There’s a very durable rumor floating around, even within law enforcement communities, that sheriffs in the US are all-powerful within their own jurisdictions, even to the point that a duly elected county sheriff can expel federal law or state law enforcement from that jurisdiction. This strikes me as absolutely, obviously false. (After all, how would that work if - as I’ve seen happen - the FBI is investigating a corrupt sheriff? If the sheriff can deny the Feds the right to investigate within his county, wouldn’t he go ahead and just do that to cover up his little peccadillos?)
Personally, I think that this theory originates with a conflation of the legitimate Posse Comitatus Act and the totally bogus theories of the Posse Comitatus organization. But that’s not the question.
The question is:
Is there any legitimate reason to believe that sheriffs have such broad powers within their counties?
If you can help me explain why this is or isn’t true, I’d appreciate it!
The power of Sheriffs greatly varies from state to state. And even county to county in some instances. In my county the highest law enforcement official is the county prosecutor not the sheriff.
The FBI’s jurisdiction is very specific to federal laws. If anyone, including a sheriff, interferes with a legitimate federal investigations they will be charged with federal obstruction of justice. Being a sheriff does not give you immunity.
I suspect the source of the rumour is the recent attempt in Montana to require FBI agents to get permission from local sheriffs before arresting anyone. But:
the bill was vetoed by the Governor and
Pretty much every legal commentator agrees if it ever does pass, the FBI will ignore it and the Courts will back them, since there’s a pretty strong precedent for Federal agents trumping local laws when pursuing their mandates.
The extent to which it’s not true depends highly on the state in question, since every state’s laws will differ. Sheriffs may be constitutional officers vested with certain powers in one state, and creatures of statute in another state. But no state can legally empower its sheriffs, or anyone else, to “…expel federal law . . .enforcement from that jurisdiction.”
This is because the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides:
This means that when Congress passes a law within their enumerated powers and federal authorities seek to enforce that law, that law trumps any state law to the contrary.
In turn, this statement raises other areas for fruitful debate: what happens when Congress passes a law that is not within their enumerated powers?
The answer is that this is a finding for the courts to make. A law that’s passed by Congress and signed by the President enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality. A sheriff is not entitled to decide, on his own, that a law is unconstitutional.
Exactly. The general “reasoning” I’ve heard behind this legend is that “the county sheriff is [often] the only law enforcement office specifically enumerated in the state’s constitution, so no one can tell him what to do!” And the first part of that is certainly true in Georgia, but that doesn’t automatically allow a sheriff to prevent state or federal agencies from conducting legitimate investigations within those boundaries.
I suppose I’m looking for a quick (and non-abrasive) way to shoot down this belief. I tried using the example above - that the feds certainly have the right to investigate a corrupt sheriff - but was told “well obviously, that’s different!” I guess I should have pointed out that a county sheriff doesn’t have the right to evict the Federal Protective Service from a federal courthouse, even if it’s located in the sheriff’s county. He can’t kick the Customs and Border Patrol out, even if the airport or port or border is within the county, right? Or maybe you just can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into…
Interesting. If a sheriff expelled a Federal law enforcement official under the honest but mistaken belief that the authority by which the Federal law enforcement official was operating in his (the sheriff’s) jurisdiction was unconstitutional and therefore void, what would happen? Sure, he’s probably civilly (i.e. lawsuit) liable for tortuous assault and/or unjust imprisonment, but would he necessarily be guilty of a crime? What about the mens rea?
Despite movies where Sheriff’s tell various undesirables to “get out of town”, I don’t think Sheriff’s have any actual power to expel people from their jurisdictions. FBI or otherwise.
I have not heard such a rumor, nor could I understand how such a rumor might begin. Anyone who has ever watched an old country western would know that the Federal Marshall trumps the local sheriff (even if the power struggle between the two is the plot line).
However, sheriffs are known for corruption. My state, Connecticut, abolished the elected county sheriffs in favor of appointed state marshals mostly due to persistent corruption. Abuse of power might mislead people to thinking sheriff’s lawfully possessed such authority.
He would be quickly arrested before he successfully expelled any federal agents.
