Get Active Subscribe Support Us

DEPUTIES DEBATE AUTHORITY

Imagine you've just been robbed at gunpoint.

As your attacker takes off down the Pottsville streets, a county sheriff's deputy rounds the corner.  Struggling to catch your breath, you call for the deputy to arrest the man, but, as willing as he may be, a recent court decision has handcuffed his legal powers.

"It's absurd what the ( Pennsylvania ) Supreme Court has done," Schuylkill County Sheriff Harold Rowan said Tuesday.  "They decided we did not have the authority ( to arrest )."

Two state Supreme Court rulings, the most notable in November 2007, have eroded sheriff departments' powers.  However, House Bill 466, proposed by state Rep.  Craig Dally, R-Northampton, would restore deputies' power, but Pennsylvania State Police officials and others argue deputies don't have the needed training to deal with criminal situations.

Convict will walk

In Bradford County, a convicted methamphetamine dealer will probably go free because of the court's November 2007 decision in The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v.  Cory Dobbins.

In the case, the court decided sheriffs and deputies do not have the same arrest powers as local police - despite being armed with a magisterial district judge's search warrant.

The dealer, Cory Dobbins, is awaiting release because all evidence seized by the deputies has been suppressed by the court.

"Frankly, he'll be out cooking meth, trying to manufacture meth.  Who's getting screwed here?" said Jim Hazen, executive director of the Pennsylvania Sheriff's Association.

The court's decision means a deputy can only make an arrest if he actually sees the offense or if he has a warrant from a county president judge, leaving deputies in a precarious position.

In 2003, Bradford County deputies visited the home of April Harris, whose name had come up in connection with a meth investigation.  While Harris wasn't home, the deputies smelled meth in a nearby barn on the property.  The deputies approached Dobbins, who was near the barn, detained him and later secured a search warrant from the magisterial district judge.

The evidence of a meth lab inside the barn was enough to convict Dobbins in the Bradford County Court of Common Pleas.

The state Supreme Court, which received the case through appeal, decided the deputies had acted illegally, arguing they are not trained as local police and do not have the same authority.

In a situation where a citizen is in harm's way, Rowan said deputies will act.

"I guarantee you he ( the deputy ) will go after him," he said.  "But, the case could be blown.  Now we have to hold this guy until the local police file a report."

Pottsville Police Chief Joseph Murton V said the appropriate action would be just that: Detain the alleged criminal until police arrive.

Murton said Pottsville police have always had a positive working relationship with the county sheriff's department and restoring arrest powers to deputies would be "an asset."

Lawmakers get involved

At a Feb.  21 hearing, the state House of Representatives Judiciary Committee heard concerns from all parties on deputies and their powers.

Lt.  Colonel Frank E.  Pawlowski, deputy commissioner of operations for the state police, testified against restoring sheriff's department power.

"Unfortunately, this legislation ( House Bill 466 ) gives sheriffs additional police powers without truly recognizing the total needs of the criminal justice community, which relies upon the services sheriffs provide to the courts, the prisons, and the public as a whole," Pawlowski said.

Pawlowski also said it is imperative deputies can still fulfill their duties inside the courthouse before returning pre-November 2007 arrest powers.

Dennis Kane, head of the county sheriff's criminal division, said the court's decision "ties the hands" of deputies and puts even more pressure on local police departments.

"It's absurd to think we have the resources and we're hampered by the court," Kane said.

The 2006 Supreme Court ruling didn't affect deputies' arrest powers, but did start the ball rolling.

In Kopko v.  Miller, the first case attacking deputies' powers, the Supreme Court ruled sheriff's deputies couldn't be trained to conduct wiretapping operations, inferring they did not have full police powers.

Hazen said he understood the case as dealing only with wiretaps.

"We weren't happy with the decision but we could live with it," Hazen said.

Deputies' main foes in their fight for arrest powers are Pennsylvania State Police officials in Harrisburg, according to Hazen.

"Frankly, they somehow perceive the sheriffs as a threat," he said.

"My opinion is people are afraid of ( police ) regionalization," Kane said, adding some fear the establishment of a sheriff's department that acts more as a county-wide police force.

Rowan stressed the sheriff's department does not want to expand its powers in any way, only to have them restored to pre-Dobbins levels.

