I wanna be a Sheriff!
 

May Be Time to Get to Know Your Sheriff: the power of localism



by Jackie Payne

County sheriffs in Wyoming have scored a big one for the 10th Amendment and states rights. The sheriffs slapped federal intrusion upside the head and are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activities in a Wyoming county with the Sheriff's Office. Deja vu for those who remember big Richard Mack in Arizona.

Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following the recent U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval. "If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave or retain them in custody."

The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriffs' Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, "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." Go back and re-read that quote. The court confirms and asserts, "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." And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried -- not in Wyoming, not yet.

But it gets even better. Since the judge states the sheriff"has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official," the Wyoming sheriffs are flexing their muscles. They are demanding access to all BATF files. Why? So as to verify the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibits the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. See, that would be wrong. The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due process in state courts.

Gosh, it kinda makes you wish the sheriffs of whatever counties have Waco, Texas, and Oklahoma City in their jurisdictions were drinking the same water these Wyoming sheriffs are...

Sheriff Mattis said, "I am reacting to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards. I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law. Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law." Amen.

However, the sad reality is that sheriffs are elected, and that means they are required to be both law enforcement managers and politicians. Unfortunately, Wyoming sheriffs are the exception rather than the rule ... but they shouldn't be. Sheriffs have enormous power, if or when they choose to use it. I share the hope of Sheriff Mattis that "more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens. ..."

If Wyoming Sheriffs can follow in the steps of former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and both recognize their power and authority, they could become champions for the memory of Thomas Jefferson who died "thinking" he had won those states' rights debates with Alexander Hamilton.

This case is not some amusing mountain melodrama. This is a BIG deal. It is yet further evidence that the 10th Amendment is not yet totally dead,
atrophied, or in complete decay in the United States. It is also significant in that it can/may, and hopefully will be interpreted to mean that "political subdivisions of a State are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which the Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government and specifically prohibited to the States."

http://sianews.com/modules.php?name=...ticle&sid=2911

Maybe we can get a real cowboy movie about Wyoming now.

Great article NDD.

Great article. Why don't you and TS run for Sheriff of two contiguous counties along our Southern border? :munchin

What the article fails to mention is that there is only 16 people that live in WY and they're all related to the Sheriff (including the judge).

Might work well for a "little" state like WY but not a good idea for the real "populated" states. The local Sheriff here is not a Sheriff but a full time politician.

One last thing.... you know how the feds will respond, "Have fun taking care of those "highways", no more federal funds for maintenance......

Bighorn County, Wyoming: population 11, 461 - SAAAAALUTE! :)

Great news. States Rights live!

If he were in Chicago or New Orleans, I would vote for the Sheriff, several times.

TR

I just got a REAL ugly, Mental picture in my head.

NDD as a Hee-Haw honey.......:eek:




I think I just threw up a little in my mouth. :D

Well back in the day, when the first Richard Daly was mayor, "vote early and vote often" seemed to be the unofficial motto... ;)

REBUTTAL
 

In my not so humble opinion: This is more an issue of egos than state's rights. Sheriff Mattis and his ilk, I predict, will not be joined by the majority of the National Sheriff's Association. Wyoming is unique in that they have a very sparse population which obviously equates to a very low crime index. (SEE Uniform Crime Report on FBI website.)

Pure hyperbole. The feds operate under the same constitution as state law enforcement. In fact you will find that the Federal Courts apply the exclusionary rule more stringently than states. Unfortunately most Case Law originates from local jurisidction's rights violations, not from Federal law enforcement.

Most State County and local law enforcement work hand in hand with Federal law enforcement agencies. They are interdependent. Most jurisidictions clambor for MORE federal assistance. WHY? Because the feds have resources and funds that supplement local law enforcement's efforts. Task Forces, dealing with drugs, gangs, and organized crime, across this nation, are manned with Feds and locals, with the lion's share of the funding coming from the FEDS!

Most law enforcement agencies would not be staffed at their current levels if it were not for past and present Federal Grants. Most agencies would not have the manpower to deal with gangs, drugs, and organized crime without Federal funding and Federal manpower. Reality is that most law enforcement agencies rely heavily on Federal law enforcement and the funding that is part and parcel of that relationship. Me thinks that Sheriff Mattis does not require any of the aforementioned assistance as Sheriff Mattis' community does not have those concerns. (See population 11,000).

I have dealt with these small town Sheriffs and the old axiom, you get what you pay for applies. An even older axiom might apply here as well; "Me thinks thou dost protest too loudly."

Keep it up Sheriff, we will take the few meager Federal officers working in your state in Colorado!

One final opinion: It is doubtful that the Wyoming Police Chiefs in Cheyenne and Laramie (most populous) are willing participants.........they cannot afford to be. They actually have crime they have to deal with in their jurisdictions.

:munchin

Well actually they should have filmed it in Vermont if we are going to put Sherrifs in the starring roles. We have one female sherrif down south of us that thinks she has so much power that she diverted about 60K of tax funds to use to keep her female live in partner happy.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the FBI had to seek approval from some Sheriff's from the deep south during the 60's to investigate lynchings and other civil rights abuses. Yikes.

Yeah, or the mafia in Jersey.:rolleyes:

The real issue is that the Feds have a deservedly bad rep for jumping in late on a case, crapping on the locals, taking credit if it is successfully concluded, and leaving the state or locals holding the bag if it goes bad.

TR

They may think they work hand in hand, but it is the agenda of the Feds that take priority every time. I'm sure you have had many incidents wherein arrests weren't made, warrants weren't signed, obvious targets were ignored and investigations were shifted at meetings where the locals were not invited.

It s the classic double date analogy - you want to date the beautyful girl (funding) but she'll only go if her 6'5 280lb sister can come with you (the Feds). Problem was you just could not get Federal assistance (funding) without the Feds.The fix just may be the independant funding from local CT Task Forces & Homeland Security Grants that come only with a department documentation caveat.

That being said, I agree and will even go further to say that I know of no police department or federal agency wherein politics does not make up 60% (or better) of the God Damn business day. There may be some argument as to whether the small hometown department is worse than the huge metro, but its still all wasted time and complete loss of focus.

The thing that really pisses me off is when a keeper of the funding (or "clerk of record") injects personnel who have no knowlege base of the task force initiative - hence the dreaded 4 year investigation with its 2 indictments for misdemeanor crimes (if prosecuted at all) and a plethora of media coverage

Do you think the FBI had a major positive impact on the civil rights movement?

Going from memory, I worked for a SO and currently a Volunteer for one. The SO is unique in that they do have special authority. When I was in AZ only a Sheriff could arrest the Governor..(hope memory is correct). The SO is also a arm of the court. A duputy serving papers for the court has more power than a regular LEO. Screwing with that Deputy is basically screwing with the Judge. I think most states give special powers to SO, that is one reason why it is a elected position and NOT appointed.

Sadly the FBI under Hoover had problems.

Also didn't the Wyoming and Montana's challenge the Mandatory firearms check required by the Fed on the basis of involuntary servatude?