The House Judiciary Committee conducted a public hearing on legislation providing law

[larrymeyer]

House Judiciary

HARRISBURG - (02/21/08, 10:00 a.m., Room G-50 Irvis Office Building)

The House Judiciary Committee conducted a public hearing on legislation providing law enforcement powers for sheriffs.


HB 466 Dally - (PN 528) Amends Title 42 (Judiciary) further providing for powers and duties of sheriffs and deputy sheriffs by stating that all sheriffs and deputy sheriffs who have successfully completed the same type of training as municipal police officers may exercise the same powers as municipal police officers to make arrests, without warrants, for all crimes and offenses. Also, the bill states that every sheriff and deputy sheriff would have the powers, duties, responsibilities and immunities conferred on municipal police officers generally and specifically under sections 8952 (relating to primary municipal police jurisdiction) and 8953 (relating to Statewide municipal police jurisdiction).

Committee members present included Chairman Thomas Caltagirone (D-Berks) and Representatives Tom Creighton (R-Lancaster), Craig Dally (R-Northampton), John Evans (R-Erie), Will Gabig (R-Cumberland), Glen Grell (R-Cumberland), Deberah Kula (D-Fayette), Beverly Mackereth (R-York), Carl Mantz (R-Berks), Bernie O'Neill (R-Bucks), Joseph Petrarca (D-Westmoreland), Tina Pickett (R-Bradford), Sean Ramaley (D-Beaver), Don Walko (D-Allegheny), Jewell Williams (D-Philadelphia), and John Pallone (D-Westmoreland). Rep. Curt Sonney (R-Erie) was also in attendance.

Rep. Dally, prime sponsor of the House Bill 466, provided committee members with an overview of the purpose of the legislation. He said the bill would give sheriffs and deputy sheriffs the power to investigate crime and make arrests. According to Rep. Dally, this is the same power given to municipal police officers. He pointed out the legislation requires sheriffs and deputy sheriffs to complete the same type of training as municipal police officers before they can exercise this power. Rep. Dally told the committee, "Let me make it clear what the bill will accomplish; it will make the sheriffs and their deputies full partners in the fight against crime, a fight they have traditionally been asked to fight." Rep. Dally then provided a brief history of the role of sheriffs and recent state court decisions on the authority of sheriffs and deputies. He cautioned, "If the General Assembly does not speak on this issue, the courts will speak for us". Rep. Dally concluded, "By enacting House Bill 466, the General Assembly not only expands the public policy we set for sheriffs under the Protection from Abuse Act and the Uniform Firearms Act, we can restore the sheriffs to their rightful place in law enforcement."

Robert Merski , Sheriff of Erie County and President of the Pennsylvania Sheriffs' Association, detailed the roots of why the powers and duties of sheriffs has become a "legislative concern." In 2006, he noted, the state Supreme Court ruled in Kopko v Miller that sheriffs "are not 'investigative or law enforcement officers'" under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping Act, which resulted in the Attorney General's office removing all 72 deputy sheriffs serving on state Drug Task Forces. A more recent case (Commonwealth v Dobbins) in which the Supreme Court suppressed evidence found with a search warrant executed by deputy sheriffs has further muddied the picture, he stated. Merski asserted that the facts illustrate the need for law enforcement authority for deputy sheriffs. He offered his support for HB 466, and cited poll data showing that Pennsylvanians consider sheriffs and deputy sheriffs to be full members of the law enforcement community. Beyond matters of law enforcement, Merski cautioned the Supreme Court rulings have given rise to questions of whether sheriffs or deputy sheriffs can respond to man-made or natural disasters.

Rep. Evans asked for anecdotal evidence of the adverse impact of the Kopko decision on the operations of the sheriff's office. Merski said that in 1999, they received a Federal block grant of $500,000 to provide four deputies to serve as school resource officers and the Kopko decision has hampered their ability to function in the schools when it came to investigating drugs in schools or the sales of firearms. He also said there was a very successful "weed and seed" program in the city of Erie in which 50% of the law enforcement officers were deputy sheriffs and it has hampered their ability under that program. Rep. Evans asked for more specific examples. Merski explained his office is responsible for security at the county courthouse. He said if a deputy sheriff gets information on a burglary at the courthouse, the deputy must have the Erie city police come in to make the arrest. Rep. Evans noted the bill has a may provision and does not mandate the counties to use this new authority. Merski responded that the bill is "very well written" and gives the local government the option and they are not forced to do it.