State Reps.  David Argall, R-124; Neal Goodman, D-123; and Tim Seip, D-125, said they support the bill and plan to vote "yes" when it hits the Legislature floor.

"We need to return their ( sheriffs and deputies ) abilities to what they were pre-Supreme Court ruling," Goodman said, adding he expects Bill 466 to pass "overwhelmingly."

Training debated

Opponents of the bill argue deputies aren't properly trained to handle criminal police matters.

While Murton said he would welcome the return of deputies arrest powers, more training could be necessary.

"I'd like to see them ( deputies ) have some additional training, such as rules of criminal procedure," Murton said.

Richard Sheetz, executive deputy attorney general, also testified against deputy powers, echoing Pawlowski's testimony that police and deputies should be kept separate - in large part because of different training requirements.

According to information provided by the Pennsylvania Sheriff's Association, municipal police undergo 754 hours of training under Act 120.

Deputies go through 760 hours of training, under Pennsylvania's Act 2.

"There's a big contrast," Murton said.  "There are vast differences.  They're similar, but geared for different modes."

Deputies, for example, have no training for a motor-vehicle collision.  Municipal police have no court system training.

"The core curriculum, I would argue, is the same or very similar," Hazen said.  "The training argument doesn't hold water."

During the House hearing, Pawlowski disagreed.  Training, he said, should be essentially identical.

"If sheriffs are given the same powers and duties as municipal police officers, it is imperative that they be subject to the same requirements as municipal police officers," Pawlowski testified.  "Consequently, If deputy sheriffs are going to serve as police officers, they need to be certified as police officers."

In a time when many argue more police are needed to patrol the streets, Rowan said restoring arrest powers is a valuable step.

"Twenty-five hundred ( deputies statewide ) ready to go," Rowan said.

Until the bill passes, Rowan said the threat of harm is elevated.

"It's dangerous to us and it's dangerous to the citizenry," Rowan said.

There is one exception to the court's decision.

The Allegheny County Sheriff's Department has full police powers because of a 1994 law.

No other Pennsylvania sheriff's department has the same power.

"All sheriffs should have been included in that," Hazen said.  "They ( Allegheny deputies ) have full powers like any cop does."

Schuylkill County Sheriff's Deputies Info Box:

Sheriff: Harold J.  Rowan

Major: Dennis Kane

Captain: David Snyder

Sergeants: John Hayes, Maureen Barnes, Barbara Szczyglak, Scott Taylor

Deputies: Jennifer Rainis, Christopher Rooney, Keith Berezwick, Shawn Chaplick, Charles Dries

Clerk: Charlanne Frantz

Salaries: Average $30,000, higher depending on rank

Duties: Handling protection from abuse orders, warrants, subpoenas, courtroom security, transportation of prisoners, secuirty personnel, central booking and dealing with civil papers

U.S.  Rep.  Tim Holden, D-17, and county commissioner Francis V.  McAndrew both former Schuylkill County Sheriff.

Source: Sheriff Rowan

INFO BOX: Supreme Court Case

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs.  Cory Dobbins

Decided: Nov.  20, 2007

Originally decided in Bradford County Court of Common Pleas

Appealed to Pennsylvania Superior Court and later Supreme Court

Majority decided "the acts of these deputies 'illegal'...and orders suppression."

Written opinion - summary of case by Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Max Baer

"Bradford County Sheriff's Deputies Christopher Burgert and David Hart visited a residence in Troy, Pennsylvania, to locate and question one April Harris, whose name had come up in connection with a prior methamphetamine-centered investigation in Bradford County.  The deputies did not find Harris at her mobile home, but as they moved deeper into the property they detected what they believed to be an odor of ether, a chemical deputies knew to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, emanating from a nearby barn.  The deputies observed a man nearby on the property.  They approached the man, whom Deputy Hart recognized as Appellant Cory Dobbins, and identified themselves as sheriff's deputies.

Based on their observations and the information provided by Officer McKee,

deputies sought and obtained a search warrant from a district magistrate.  They then returned to the property with one or more additional deputies and executed the warrant.

Inside the barn, deputies recovered methamphetamine and substantial evidence of methamphetamine manufacture."

Supreme Court decides the Bradford County deputies do not have full police powers to execute the search and arrest Dobbins.