy, page 9.

Verified county action: On May 5, 2026, the commission approved Fund 100, the “ICE Fund,” and authorized the sheriff to open an interest-bearing account with three-signature access. The attached order identifies federal money as its revenue source and restricts its uses. Minutes and signed order, pages 1–2.

Not independently established: A complete county immigration-enforcement count, individual officer authorization dates, a county-specific federal funding schedule, actual cash receipts, patrol-car invoices and the net county cost have not been verified from underlying records. “Not located” means a document was not found in this review; it does not mean the activity or payment did not occur.

The primary-source record establishes an agreement and its terms. It does not establish that every deputy is authorized, that a particular person was removable, or that every federal funding opportunity resulted in a county payment.

What is the 287(g) program?

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act permits ICE to delegate specified immigration-enforcement functions to trained state and local officers through written agreements. ICE describes three models: Task Force Model, Jail Enforcement Model and Warrant Service Officer. Their functions and operating settings differ. ICE program overview.

Doddridge’s agreement is a Task Force Model agreement. It authorizes selected, trained and certified personnel to perform specified functions within their jurisdiction under ICE direction and supervision. The authority belongs to participating personnel under the agreement; it is not a blanket immigration delegation to every county employee.

The MOA covers questioning about immigration status, processing specified immigration matters, preparing documents for ICE approval, serving immigration warrants and certain arrest, custody and transportation functions. Warrantless arrest authority is subject to the statutory conditions described in the document. Read sections I, IV–V and XI, rather than treating the model name as a complete statement of legal authority.

An immigration encounter, detainer, arrest, transfer, criminal conviction and removal are different events. This tracker records them separately when reliable underlying records make that distinction possible. It does not infer a criminal conviction or final immigration outcome from an arrest report.

Doddridge County sheriff’s ICE agreement

Sources: signed MOA (archive), sections IV, IX and XVII–XVIII; ICE roster. The two-year officer authorization provision is not a two-year expiration date for the county agreement.

Section XVIII makes effectiveness dependent on both signatures. A signature date, roster date, training completion and first enforcement action are separate milestones. We have not assigned a first operational day from the roster alone.

Sheriff, regional jail and state agencies: who participates?

The governor’s August 13, 2025 announcement describes the state agency agreements. The current ICE roster and DCR facility page provide the agency and location checks.

Location is not the same as control. A regional jail located in Doddridge County can hold people from other jurisdictions. Jail admissions, state enforcement activity and sheriff-originated cases should not be combined into a single “Doddridge arrests” total.

For a future nearby comparison, the same roster lists Harrison, Lewis and Pleasants county sheriff’s offices under TFM. Their agreements are separate. A roster entry alone does not measure enforcement volume, funding received or outcomes.

Agreement and implementation timeline

Source links: state announcement, DHS announcement, MOA, dated ICE roster and syndicated reporting. Dates after the cutoff will be added only with a new, explicitly dated update.

Doddridge County immigration arrests: what the records show

Reported, not independently verified: Wall Street Journal reporting republished by Mint on October 2 says Boring described two immigration arrests following traffic stops on U.S. 50 and more than $137,000 in federal funds over roughly six months. It also reports that he was awaiting two patrol cars to be paid for with DHS funds. These are attributed claims from that report, not county-ledger or case-file findings. Read the report.

No complete sheriff-originated case log was located for this edition. The article’s count is therefore not presented as an audited county total, a count of convictions, or a count of deportations.

ICE’s September 2026 encounter report describes selected examples; it expressly is a sampling of cases. It is not a complete county-by-county census. Absence of a Doddridge example cannot be treated as zero enforcement.

Future entries should include the event date, originating agency, event type, source and disposition. Names and personal identifiers are unnecessary for an aggregate local accountability tracker.

ICE reimbursement and payment tracker

No independently verified Doddridge receipt total is available in this edition. The reported amount is a lead for reconciliation against an award, remittance and county ledger. It is not a verified payment-per-arrest rate, guaranteed annual income or county profit.

