Cops always have discretion in enforcing the law, which is usually a good thing.
Otherwise you end up with people dead over trying to sell a loose cigarette.
Blanket statements that they wont enforce a law are kind of stupid though.
It’s a political move by a politician, not a law enforcement decision.
You realize the sheriffs have a really bad rap right, about harassing groups of people they don’t think belong even when federal and state laws tell them otherwise so yeah… not going to back this idea up. I’ve seen that abused in the past, heavily.
I’m jus making a facial statement about how it works.
I’ve got an idea of how they work. There is a sheriff’s department a few miles from my house; they often patrol the rivers, when they have money, several of the highways, state patrol is on the freeway and not the highways, and they cover the areas that are outside city limits, unincorporated areas.
Their structure can vary a little by state, and the fact people vote for them does not change their ability to harass… these are rural areas in the northwest, areas notorious for harassing.
Yeah, i know. I’ve dealt with my share of douchebag local cops. A buddy of mine was constantly harassed by this one local cop when we were kids.
But at the same time, I’m just saying, they aren’t obligated to be good cops.
Well I am not asking them to be good at their jobs, but at the very least they shouldn’t be able to just ignore state law, like go out of their and say they won’t enforce it. If they say something like that, the state should be able to go after them.
If they said they won’t let those niggers vote even if the state says I have to are you going to just shrug and say I sure hope he gets voted out. At some point, you should be able to do more than hope the locals care.
And no, that’s not a hypothetical… this shit actually happened. This is the same group behind these problems decades ago.
For decades, many police ignored states’ laws making sodomy illegal. They could’ve raided gay bars and hookup joints, but many police departments didn’t.
Are we saying that’s a bad thing?
But that’s not really how it works.
They can choose on their own how to enforce those laws, just as state and local police are not obligated to enforce federal statutes.
The state has its own police force, so they can always choose to enforce those laws themselves.
We have laws on the books right now in a local city, Phoenix, that says black men aren’t allowed to walk there after-dark. I am not giving the police any credit, not a single cent, for not enforcing that law. They damn well know it won’t hold in court. It’s also not a state law.
It probably won’t hold up in court, so go ahead and conduct constant arrests and issues fines for every trivial law broken? Jaywalking? Speeding? Mandatory tickets for every single speeder?
I get your frustration, but you seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this.
Sheriffs have a history, a known history of being the enforcers of racism in the rural areas of this country. There is no freaking way you’re going to convince me to trust rural sheriffs over the state. In order to do that, you, me and everyone else would have to pretend that history didn’t happen.
I’m not trying to convince you of that, but okay. You win.
Arrest everyone. No exceptions…
The law doesn’t tell them to go arrest farmers, but then again, they’re not really interested in the law.
Restricts possession of semiautomatic assault rifles by adults at least 18 but not yet 21 to home, place of business, or property under their control except when exemptions in other sections apply (e.g. outdoor activities, competitions, etc).
Where in there does it tell them to go arrest 20 year old farmers on tractors.
Federal Marijuana laws and immigration laws. These are recent examples of laws that locals have chosen not to enforce that are perfectly constitutional, had they chose to enforce them. Telefrog’s examples of sodomy laws, in the past, are similar.
Be very careful with a position that says that local law enforcement must enforce all laws on the books, period.
Look at our prison system and tell me they’re not enforcing these laws. What they’re doing is enforcing it at their discretion, not going after their people. Maybe if they actually went after people in a uniform way it wouldn’t be so badly biased and people would have insisted they changed sooner.
We have records, actual proof, these laws were designed to go after specific populations and where were the cops saying no then… nope, this is just more proof that when you get discretion like that, they just pick and choose what they like and who they like.
Look at our incarceration rates, and tell me they’re not enforcing laws.
I dunno, but I don’t think this is true. This is from the Washington State AG’s web site, commenting on the duties of county Sheriffs.
In accordance with this constitutional mandate, the legislature has prescribed the general duties of the sheriff in RCW 36.28.010, which reads as follows:
"The sheriff is the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace of the county. In the execution of his office, he and his deputies:
"(1) Shall arrest and commit to prison all persons who break the peace, or attempt to break it, and all persons guilty of public offenses;
"(2) Shall defend the county against those who, by riot or otherwise, endanger the public peace or safety;
"(3) Shall execute the process and orders of the courts of justice or judicial officers, when delivered for that purpose, according to law;
"(4) Shall execute all warrants delivered for that purpose by other public officers, according to the provisions of particular statutes;
"(5) Shall attend the sessions of the courts of record held within the county, and obey their lawful orders or directions;
"(6) Shall make complaint of all violations of the criminal law which shall come to their knowledge within their jurisdiction;
"(7)May call to their aid such persons or power of their county as they deem necessary to keep and preserve the peace of the county and quiet and suppress all affrays, riots, unlawful assemblies, and insurrections, and to apprehend or secure any person for felony or breach of the peace.
From the end of that letter by the AG:
We conclude, therefore, that the sheriff, as the chief law enforcement officer in the county, with jurisdiction coextensive with the county, including municipalities and townships, has the authority to investigate upon his own initiative all felony cases which occur within cities of the third class and towns of the fourth class in his county.
Note that part about “his own initiative”.
I see what you’re saying regarding those parts about he “shall execute …” , and I would read it the same way, but the later part about his own initiative, in the conclusion, suggests that the sheriff can kind of do whatever he wants.
Also, I believe this is held up by quite a lot of court precedent at this point, that absolves any law enforcement officer from any responsibility when it comes to actually enforcing the law, as silly as that seems.
Yes, but there they’re answering a different question: Does the sheriff have the authority to carry out these duties within municipal boundaries, i.e. in places where there is arguably another law enforcement organization with jurisdiction in that area. This argues that the sheriff can do so at his own discretion, which is to say without being invited to do so by city officials.
The sheriff is the police outside of municipal boundaries and is free to act as the police within them. I don’t think that is consistent with the idea that the sheriff has no legal obligations to uphold state law.
Edit: And I understand law enforcement discretion, but I will never under any circumstances enforce this law isn’t descretion, it is dereliction of duty.
But there’s plenty of legal precedent, going all the way to the SCOTUS, that police have no actual responsibility to uphold the law.
As an example:
We saw similar things in Broward, with cops not being held responsible during that school shooting.
Ultimately, folks working for the government have very little legal obligation to do the jobs they are tasked with doing, and this seems to apply to cops more than most. If they do a bad job, the primary recourse for the population is to vote them out of office.
I’m not arguing against that, though the miscommunication is probably mine.
When I read this:
I mean, they aren’t state troopers. They are local law enforcement. I don’t think they are actually legally obligated to enforce state laws, right?
I see you saying it’s not their job to enforce state laws, and that is clearly a false statement, because the state says that is their job.
Whereas when you say they can’t be forced to do their job, that may well be true, but it’s not the same thing as saying it isn’t their job.