Rep. Gabig expressed concern that if the bill is enacted an individual will not know which county sheriffs have chosen to possess this authority and those who have not. Merski responded that the legislation will clear up the powers and duties of the sheriffs. He said all 67 will have the same powers and duties. He added how active each sheriff will be will depend on the needs of the communities within the county. Rep. Gabig then expressed concern with language in the bill which provides the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs "shall have and may exercise the same powers as municipal police officers" could cause confusion because of the use of "shall" and "may" in the same sentence. He added this language needs to be clarified.

Ray Gerringer, Sheriff of Montour County, stated, "the people of Pennsylvania expect law enforcement to work aggressively to rid our communities of illegal drugs and the people who sell them. Pennsylvania Sheriffs have been an integral part of this mission for many years." In light of the two state Supreme Court cases, Gerringer reported, the status of sheriffs and deputy sheriffs has been rendered unclear. He emphasized the critical need for HB 466, which he characterized as neither a Republican or Democratic issue, but a bipartisan one. "Simply put," he asserted, "It's about public safety."

Rep. Pickett observed that in the Kopko case, the judge was telling the General Assembly "to do what we are doing today", which is to consider legislation. Merski responded, "That is absolutely right." He added in the Dobbins case, the court said sheriffs need statutory authority.

William Andring, the committee's chief counsel, argued that the Kopko and Dobbins court decisions were "not a drastic change". He said sheriffs in Pennsylvania have not been considered law enforcement. According to Andring, the deputies involved in the Dobbins case should have gone to the proper law enforcement agency to get a warrant. Regarding the use of deputies in task forces, Andring said they can be deputized by the Attorney General or the district attorney. He asked if the Sheriffs' Association would support authorizing sheriffs to conduct investigations and make arrests under the authority of an existing police agency, the Attorney General or the district attorney. Merski responded that the association has not discussed that particular issue. He said under common law sheriffs could make arrests. Merski added, "We have 2,300 sheriffs and deputies similarly trained as the municipal police officers and it would be a shame not to utilize them."

Andring then expressed concern that there are no limitations on the police powers of the sheriffs or the deputy. He said they could get a search warrant against anybody. Andring pointed out there is civilian control of local law enforcement. He also noted sheriffs are not required to receive training and there are no civil service requirements for the hiring of their deputies. Merski responded that the majority of sheriffs have had training and experience. He noted the Attorney General and district attorneys are not required to have law enforcement training. Andring ask if the association would support having deputies fall under civil service. Merski said the association has not discussed that issue. According to Andring, the legislation does not have a local option and sheriffs would have police powers with counties having no authority to opt out and the commissioners would have no veto power. Merski responded the commissioners have control over the sheriff's budget. Andring argued the legislation does not allow the commissioners to have oversight.

Rep. Williams said he served as the chief of the criminal division in the sheriff's office in Philadelphia. He said the sheriff's office should play a major role in law enforcement. Rep. Williams told the committee members the legislation needs to be supported and the members should work together in getting it enacted.

Lt. Colonel Frank Pawlowski, Deputy Commissioner of Operations for the Pennsylvania State Police, testified that "this legislation gives sheriffs additional police powers without truly recognizing the total needs of the criminal justice community, which relies upon the services sheriffs provide to the courts, the prisons, and the public as a whole." He also said, "If the duties of sheriffs are to be increased, we must first make sure that their current duties can still be met with the same quality and dedication that exists today." Pawlowski argued that "there is simply no need to create another category of law enforcement officer with different training standards and overlapping jurisdiction." He noted there are already approximately 1,100 police departments operating independently in Pennsylvania. Pawlowski told committee members, "If sheriffs are given the same powers and duties as municipal police officers, it is imperative that they be subject to the same requirements as municipal police officers." He also said, "If deputy sheriffs are going to serve as police officers, they need to be certified as police officers."

Rep. Gabig asked if the court cases have limited the sheriffs and deputies in participation in various criminal task forces. Pawlowski said the courts have worked hard to define the sheriffs' authority but they have suggested the General Assembly has the statutory authority to define their powers and duties. Rep. Gabig noted the Attorney General has removed sheriffs' deputies from Drug Task Forces because of the courts' decisions and he wanted to know if the General Assembly should do anything. Pawlowski said the General Assembly needs to clarify some of the powers because there is some confusion. Rep. Gabig asked if the General Assembly gives general powers to sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, does the State Police believes they should have to undergo the same training, background investigations, psychological examinations, and drug screening as other law enforcement officers. Pawlowski responded, "Yes".

Rep. Kula asked who responds when a person reports a burglary. Pawlowski said if there is a local police force, they would respond and if not, the State Police would respond. Rep. Kula said when she served as a district justice she would receive complaints from people regarding the response time of the State Police to a reported crime. She said the legislation would help put a police presence on the streets. Rep. Kula noted that the General Assembly has been expanding the authority of various health professions because of their training and expertise and the same should be done for sheriffs. She then asked if the State Police is opposed to the legislation. Pawlowski responded that they are opposed to the legislation because there are other ways to address the problem. He expressed concern with the unintended consequences of the bill.

