Dillan Horton, a two-time Davis City Council candidate and current chair of the city’s Police Accountability Commission, sat down for a wide-ranging conversation on the intersection of policing, immigration policy, and public safety in Davis.
Drawing on his years of civic engagement and oversight work, Horton offered an assessment of the city’s evolving law enforcement practices, the challenges of addressing homelessness, and the delicate balance between public trust and institutional power.
In a recent interview with the Vanguard, Horton outlined some of the key concerns shaping the commission’s work, particularly the relationship between local law enforcement and federal immigration agencies, the use of police officers in homelessness response, and the challenges of transitioning toward non-carceral public safety models.
Horton highlighted the impact of sanctuary policies on policing practices. With the recent change in Davis’s police chief, Horton and the commission have sought to understand how the department interprets California’s sanctuary laws, which prohibit state and local agencies from using resources for federal immigration enforcement.
According to Horton, the new chief reaffirmed that Davis Police Department (DPD) maintains a policy of limited cooperation with federal law enforcement, including ICE. While these policies are sometimes caricatured as ideological statements by “liberal cities,” Horton pointed out their practical law enforcement roots.
“The slightly less sunnier truth is that in most of these communities, this was pushed by police,” he said. “They were like, look, no one’s going to talk to us if they think we are a direct line to ICE.”
The rationale is straightforward: public trust in law enforcement is undermined when community members fear deportation for contacting the police.
“No one is going to go to court and testify in court against someone who abused them if they think that showing up might get them picked up,” Horton explained. Such insights reflect a broader understanding within the commission that sanctuary policies are not just moral imperatives—they are foundational to effective policing.
A contentious issue in Davis this month is the City Council’s proposal to assign another beat officer to focus on homelessness—a move Horton views skeptically.
“We all know enough that throwing more cops at a public safety problem is not a sustainable way of addressing it,” he said, particularly when it comes to unhoused populations.
Horton acknowledged the valid concerns of residents who feel unsafe or unsure when encountering people in crisis. However, he emphasized that armed police officers are not mental health professionals or social workers—and shouldn’t be expected to perform those roles.
Using law enforcement to address homelessness, Horton argued, is like “using a hammer to unscrew something when we have a screwdriver available to us.” He pointed to the city’s existing Department of Social Services and Housing as a more appropriate resource for responding to the complex challenges of homelessness and mental health.
Horton also reflected on the CONDER model, which pairs a social worker with a police officer for crisis intervention. Initially opposed to it on ideological grounds, Horton admitted that experience—and input from mental health professionals—shifted his view.
“I’ve talked to more people about it, particularly people who are involved in rendering these kinds of services,” Horton said. “It just wasn’t going to work any other kind of way.” In practice, police officers stay in the background, only intervening if there is a clear safety risk. While Horton hopes that one day Davis will be able to deploy mental health professionals without police accompaniment, he now sees the model as a necessary transitional step.
“I know we can’t just snap our fingers and not have prisons or police tomorrow,” he said. “But models like this allow us to move toward a future where public safety doesn’t require an armed response.”
Beyond immigration and homelessness, the commission is focused on core issues of police oversight. Horton said the group is preparing to meet again with the police chief and internal affairs leadership to discuss officer training—both before officers are sworn in and throughout their careers.
This comes on the heels of a recent audit by the city’s independent police auditor, which scrutinized hiring practices.
The timing was notable, as it coincided with a Vanguard investigation revealing that the city had hired an officer previously involved in a controversial use-of-force incident at the Golden One Center in Sacramento. For Horton and his colleagues, the incident underscored the urgent need for greater transparency and accountability in hiring and internal review.
A self-described prison abolitionist, Horton is acutely aware of the gap between long-term ideals and present-day realities. “Much of the current prison system does not need to exist and is not helpful in the way that it exists,” he said. “But I also know we can’t just let everybody go and say, ‘Good luck.’ That’s not going to work.”
The challenge, he argues, is not to abandon aspiration, but to accept incrementalism as a path forward—so long as it moves us closer to justice. “Things like the CONDER model may not be where we want to end up,” he said, “but they can be stepping stones to something better.”
As Horton prepares for upcoming commission meetings—where the department’s internal training and immigration policies will be further scrutinized—he remains committed to ensuring that Davis moves in a direction that prioritizes care, dignity, and community well-being over punishment.
“I do understand that if there is a large amount of concern, the government has to react in some way,” he said. “But the reaction has to be thoughtful. It has to be effective. And most importantly, it has to be rooted in the needs of the people it serves—not just in what feels expedient.”
“Horton acknowledged the valid concerns of residents who feel unsafe or unsure when encountering people in crisis.”
Acknowledged!!! Unlike SOME people.
That’s why I like Dillan. I often don’t agree with him, but he doesn’t gaslight those with other views.
“A self-described prison abolitionist, Horton is acutely aware of the gap between long-term ideals and present-day realities.”
I respect the goal even if I think it’s idealistic as *$%&. And I respect the way Dillan thinks stuff out. But what about people who are a danger to others, specific others. I will keep this vague to respect privacy, but I have a friend who had a person close to them murder another person close to them in front of them and their family. They and their family would be at direct risk of death were the murderer ever released, and even if the person didn’t kill them they would be living in terror the rest of their lives. How does the decarceration ideal help with safety of the victims in a case like this? I’m asking Dillan.
Most abolitionists do not favor immediate release of everyone. I didn’t quote it, but Dillan and I basically agreed that abolition is aspirational. And that the first step is to greatly reduce the footprint in prisons by releasing the people who reasonably are not a public safety risk and going from there.
So abolitionists favor eventual release of everyone? This seems like the same thinking as people who want to abolish nuclear weapons. In the case for example of my friend, how would they be safe?
First of all, I would say, ask two abolitionists and you get three answers to that question.
Second, I don’t believe you should eventually release *everyone* but I do think that eventually most people can be safely released.
That’s dependent on effective programming, aging out of crime, etc.
To use the extreme example, I would not have favored ever releasing Charles Manson, but I don’t see why people like Sirhan Sirhan pose any kind of threat at this point in time. I favor those decisions on an individual rather than a mass basis.