Do people hate us?

[junkyarddog]

The Prosecutor or the District Attorney is the chief law enforcement officer, not the Sheriff. I have worked in city, county and state law enforcement. I have NEVER heard that the Sheriff is in charge of all LE functions and that all other agencies must operate under the auspices of the Sheriff’s Office.

You are way out there...

Way to come to a conclusion without even THINKING about what you are saying, much less making any attempt to argue specific points. You are characterizing me without reason or substance for the characterization.

If you seriously want to have this debate, we can look at what the US Constitution has to say about Federal Police powers, and what State Constitutions have to say about the powers of the sheriff. That should settle it, unless you somehow think that there is some higher authority on the issue than the State and/or Federal Constitutions.

The only thing more disturbing than a general populace being misinformed about agencies exercising lethal force on behalf of the government, are the members of those agencies themselves, being misinformed about their own authority.

For now, here are some documented examples of what I am talking about:



Examples:

1. U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J):

"Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official......the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official."


2. Montana State Legislature, HB 284 :

NEW SECTION. Section 2. County sheriff's permission for federal arrests, searches, and seizures -- exceptions. (1) A federal employee who is not designated by Montana law as a Montana peace officer may not make an arrest, search, or seizure in this state without the written permission of the sheriff or designee of the sheriff of the county in which the arrest, search, or seizure will occur unless:

(a) the arrest, search, or seizure will take place on a federal enclave for which jurisdiction has been actively ceded to the United States of America by a Montana statute;

(b) the federal employee witnesses the commission of a crime the nature of which requires an immediate arrest;

(c) the arrest, search, or seizure is under the provisions of 46-6-411 or 46-6-412;

(d) the intended subject of the arrest, search, or seizure is an employee of the sheriff's office or is an elected county or state officer; or

(e) the federal employee has probable cause to believe that the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure has close connections with the sheriff, which connections are likely to result in the subject being informed of the impending arrest, search, or seizure.

(2) The county sheriff or designee of the sheriff may refuse permission for any reason that the sheriff or designee considers sufficient.

(3) A federal employee who desires to exercise an exception under subsection (1)(d) shall obtain the written permission of the Montana attorney general for the arrest, search, or seizure unless the resulting delay in obtaining the permission would probably cause serious harm to one or more individuals or to a community or would probably allow time for flight of the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure in order to avoid prosecution. The attorney general may refuse the permission for any reason that the attorney general considers sufficient.

(4) A federal employee who desires to exercise an exception under subsection (1)(e) shall obtain the written permission of the Montana attorney general. The request for permission must include a written statement, under oath, describing the federal employee's probable cause. The attorney general may refuse the request for any reason that the attorney general considers sufficient.

(5) (a) A permission request to the county sheriff or Montana attorney general must contain:

(i) the name of the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure;

(ii) a clear statement of probable cause for the arrest, search, or seizure or a federal arrest, search, or seizure warrant that contains a clear statement of probable cause;

(iii) a description of the specific things to be searched for or seized;

(iv) a statement of the date and time that the arrest, search, or seizure is to occur; and

(v) the address or location where the intended arrest, search, or seizure will be attempted.

(b) The request may be in letter form, either typed or handwritten, but must be countersigned with the original signature of the county sheriff or designee of the sheriff or by the Montana attorney general to constitute valid permission. The permission is valid for 48 hours after it is signed. The sheriff or attorney general shall keep a copy of the permission request on file.

[Tennsix]

More disturbing, are pompous know-it-alls. I have no desire to debate you. I don’t live in Montana or Wyoming.

[Black Caesar]

Oh My God Cocknaces. You can't really mean to tell me that your opinion is based on a 2 year old Internet Hoax? OMG bring out the tinfoil hats because oft he evil mind reading Gubment heat rays......

Wyoming Sheriff Hoax revealed....

Montana HB(HOUSE BILL)284 was introduced by a nimrod independent/libertarian Montana state rep (Ray Hawk) who who believed the outrageously dumb "Castaneda v. USA" hoax story that made it onto the Free Republic website (great journalism there). Go to Montana House of Representivies website and you will find that "HB284" never made it out of committee, like most proposed bills in most legislatures in the country (from congress on down).

