FLORENCE — Brad Miller refuses to stay in his legal lane.

Or at least that’s the gist of a legal opinion the Pinal County Board of Supervisors received this morning during its weekly meeting.

After a 30-minute closed-door discussion, attorneys from Snell & Wilmer told the board there was no legal basis for the Pinal County Attorney signing a federal immigration enforcement agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“Based on a review of the Arizona Revised Statutes, relevant cases and applicable federal law, we conclude that only Pinal County, acting through the board, has the legal authority to enter into a 287(g) agreement. Simply put, the PCAO is not a ‘political subdivision’ that can bind the county under 287(g), is not a law enforcement agency and has no legal authority to simultaneously enforce and prosecute the law,” a letter from the attorneys read.

Miller did not attend the meeting, though two of his deputy attorneys were present.

The legal analysis went on to describe the agreement as “an illegal, ultra vires act,” citing four state statutes: the county attorney’s limited powers (11-532), overstepping the county sheriff’s enforcement authority (11-441), lacking authority to enter federal contracts (11-952) and overstepping the board’s financial powers (11-251).

That conclusion ultimately means the agreement is void. Had Miller’s office moved forward, it would have exposed the county to “potential legal and financial ramifications,” including possible involvement from the state attorney general for “illegal payments of county funds” and “potential disciplinary action by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board.”

The issue stems from an Aug. 28 Memorandum of Agreement signed by Miller’s office. The board, however, was not notified of the agreement until more than three months later, on Dec. 11.

When challenged, Miller wrote in an email, “[if] the board, or you as chairman, assume that this office lacks the authority to execute this agreement, then provide a written explanation detailing the basis for that assumption.”

He requested specific state statutes and added that “until such justification is provided, the 287(g) agreement will remain in effect.”

It was “never valid,” said Supervisor Rich Vitiello (R-Maricopa).

“We never signed it, so it was never valid,” he told InMaricopa. “He had to come to us. It’s pretty short and simple. I don’t know his reasoning for not coming to us, but that’s his decision.”

The only department authorized to enter a 287(g) agreement is the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office, which Sheriff Ross Teeple said has had such an agreement in place since at least 2008.

After the decision — and following updates to PCSO’s contract — roughly a dozen constituents from Queen Creek, Florence, San Tan Valley, Casa Grande and other communities spoke out against the agreement, holding handmade signs during public comment.

Among them was San Tan Valley resident Holly Martinez, who spoke during a call to the public while holding an enlarged photo of her grandparents.

“I am formally stating my extreme disapproval of the 287 agreement… My grandfather didn’t fight in World War II so that my neighbors could be detained without warrants in hospital parking lots,” she said.

Martinez said she witnessed ICE officials detaining people while they were undergoing treatment at Banner Ironwood Medical Center in Queen Creek.

Vitiello said he has not heard similar complaints from constituents in his district.

“Granted, I may not be asking about it, but people are very opinionated. I don’t understand where it’s coming from, but it doesn’t mean it’s not happening,” he said.