Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Afternoon roundup
Next Post: *** UPDATED x5 - Raoul, Welch, Harmon, Pritzker respond - TRO granted *** How is this not a conflict of interest?
Posted in:
* Tribune editorial…
Sheriffs in dozens of counties — by some counts, as many as 80 counties — have declared they will not enforce the new assault weapons ban. It doesn’t matter that Gov. J.B. Pritzker has signed the measure into law — they don’t agree with the ban and apparently have no compunction about ignoring it. […]
To Sheriffs Booker, Mendrick, Boewe and every other sheriff hopping on the “Don’t Tread on Me” bandwagon: You don’t get to choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore. You and every other sheriff, police chief, officer and prosecutor took an oath to uphold the law. And violating that oath carries consequences.
The Tribsters are wrong here. The required oath…
“I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of …. to the best of my ability.”
State statute applies that same oath to sheriffs.
* And while the US Supreme Court has ruled more than once that police have no constitutional obligation to protect people, there is a general obligation in state law for sheriffs…
Each sheriff shall be conservator of the peace in his or her county, and shall prevent crime and maintain the safety and order of the citizens of that county
* One section of the statute requires sheriffs to enforce traffic and highway safety laws…
Sec. 3-6035. Supervisor of Safety. The office of Supervisor of Safety is hereby created for each county to be held by the Sheriff of the county.
Sec. 3-6036. Powers and duties of Supervisor of Safety. The Supervisor of Safety shall enforce all the laws of this State and, within the municipalities in his county, the ordinances of such municipalities relating to the regulation of motor vehicle traffic and the promotion of safety on public highways.
* There’s also this…
Sec. 3-6001. Commission. Every sheriff shall be commissioned by the Governor; but no commission shall issue except upon the certificate of the county clerk of the proper county, of the due election or appointment of such sheriff, and that he or she has filed his or her bond and taken the oath of office, as hereinafter provided.
* The Question: Do you support any state law changes that would limit county sheriffs’ powers to defy state laws and executive orders? Explain.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 1:57 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Afternoon roundup
Next Post: *** UPDATED x5 - Raoul, Welch, Harmon, Pritzker respond - TRO granted *** How is this not a conflict of interest?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Absolutely! There seems to be a growing trend of ignoring subpoenas and laws, etc. that needs to stopped. When I began in law enforcement in 1981 any officer who put out a press release stating he/she would not enforce a certain law would soon be out of a job. What are these officials teaching our kids by their actions?
Comment by Former Merit Comp Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:03 pm
I haven’t read the official misconduct statute and cases in a while. It’s an interesting question whether a sheriff’s violation of an express duty provided by statute could lead to a prosecution. A law creating an express duty might put that in play.
Comment by Keyrock Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:10 pm
I would support a law that puts some accountability on these white collar warlords who pick and choose which laws they’ll enforce. That’s overstepping.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:11 pm
There’s some discretion that any elected official has otherwise we’d have sheriffs writing non-stop jay walking tickets. I’m okay with them not pursuing investigations of cases, but when presented with clear evidence of a violation, they should be required to act.
Comment by ArchPundit Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:19 pm
Yes and at the same time we should prohibit States Attorneys from refusing to prosecute any statutory crimes. Elected officials have no right to choose the laws they will abide by
Comment by Sue Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:20 pm
===Do you support any state law changes===
For me, with no pun intended, it comes down to the enforcement aspect of any wanted or desired changes.
So, I would set up a 5 person “board” chaired by the Director of the Illinois State Police and the 4 other seats appointed by the 4 caucuses that once a credible (like “hey, I’m not enforcing this” in a press release) instance of not following state law as a policy is brought, the panel can decide on what can or should be done to in the alleged dereliction, and what is appropriate action by the powers given to such board.
If legislators make laws, the executive enforces the law, this is, for me, the only way oversight or enforcement can be achieved?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:21 pm
I would support a law that requires a sheriff or state’s attorney to resign or be removed from office if they do not enforce state laws.
We’re in a period of elected officials refusing to obey the law (”Those classified documents are MINE”), and when one politician gets away with it, others try.
Why so much blowback on the assault weapons ban? Because large numbers of voters oppose it. I don’t recall this much opposition to legalizing marijuana or slot machines.
Let’s be truthful. Nobody needs a military-style rifle to defend their home, for target practice, or for hunting.
Sheriffs’ opposition to this ban is about votes, not because they deeply believe a private citizen has a right to own an assault weapon.