The September 2, 2025 DHS announcement is dated policy evidence, not proof of the terms of a particular 2026 county award. Later amendments, eligibility rules or payment conditions must be checked against the actual funding instrument. The signed enforcement MOA alone does not fill that gap.

SCAAP is separate from 287(g)

The Bureau of Justice Assistance describes the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) as assistance for qualifying correctional officer salary costs. Its eligibility criteria include qualifying convictions and a minimum incarceration period. Awards depend on applications, DHS eligibility determinations, submitted costs and available appropriations. BJA overview and payment method.

ICE expressly describes SCAAP as separate from 287(g). A state DCR award would not automatically be a receipt by Doddridge County. Nor should an ICE detention or transportation contract be classified as a 287(g) grant without its award documentation.

How future payments will be entered

Each verified entry should show recipient legal name, funding program, award or agreement number, service period, award ceiling, amount requested, amount paid, payment date, county fund/account and source. An award ceiling, reimbursement request and cash deposit are different amounts. Pending fields remain “not located,” rather than zero.

County spending and budget implications

The MOA allocates costs even though it does not establish a county grant amount. Section X assigns the local agency responsibility for its personnel costs and several operating expenses, including salary/benefits, applicable overtime or replacement staffing, administrative supplies and equipment described in the agreement. ICE assumes specified training-related responsibilities, including instructors, materials and authorized training travel support. MOA, pages 4–5.

Separate grant or reimbursement arrangements may offset eligible expenses. They must be documented separately. A reimbursement does not erase the need to track local staff time, vehicle ownership and running costs, insurance, administration and any local legal expenses.

The county document center is the starting point for public meeting and budget records. It warns that posted agendas and minutes are not certified copies; certified records come from the county clerk. Records not posted by October 4 may still exist in county files.

May 5: commission creates the ICE Fund

The May 5, 2026 minutes, page 1, record carried motions to create Special Revenue Fund 100 — ICE Fund and authorize the sheriff to open an interest-bearing checking account with user access requiring three signatures. The attached signed order, page 2, says the commission unanimously approved the fund, identifies federal money as its revenue source and restricts expenditures to travel expenses for ICE training, salaries and benefits of ICE agents, using the order’s terminology.

This is a verified county budget-administration action. It is not a bank statement, appropriation total, federal award agreement or proof of a particular deposit. The order does not identify vehicles as an allowed use. That alone does not prove that a separately financed vehicle purchase would violate its terms; the relevant funding instrument and account records are still needed.

Review scope: We screened all 20 posted 2026 meeting-minute PDFs located, covering January 6 through September 1, using OCR search and visually checked the May 5 minutes and signed order. Searches included ICE, 287, immigration, federal funding, sheriff and vehicle terms. OCR can miss text, and the posting series does not cover every day through the October 4 cutoff. No reconciled Fund 100 revenue/expenditure ledger or matched vehicle purchase record was located in this review.

Other DHS-labeled county attachments can concern FEMA or emergency management. They are not counted as ICE payments merely because DHS appears on the page.

Oversight, civil rights, policy changes and lawsuits

The signed MOA requires ICE supervision of delegated functions, training before authorization, and local maintenance of program-related data and statistics. Its complaint procedures accept complaints from different sources and provide a route through local supervisors and ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility. Sections XI–XVI and appendices B–C describe these responsibilities. Read the agreement.

The agreement also addresses applicable civil-rights requirements and language assistance. Its liability provisions are conditional: the document does not promise that every local action receives federal defense or that every county expense is reimbursed. A complaint is not a proven violation; an official statement is not an audit finding.

The court search was a review of publicly discoverable material, not a comprehensive PACER docket search. “No case located” is not a certification that no case exists. Broader immigration litigation does not necessarily suspend this particular agreement.

For future legal developments, this page will distinguish a filed allegation, preliminary ruling, final judgment and appeal. It will record both the order’s scope and whether it applies to this agency, rather than treating any national lawsuit as a local program change.

