Get Active Subscribe Support Us

COURT RULINGS HURT LAW ENFORCEMENT

To the Editor:

I am writing to offer my apology to your readers for my comment in the article "Deputies debate authority" that appeared in your newspaper on March 2.  My choice of language was not appropriate and it lacked professionalism.

The quote is accurate and I am not disputing it.  However, as a rationalization I become very passionate when discussing the issue of the restoration of the powers and duties of the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs of our state.

As an individual who has spent almost 40 years in law enforcement, it is unbelievable to me that the criminal investigation and arrest authority of these individuals is called into question as a result of two recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions that, in essence, stated that the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs need to have statutory approval to carry out the duties that they have performed since before our country and state were founded.

Of greater concern and disbelief to me are that other law enforcement agencies and associations oppose the restoration of those powers and duties while the sheriffs attempt to have the Legislature remedy the situation.

Today, there are concerns and demands for more law enforcement officers to protect our citizens and communities.  However, the 2,300 trained and state-certified deputy sheriffs cannot perform basic criminal law enforcement functions, unless the deputy witnesses the offense and then only if it is a felony or a breach of the peace.

There have been adverse impacts resulting from the two recent Supreme Court decisions.

With the first of the opinions, the attorney general of Pennsylvania was compelled to remove 72 deputy sheriffs from his drug task forces in the various parts of our state.  In the more recent decision, a known and convicted manufacturer of methamphetamine was released from state prison because the deputy sheriffs did not have statutory authority to investigate and arrest the individual, even after obtaining a search warrant and subsequent arrest warrant from a magisterial district judge, hearings at the county court level, a conviction in county court after the evidence was presented and a hearing before the Superior Court, where the conviction was upheld.

In both of these cases, the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs were acting in good faith under the long-held theory of the common law that allowed the sheriffs and their deputies to perform criminal law enforcement duties.  That concept has been in effect before the time that Pennsylvania was founded.

The sheriffs of Pennsylvania are not attempting to expand their historic powers, but they are attempting to have them restored.  They are not trying to form county police departments; the sheriffs are working with the Legislature to have the criminal law enforcement powers and duties reinstated in statute.

The sheriffs, and their trained and state-certified deputy sheriffs, are concerned with protecting the people of their counties and assisting to maintain public safety.

Again, I regret my comment in the article and I apologize to you and your readers.  I admit that I said it to your reporter, Ben Wolfgang, and his quotation was accurate.

Jim Hazen,

Executive Director,

Pennsylvania Sheriffs' Association