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:26 pm
Kinda. Meaning, I think such language would be problematic. I would urge some study of the idea of removing immunity for law enforcement officials who have become aware of a complaint about an illegal act and failed to investigate and take enforcement action.
Money is the world motivating factor. Let the sheriffs use their own money to pay damages resulting from their political perfidy.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:31 pm
I think the idea to have leg leaders appoint a panel might not survive constitutional challenge on separation of powers grounds. But more to the point, there are already laws to remove a sheriff if they aren’t performing their duties. This will all get sorted out when federal courts get done reviewing and voters decide sheriff’s future next time they are up for election.
Comment by PRND Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:31 pm
No. Illinois is not a banana republic. No matter how much you love the current billionaire in charge it’s a bad idea to turn more power over to the office. We have three branches of government. Two have weighed in. Still one to go.
Comment by Fred Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:32 pm
===Illinois is not a banana republic.===
Friend, county sheriffs deciding which laws should or should not be followed by claiming “unconstitutional” is all but exactly.. a banana republic kind of thinking.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:35 pm
Yes. The oath needs to be refined to make it clear interpreting the constitutionality of laws duly passed is not part of the job.
Comment by Original Rambler Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:43 pm
Its always irked me that sheriffs feel that they are like the military and don’t have to follow unlawful orders. Thinking arrogantly that they are “the law”.
I absolutely am in favor of laws to remove Sheriffs who will not follow the laws of our state.
Its hubris unrestrained.
And its cowardice
They don’t want to follow and enforce the law when it might make them unpopular. They’re obviously afraid of their own residents.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:49 pm
A smart sheriff would have said that they would not enforce till litigation is finished.
I would have the State Police enforce the law. Do people who fail to register lose their FOID card?
I don’t think new laws are needed yet. Ask again when the court fights are over.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:00 pm
No. The concept of officer discretion should be respected. The brisket fisted “LE better do what I want or else” from JB is not working.
Comment by 10-95? Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:14 pm
It would depend entirely on how it was written. Law enforcement, whether it be State’s Attorneys, police, sheriffs, have always exercised discretion in charging and prosecution.
It’s different, I think, if they announce “we will never” charge/prosecute a particular offense.
What I think would fly would be legislation allowing the ISP to investigate and the State Appellate Prosecutor or AG’s office to prosecute when local law enforcement says “we’ll never” do it.
It would have to be very carefully drafted, though.
Comment by JoanP Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:16 pm
To me, the enforcement of duly enacted State law is obviously among the “duties of the office [of sheriff]” but apparently this isn’t clear to quite a number of folks. I agree with OW that allowing law enforcement to decide for itself which laws to apply to whom, when and where law enforcement chooses, is the very essence of a “banana republic”. And the more I learn about the arrogance of some county and local law enforcement officials in Illinois, the more I think that’s just what large part of the state are.
So yes, State law and possibly the oath of office should be amended to include an express statement of the duty to enforce duly enacted State laws. And perhaps a well chosen law suit could result in a firm rebuke by the State’s courts to the arrogance of the presumption that law enforcement is somehow empowered to interpret the constitutions they’ve sworn to defend (no matter how well they think they can read/s).
Comment by Flapdoodle Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:17 pm
What about for other laws? What if a local sheriff did not want to enforce drug laws aggressively? It sounds like such a law would prevent this action too.
There was always going to be a challenge to the assault weapons legislation. I would say wait until that resolves itself, then start thinking about ways to enforce the legislation better.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:18 pm
==Do people who fail to register lose their FOID card?==
How do you know who has failed to register? Unless another crime is being committed with a firearm, how would anyone know what’s in private ownership? Having a FOID means you CAN own firearms, not that you do.
That’s just one of many flaws with this law. There’s no way to enforce the ownership side of it short of searches of homes, persons, or vehicles. Purchase records aren’t going to be turned over to ISP (those are federal property, able to be subpoenaed in the event of a crime, but not a blanket request, as I understand it).
Unless it becomes an case like Texas put in place (on a different hot-button issue) where you have neighbors calling in complaints on their neighbors, there’s no way to know who owns what.
Comment by Mike Sorensen Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:18 pm
=== did not want to enforce drug laws aggressively===
Point of order: There’s a real difference between not enforcing something aggressively and announcing in writing that you refuse to enforce a law at all under any circumstances.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:20 pm
Opposed. States pass unconstitutional (sometimes blatantly) laws and if we require our law enforcement officers to enforce those unconstitutional laws, that would not be a good thing. If they are using this discretionary power unreasonably, the voters can vote them out. However, it would be good to add a State removal process (e.g. the Governor since locals may like someone not following the law) should a sheriff refuse to enforce a law that has been upheld as constitutional by the courts or have a bad habit of constantly refusing to enforce the laws.
