Mens rea refers to to guilty state of mind necessary for most crimes – in addition to the guilty act, you must generally intend either the specific result or have a generally negligent intent.
Beyond that, I can’t answer, because we’d have to look at the specific crime with which the sheriff was charged and the facts surrounding it.
There is a blatant falsehood in the 5th paragraph of that screed that causes one too wonder if the blogger in question really understands how government or law enforcement works:
Where I live, and, I think in many states the Attorney General is an elected official and is considered the highest LEO at the state level. Among other things, the AG is in charge of the state police. And, just as federal law trumps state laws, the state trumps county and local authority.
This old and mistaken meme about the sheriff having some kind of ultimate authority is, as has been pointed out, a mistaken interpretation of the posse comitatus act and I think it has been debunked at various times. If LEO’s are actually taught to believe this sort of thing, there needs to be some serious reworking of the POST academy training.
Even more so, since it’s the opposite case to the state/fed relationship – the county and municipality have no sovereignty of their own, their authority is vested in them by the state.
Again, I think this varies by state. The State is sovereign, but it is possible that the county is created and derives it’s powers from the state constitution.
What’s less clear is what happens when federal officials act outside Congress’ power - or when federal officials are alleged to be acting outside the scope of their congressional authorization.
There is a fascinating discussion of the issue in this law review article, which discusses Idaho v. Horiuchi (the state prosecution of the US Marshal who shot and killed Randy Weaver’s wife during the “Ruby Ridge” standoff, and shot and wounded Weaver’s friend, the crime he was on trial for):
We never found out what the answer was because Idaho dropped its prosecution.
The normal state of affairs is that counties established by charter may exercise some of the state’s powers as sovereign, while non-charter counties cannot. I am not aware of any state where the state cannot withdraw any devolved powers, though (perhaps Louisiana).
NO! A COUNTY is a “Subdivision” of the state itself, therefore is governed by it’s respective Constitution and or State law, and no such authority exists for a Sheriff, anywhere.
In Ohio I have heard only the Coroner can arrest the Sheriff. I am assuming only for a warrantless arrest, but not for a felony committed in presence? Need more research there!
As an example, in Ohio, the Ohio Highway Patrol has “traffic” jurisdiction statewide, by law, therefore a Sheriff can not banish them from his County. Although their criminal law jurisdiction is limited, their traffic authority is not.
As another comparative example, for Double Jeopardy purposes, a city and County/state law is the “same sovereign”, although territorial in nature, all powerful does not apply.
The law review article was great, RNATB - thanks! (I can’t really watch videos, thanks to my terrible internet connection, so I can’t comment on the Rachel Maddow piece commasense. I’ll look for a transcript.)
I discussed this issue again with the aforementioned LEO who had heard this myth from a “trustworthy” source, and the misunderstanding seems to be one of those cases where a fact is garbled and embellished, the farther it travels from the source.
I think that one of the reasons for the durability of the rumour is that Sheriff Mack, referred to up-thread, actually won a case in the Supreme Court on a related point.
As part of the transition provisions in the Brady Gun Control Bill, the federal law directed sheriffs to conduct background checks. This was just an interim measure, until a federal background check system could be put into place.
Mack and another Sheriff, Printz, challenged the provisions in the courts, and won. Justice Scalia for the majority gave three different rationales as to why the provision was unconsistutional: first, that Congress could not directly impose those sorts of duties on state officials; second, that doing so infringed the powers of the President to oversee the administration of federal law; third, that it violated the principle that the federal government cannot coerce the states to carry out federal policy.
None of those three factors have anything to do with the powers of a sheriff, and note that in this case, Mack and Printz didn’t “draw a line in the sand” and say “no” to the feds, based on their inherent super-sheriff powers. Rather, they did what many others who are dissatisfied with a government action have done in the past: they went to federal court and sought judicial review.
However, I wouldn’t be surpised if Mack and Printz point to their major victory (and it certainly was a victory for state powers), as support in a hand-waving sort of way for the special powers and immunities of sheriffs.
As a counter-example to the urban legend:
If it were even remotely true Sheriff “Fightin’” Joe Arpaio would have long since driven any Federal, State and local LEOs out of Maricopa County.
Oh boy. You can’t fix stupid! Well, at least they will be acquitted if the local police bring them to a courtroom with a gold-fringed flag…
That website is not a legitimate professional organization for law enforcement officials. While sheriffs and peace officers have the same right to free association as anybody else, their association with that group might actually undermine their apparent fitness for office.