Look at the bill notes, it was defeated because everyone including the author of the bill conceded that it was unconstitutional and based off the Casteneda lie.

The Constitution (in the SUPREMACY CLAUSE) states plainly that Federal Law is superior, no state could inact a law curtailing the actions of federal law enforcement officers with regards to enforcing federal law in this country.

You've just really got to be kidding me with all this.
---------------

Now about the Sheriff's, Typically, an elected Sheriff is the "chief law enforcement officer" in a county, an a part of the EXECUTIVE branch of state government. Know what that means in most places? Why the same as being King of the United Kingdom, ie it's a near powerless FIGUREHEAD position lol.

States/District Attorney's in many states are part of the Judicial Branch (as officers of the court) so the DA can't claim to be a "law enforcement official" in the same capacity as a Sheriff. All of which is moot because DAs and LE have to work together to get the job done.

In my state being Sheriff means:

-The sheriff is responsible for everyone in a jail in the county, even city jails (and excluding federal prisons). In practice, this means that the Sheriff's office performs an inquest if someone dies in custody while at a city jail, even though she (Sheriff Valdez) doesn't run that jail.

-The Sheriff may call up to a company of "Militia" (State military forces, ie Army National Guard and/or Texas State Guard forces) to quell uprisings. This power is moot because in the modern era of telephones, it would be the Governor making such decisions.

Wikipedia has a good articles on sheriffs here. and it would be a good idea for people to educate themselves about things before talking about them.

This thread took a weird turn for some reason......

[Tennsix]

In my state, the Sheriff and the Prosecutor are elected law enforcement officials and officers (and their deputies) of the court. On a side note, the Coroner is the only person that can arrest the Sheriff. The Coroner is also empowered to replace the Sheriff until a replacement is appointed. The state Fire Marshal's office is also a law enforcement agency.

[OccamsRazor]

In my state, the Sheriff and the Prosecutor are elected law enforcement officials and officers (and their deputies) of the court. On a side note, the Coroner is the only person that can arrest the Sheriff. The Coroner is also empowered to replace the Sheriff until a replacement is appointed. The state Fire Marshal's office is also a law enforcement agency.

In my old state of California, the sheriff was also the coroner, and us deputies were 'deputy coroners'.

[junkyarddog]

Oh My God Cocknaces. You can't really mean to tell me that your opinion is based on a 2 year old Internet Hoax? OMG bring out the tinfoil hats because oft he evil mind reading Gubment heat rays......

Wyoming Sheriff Hoax revealed....

Montana HB(HOUSE BILL)284 was introduced by a nimrod independent/libertarian Montana state rep (Ray Hawk) who who believed the outrageously dumb "Castaneda v. USA" hoax story that made it onto the Free Republic website (great journalism there). Go to Montana House of Representivies website and you will find that "HB284" never made it out of committee, like most proposed bills in most legislatures in the country (from congress on down).

Look at the bill notes, it was defeated because everyone including the author of the bill conceded that it was unconstitutional and based off the Casteneda lie.

The Constitution (in the SUPREMACY CLAUSE) states plainly that Federal Law is superior, no state could inact a law curtailing the actions of federal law enforcement officers with regards to enforcing federal law in this country.

You've just really got to be kidding me with all this.
---------------

Now about the Sheriff's, Typically, an elected Sheriff is the "chief law enforcement officer" in a county, an a part of the EXECUTIVE branch of state government. Know what that means in most places? Why the same as being King of the United Kingdom, ie it's a near powerless FIGUREHEAD position lol.

States/District Attorney's in many states are part of the Judicial Branch (as officers of the court) so the DA can't claim to be a "law enforcement official" in the same capacity as a Sheriff. All of which is moot because DAs and LE have to work together to get the job done.

In my state being Sheriff means:

-The sheriff is responsible for everyone in a jail in the county, even city jails (and excluding federal prisons). In practice, this means that the Sheriff's office performs an inquest if someone dies in custody while at a city jail, even though she (Sheriff Valdez) doesn't run that jail.