Here’s a five-year-old opinion on the matter, but there are thousands of similar posts lurking around the internet. I started researching because I’ve heard a couple of deputies make this statement. One of the people who informed me of the sheriff’s super powers is an idiot, but the other is a very conscientious LEO who “knew” this because he’d heard it from more than one peer that he trusted to be well-informed. :eek:
It’s not really a rumor it’s one of the basic beliefs of sovereign citizens. To them the sheriff is the only recognized law enforcement official. Not only does that mean they don’t recognize the authority of the Feds, they also believe that local police have no legal authority to pull you over or arrest. Obviously they have not found a lot of support for that belief.
So when Cliven Bundy started saying he would only deal with the county sheriff it was a clear indication of where he was coming from.
"The county sheriff is the line in the sand. The county sheriff is the one who can say to the feds, “Beyond these bounds you shall not pass.” This is not only within the scope of the sheriff’s authority; it’s the sheriff’s sworn duty. " Quoted from the About page of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Police Officers website. This group is purportedly made up of “hundreds” of current sheriffs, deputies, and other peace officers in the United States.
“The greatest threat we face today is not terrorists; it is our federal government… One of the best and easiest solutions is to depend on local officials, especially the sheriff, to stand against federal intervention and federal criminality.”: Richard Mack, former Graham Co. AZ sheriff and member of The Oath Keepers, which also is made up of LEOs and military members. Their Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey is… interesting.
So apparently, this belief is not unheard-of in law enforcement circles.
I believe that, in most states, that’s a misreading of the statute. Generally speaking, the coroner may arrest a sheriff, but I suspect that’s because the arrest doesn’t automatically strip the sheriff of his office. It would take a brave deputy to make that DUI arrest on Saturday night, and a stupid one to expect that he’d still have a paycheck the following Friday. The coroner is generally fairly immune to immediate retaliation like that, so it makes sense to provide some legal insulation for the deputy. (Coroners often take over the sheriff’s role until a new appointment or election in the case of an arrest, though.)
Really, I think that practically anyone can arrest a sheriff - federal, state, or local - but the coroner rule is to avoid retaliation. I could be wrong, though.
Okay, so…
When one of these sovereign citizen subscribers sees the lights flashing in his rear-view mirror, he just keeps on blazing down the road – until the cruiser pulls along-side and he can see the Sherriff’s Deputy markings on the side of the door?
“#u[k you d@m^ copper! :mad: I got no use for — Oh…what seems to be the problem, deputy?”:smack:
Since you can use a citizen’s arrest on a deputy, I assume the same applies to sheriffs. It does require the humorous repition of the phrase “citizen’s arrest” to effect it, so maybe it’s not done often.
In our state, each county has an elected official known as the high bailiff. This office has virtually no duties, and people often run for it on a lark. However, the office does have one and only one function: the high bailiff is the only official with the authority to serve an arrest warrant on the sheriff. In our state this duty is not often required.
About ten years ago a county sheriff was arrested by the state police following an extensive investigation for corruption (a rarity in our state). The Staties had to bring the high bailiff with them when they made the arrest to make it legal.
Of course, federal officials would not have this limitation; they can arrest the sheriff on their own due to the superseding jurisdiction.
I’m not saying that your interpretation can’t be correct, but the defining statutes say that the high bailiff may make that arrest, not that he must.
§ 331. Oath; bond
Before entering upon the duties of his office, a high bailiff shall be sworn and give a bond such as may be required by the assistant judges. The cost of such bond shall be paid by the county.
§ 332. Powers and duties
A high bailiff may serve writs which the sheriff is incompetent to serve, and his fees shall be the same as those of the sheriff.
§ 333. Confinement of sheriff; vacancy
A high bailiff by virtue of a writ or other process directed to him against the sheriff may commit the sheriff to the commissioner of corrections. While the sheriff remains in confinement, or in case of vacancy in the office, the functions of the sheriff shall be exercised by the high bailiff, who shall have the powers and be subject to the liabilities of a sheriff until the sheriff is released from confinement or one is appointed and sworn into office. (1971, No. 199 (Adj. Sess.), § 17, eff. July 1, 1972.)
Also, a little more Googling shows that, in at least one state, there are at least a couple of brave and/or stupid deputies who arrested their own (now-former) sheriff: Saline County Arkansas.
Is the high bailiff allowed to take on a more traditional LEO role if he so chooses? E.g. can he check out a sidearm and squad car and go around writing tickets, or is that not allowed? Is this theoretically allowed, but practically impossible due to bureaucratic procedures?