Official explanations, supporter arguments and criticism

Official / supporter position: The West Virginia governor’s August 2025 announcement presents the state’s ICE partnerships as a public-safety measure. That is an official policy rationale, not a measured finding about Doddridge crime or enforcement outcomes. A local financial benefit also requires actual receipts and spending records before it can be quantified.

Critic position: ACLU of West Virginia and Dragline’s June 2026 report challenges official descriptions of a statewide immigration operation using enforcement data. This is a clearly identified civil-liberties advocacy perspective and a lead to underlying records. Its statewide findings are not automatically findings about Boring’s office or the two reported Doddridge cases.

This tracker tests concrete claims against documents: which agency acted, under what authority, during which period, with what outcome and at what cost. Participation in 287(g), by itself, proves neither a public-safety benefit nor misconduct.

Document library and public-record source table

All sources below were checked for this October 4, 2026 edition. A primary document establishes what it records; it does not independently prove every assertion made by its author.

Source priority: signed documents and dated agency records first; authoritative reporting second; advocacy claims clearly attributed. The agreement archive preserves an ICE-origin document; it is not the issuing agency. The official ICE URL is supplied so readers can check the current copy.

Records that would close the remaining gaps

The sheriff’s office can be asked for the executed MOA and amendments, aggregate training/credential counts, de-identified activity logs and funding correspondence. The county clerk/commission and financial custodians can be asked for approval records, revenue ledgers, award notices and vehicle purchase records. DCR and ICE hold separate jail, transfer and federal payment records.

These are records to obtain, not records already requested or received by this publication. No public-record request was submitted as part of this edition. The official sheriff page and county document center provide starting points.

Frequently asked questions

Does Doddridge County have an ICE 287(g) agreement?

Yes. ICE’s October 2, 2026 roster lists the Doddridge County Sheriff’s Office under the Task Force Model, with an agreement date of February 25, 2026. The sheriff’s signature in the reviewed MOA is dated February 23.

How many immigration arrests has the Doddridge sheriff’s office made?

A national report described two arrests following U.S. 50 traffic stops. A complete primary-source county case log was not located, so this tracker does not treat that report as an audited total or a count of convictions or removals.

How much ICE money has Doddridge County received?

More than $137,000 was reported in national coverage. The underlying county ledger, award and remittance records were not independently matched. The verified receipt total therefore remains unknown; unknown does not mean zero.

Is North Central Regional Jail the same agency as the sheriff’s office?

No. DCR identifies North Central Regional Jail and Correctional Facility as a state facility located in Doddridge County. State jail activity and the sheriff’s Task Force Model agreement are separate records.

When does the Doddridge 287(g) agreement expire?

The reviewed agreement continues until suspended or terminated and does not state a fixed county renewal date. Its two-year initial officer authorization provision is different from the duration of the agency agreement.

Are SCAAP payments the same as 287(g) reimbursement?

No. SCAAP is a separate DOJ correctional assistance program. Neither a state SCAAP award nor a separate detention contract automatically establishes a 287(g) payment to Doddridge County.

Sources and qualifications appear in the agreement, arrest, payment and agency sections above.

Update log and future checks

October 4, 2026 — First edition. Added the dated ICE roster, signed-agreement analysis, agency distinctions, enforcement and payment evidence status, May 5 ICE Fund order and county-record review, source library and oversight framework. Research ends on October 4; later developments are not implied.

Future editions should check the latest roster against the signed MOA, record any amendment or termination, verify officer authorization dates, reconcile federal remittances with local accounts, add documented enforcement outcomes, and examine new court orders or audits. Each change should identify the source, event date and review date. There is no fixed agency renewal date established by the reviewed MOA.

This is a dated reference, not a promise of automatic monitoring. Corrections can be submitted through WorthFighting’s corrections page.

Related local and immigration coverage

• WorthFighting immigration coverage
• Cumberland County, Tennessee: what its ICE 287(g) roster shows
• West Virginia local coverage
• Local government reporting across the United States

A West Virginia county comparison is a useful next reporting project. It would need the same distinction between roster participation, operational activity and verified payments; this edition remains focused on Doddridge.