-The Sheriff may call up to a company of "Militia" (State military forces, ie Army National Guard and/or Texas State Guard forces) to quell uprisings. This power is moot because in the modern era of telephones, it would be the Governor making such decisions.

Wikipedia has a good articles on sheriffs here. and it would be a good idea for people to educate themselves about things before talking about them.

This thread took a weird turn for some reason......

Ya I got all caught up in the spirit of what I was saying and went off on a half-informed tangent. I still want to argue from the idea that a free society is more likely to stay free if police powers are decentralized, and the primary LEO authorities are as local as possible.

Blew the argument though by getting all dramatic and going off half-cocked. Half cocked or cocking aces, thats where the nick name comes from.

edit: just for the sake of it:

Nowhere in the constitution is mentioned police powers. It is not even mentioned in the supremacy clause.

Being that the constitution says nothing about police powers, we MUST defer to the tenth amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So then we have to go to the various State Constitutions. As far as states passing laws limiting federal law enforcement
from enforcing the law within a State, this is entirely valid. Valid because the constitution says nothing about police powers (who should enforce the law) but it does say that powers not delegated by the constitution belong to the states or the people. So the constitution is pretty much telling the states that they have to decide as individual states who will enforce all laws, including federal law.

[SecTrainer]

Being that the constitution says nothing about police powers, we MUST defer to the tenth amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So then we have to go to the various State Constitutions. As far as states passing laws limiting federal law enforcement
from enforcing the law within a State, this is entirely valid. Valid because the constitution says nothing about police powers (who should enforce the law) but it does say that powers not delegated by the constitution belong to the states or the people. So the constitution is pretty much telling the states that they have to decide as individual states who will enforce all laws, including federal law.

Federal laws are enforceable without deference to state wishes either because they fall within authority explicitly granted to the federal government or because they do not violate the 10th Amendment provisions. In other words, the federal government's legitimate interest and authority to pass (and thereby to enforce) the law in question is established.

The 10th Amendment seems to give broad powers to the states (you will even find silly legal analysis to this effect), but in fact it has been interpreted quite narrowly, while the specific powers granted to Congress by the Federal constitution have been interpreted very broadly. The result is that the Federal constitution, taken as a whole instead of just looking at the 10th Amendment, gives very broad powers to the federal government, and only RESIDUAL powers to the states. For instance, the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce is explicit, and forms the basis for a huge number of federal criminal laws, some of which have a rather questionable nexus to "regulating interstate commerce".

Once a federal law has been passed, until it is overturned on constitutional grounds such as no Congressional authority, the states do NOT have the authority to pick and choose whether the law will be enforced or who will enforce it. When an officer of any jurisdiction that I know of is sworn, he swears to defend or uphold the constitution and the laws of the local jurisdiction, of the state, and of the United States.

It is only necessary to consider civil rights laws to understand this. As you can imagine, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (I believe) was passed, there were still numerous states, most notably in the south, that would have preferred otherwise - and even had constitutional or legal "barriers" to the CRA, but they HAD NO CHOICE about whether the CRA would or would not be enforced. The Federal constitution TRUMPS state constitutions, and state constitutions MAY NOT be in violation of the Federal constitution. Some officials in the southern states thought they did have a choice (see reference to the Civil War below), and they went to prison for "deciding" that the federal law would not prevail in their jurisdictions.

The federal system does not work when individual states believe that they can "pick and choose" which, or how, federal laws will or will not be enforced. Had this not been so, the CRA would have effectively served merely to split the states - and I think I remember we fought one war - I think it was called the Civil War - over that little point. Back in the 1800-somethings, I think. You must have heard about it...it was in all the papers. The specific question in the Civil War was the question of slavery, but the constitutional principle involved was the question of States Rights. Well, the "States Rights Above Federal Rights" folks lost that war, and they lost the argument that some still try to make today. I sometimes wonder why some state/local officials are not in prison, and it certainly isn't because they could or should not be prosecuted for their defiance of federal law.

Another area that demonstrates the relative power of the Federal government vis-a-vis the states is the draft during the Vietnam war. There were local jurisdictions and a few states that "took a stand" against the draft - even passing laws against it. Guess what?