Comment by Simply Sayin' Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:25 pm
===unconstitutional===
Your opinion to the unconstitutionality isn’t a thought to passed legislation that has yet to face scrutiny to its constitutionality, and further, any law passed unless otherwise *ruled on* by a court is deemed constitutional.
Your premise is flawed
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:27 pm
I support cutting off all state funding and local tax reimbursements to counties whose sheriffs refuse to enforce state laws and executive orders.
Comment by Stuck in Celliniland Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:29 pm
Officer discretion? That’s a big part of most of a problems today. A smart sheriff? A smart Sheriff would do his job, which is enforcing the law. I use to give them the benefit of the doubt. But, after all of the letters…. I apparently gave them way to much credit. These “Barney Fife” types, just need to enforce the laws that are on the books. They don’t have the capacity or jurisdiction to interpret the constitutionality of a law. They just need to keep their bullet in their front pocket and enforce the law.
Comment by Paris 2 Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:33 pm
If you say you dont support the sheriff’s for not upholding their oath then what happens if the law is ultimately ruled unconstitutional.
Will you hold JB and other politicians who supported the unconstitutional act accountable for not supporting the constitution? I will go out on a limb and say now you probably won’t because most people can’t remove thier bias.
Comment by The Dude Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:36 pm
A Sheriff in Illinois is nothing more than a politician in a cop costume. There it is.
Comment by Consider This Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:37 pm
Yes, if only because sheriffs are in the law enforcement business. How do they lock others up in jail when they themselves refuse to obey the law? What kind of example is that to the people the right and Republicans scream at to obey police orders and the law, and base their election campaigns on, the urban poor?
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:38 pm
===If you say you dont support the sheriff’s for not upholding their oath then what happens if the law is ultimately ruled unconstitutional.===
Your question is flawed, because even in your posing it you acknowledge that the law is constitutional… until it’s not.
“…if the law is ultimately ruled unconstitutional.”
Process won the day. Until process, it’s a law
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:40 pm
===Will you hold JB and other politicians who supported the unconstitutional act accountable for not supporting the constitution? I will go out on a limb and say now you probably won’t because most people can’t remove thier bias.===
They would be held accountable
The law failed to be constitutional, so from that point on the idea of making a difference is lost.
The voters will decide the accountability.
Again, process… and democracy
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:44 pm
No. The laws we have covering this seem to be adequate.
Comment by Furtive Look Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:58 pm
No, I don’t think the law should be changed. Other than it ought to be crystal clear (and I think it is) that if a law enforcement officer fails to act and that failure results in death (say a illegal weapons dealer is selling in Effingham county with the implied permission of the Sheriff and that gun is used in a school shooting in Evanston) then both the Sheriff and the county are on the hook for liability. I would also, because this is a choose, make it something not covered by insurance.
Comment by cermak_rda Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 4:11 pm
==If you say you dont support the sheriff’s for not upholding their oath then what happens if the law is ultimately ruled unconstitutional.==
Perhaps I shouldn’t be, but I am stunned by the lack of understanding demonstrated in comments here and elsewhere of the most basic elements of politico-legal structures and processes in this republic. There’s much that is amiss with them, yes; but they nonetheless establish the parameters for politico-legal debate and action. How in the world anyone with a basic grasp of our political system and its principles can believe, for example, that a sheriff or other executive officer of this state or country is empowered to determine what is or is not constitutional is simply beyond me. It happens on both the right and the left, and it opens the gates to demagoguery and chaos.
Everyone have a nice weekend.
Comment by Flapddole Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 4:12 pm
No, because I don’t see my Sheriff, or even some of the others, violating their oath and duties. You had to parse his statement,but here the Sheriff said he would enforce valid court orders, etc. He also said he wasn’t going to actively go looking for violators, which again is ok because the bill tasks the ISP with that duty (enforcement). That Sheriff is walking a fine line, but he hasn’t unequivocally said he won’t enforce the law.
I will concede some of the other statements by various Sheriff’s went further …
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 4:16 pm
Nobody likes officer discretion until they get pulled over or someone they care about gets into a police matter…go figure
People should think through the “enforce every law every time” narrative.
Comment by 10-23 Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 4:17 pm
===People should think through the “enforce every law every time” narrative. ===
Again, that’s not the question.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 4:19 pm