In some cases, for instance OSHA regulations and more recently HIPPA privacy provisions, the states are ALLOWED to have parallel laws of their own...but these laws usually must be as restrictive OR more restrictive than federal law, or else federal law prevails. For instance, several states have their own occupational safety agencies and regulations...but these CANNOT be less strict than OSHA regulations.

The question of what the federal government "can do" and what the states "can do" is obviously enormously complex, and unless any of us is a legal expert in this area we probably will only wind up shedding more heat than light on this topic.

[Mr. Security]

Sheriff/Deputies

I thought they were responsible for "catching chicken thieves and what not."

Quote: Andy Griffith Show

[junkyarddog]

Thanks for the thought-out response.

Federal laws are enforceable without deference to state wishes either because they fall within authority explicitly granted to the federal government or because they do not violate the 10th Amendment provisions. In other words, the federal government's legitimate interest and authority to pass (and thereby to enforce) the law in question is established.

The 10th Amendment seems to give broad powers to the states (you will even find silly legal analysis to this effect), but in fact it has been interpreted quite narrowly, while the specific powers granted to Congress by the Federal constitution have been interpreted very broadly.

Ok, but lets not paint the issue as "marginal". It is still a topic of serious and widespread debate. In other words, the case is still open as it were. Our attitudes as voting citizens in a free society has a major impact on issues such as this. The main reason why I am a passionate advocate of states rights is to influence the attitude of other voting citizens.

The result is that the Federal constitution, taken as a whole instead of just looking at the 10th Amendment, gives very broad powers to the federal government, and only RESIDUAL powers to the states.

We are speaking of police powers specifically. The constitution is very specific about what congress may legislate and what it may not. It is also very specific in saying that if congress/the federal govt. is not given a specific power by the constitution than that power belongs to the states. The constitution gives congress/the federal govt. no police powers. Therefore, that power clearly belongs to the state.

For instance, the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce is explicit, and forms the basis for a huge number of federal criminal laws, some of which have a rather questionable nexus to "regulating interstate commerce".

The interstate commerce is severely abused. But the voting public doesn't seem to generally care, so it goes without much challenge. Here is a good
resource from FindLaw detailing the history and scope of interstate commerce as congressional police powers:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/31.html#9

Once a federal law has been passed, until it is overturned on constitutional grounds such as no Congressional authority, the states do NOT have the authority to pick and choose whether the law will be enforced or who will enforce it.

I want to see the documentation that says states do not have the right to determine who will enforce federal laws.

The federal system does not work when individual states believe that they can "pick and choose" which, or how, federal laws will or will not be enforced. Had this not been so, the CRA would have effectively served merely to split the states - and I think I remember we fought one war - I think it was called the Civil War - over that little point. Back in the 1800-somethings, I think. You must have heard about it...it was in all the papers. The specific question in the Civil War was the question of slavery, but the constitutional principle involved was the question of States Rights. Well, the "States Rights Above Federal Rights" folks lost that war, and they lost the argument that some still try to make today. I sometimes wonder why some state/local officials are not in prison, and it certainly isn't because they could or should not be prosecuted for their defiance of federal law.

Slavery was only one of the reasons the civil war was fought. The war has its roots in the north forcing southern states to buy northern goods by placing high tariffs on foreign imports.

States Rights is still a major issue, a legitimate issue. It has been a cornerstone political philosophy since the origin of the Nation.

Infact, Supreme Court rulings on the issues have swayed back and forth since the founding of the country, even up to recently. Here is the Supreme Courts own page on the issue:
US Supreme Courts Page on the Constitutionality of Federal Police Powers

The question of what the federal government "can do" and what the states "can do" is obviously enormously complex, and unless any of us is a legal expert in this area we probably will only wind up shedding more heat than light on this topic.

Heat is a good thing. Each of us has a civic duty to be as informed and passionate as possible about the nature of our government. This kind of debate is an excellent thing. We do not live in a totalitarian society (do we?), therefore the nature and function of every level of government depends on a balance between the consensus of a free people, and the nature and needs of the individual American.