Robert Buehner, the Montour County District Attorney, asked the General Assembly to define the powers and duties of the sheriffs. He noted that in Montour County, there is a 100 square mile area where between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. there is only one State Police squad car patrolling the area. Buehner said the legislation would protect those parts of rural counties. He also told the committee false solutions to the problem are being offered which are designed to set up roadblocks to defeat the bill. Buehner cited the example of cross designating sheriffs and deputies as county detectives. He said this would raise salary board questions as well as divided loyalties. Buehner said if a district attorney did not like a sheriff he could refuse to cross designate. He also explained that as a district attorney in an eighth class county he does not have the time to run county detectives. Buehner noted the argument about giving sheriffs too much power such as getting search warrants and there are checks and balances such as the district attorney requiring prior approval of all warrants. He said they would still need probable cause before such warrants could be issued. Buehner urged passage of House Bill 466 and he told the committee, "We have a serious crime problem in rural Pennsylvania and we need as many bullets in our arsenal as possible."

George Wagner, former Montour county District Attorney and former member of the General Assembly, provided committee members with an overview of how law enforcement operates in the state of New York where sheriffs do have this authority.

Andring noted many at the hearing have focused on the lack of police. He said enacting the legislation would not immediately put 2,300 more officers on the street. Andring also said the legislation would lead to the establishment of a county police department. Buehner agreed that "we are not going to fill the streets with law enforcement officers." He also dismissed the argument that this legislation would hinder the deputies in their other duties such as providing security at courthouses. Buehner said he has found deputy sheriffs to be "great multi-taskers" and right now if someone hits a judge and a deputy does not witness it, the local police have to be called in. Andring then asked about the differing qualifications of deputies in the counties. Buehner responded that civil service requirements would not work in his county because of the lack of candidates. He noted sheriffs know their jobs are too important to hire their buddies. Andring raised the issue of the political activity that occurred in the Allegheny County Sheriff's office. Buehner said the same could be said about district attorneys. He noted district attorneys are required to run for office, belong to a political party, and raise campaign contributions.

Richard Sheetz, Jr., Executive Deputy Attorney General of the Attorney General's Criminal Law Division, highlighted the "vital role" sheriffs play in the criminal justice community, securing courthouses, serving processes, transporting prisoners and performing other key functions. He stated it was unfortunate to have to suspend sheriff involvement in the drug task forces as a result of the Kopko v Miller ruling. Sheetz spoke about a larger issue raised by the "separate and distinct" training of deputy sheriffs as compared to municipal police officers, whose training is adjudicated by the Municipal Police Officers Education and Training Commission (MPOETC). This issue, he went on, is one of consistency, as there are "certain basic core principles" that should be part of the instruction of any law enforcement curriculum. Though he acknowledged solutions may not be immediately forthcoming, Sheetz reminded members to keep in mind the ultimate goal of all law enforcement professionals - protecting Pennsylvania citizens.

Rep. Gabig noted the Pennsylvania State Police expressed concern regarding training and certification and he wanted to know if the Attorney General's office agreed someone should be trained the same as the State Police and local enforcement before receiving the authority under the legislation. Sheetz responded, "Yes, that is the theme in our comments." He added the legislation needs to address qualifications, training, education, certification and the need for a core curriculum.

Andring asked if they believed the Attorney General had the authority to deputize deputy sheriffs when he decided to drop them from his drug task forces. Sheetz responded that it was considered.

Rep. Grell wanted to know if prior to the Kopko decision the Attorney General used deputy sheriffs for other task forces. Sheetz said because of the Attorney General's limited authority they were used primarily for enforcement of the drug laws. Rep. Grell then asked if the Attorney General's office would support limiting the scope of the sheriffs' authority to serving on drug task forces. Sheetz said he would have to discuss it with the Attorney General.

Rep. Dally noted that when Attorney General Corbett testified before the Appropriations Committee earlier this week he did not express support for this legislation but believes the issue must be addressed statutorily. Sheetz said that was correct.

Devid Freed, District Attorney of Cumberland County and a member of the Executive Committee of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, reported that the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association voted on the issue of "full unfettered law enforcement powers for sheriffs," the result of which was an overwhelming majority of members opposing giving sheriffs full police powers. He stated that even between counties in Pennsylvania, the roles of sheriffs and deputy sheriffs varies. He emphasized the association is grateful to have "dedicated and hard-working sheriffs and deputy sheriffs who keep our courthouses safe, diligently serve process, transport prisoners and carry out court orders." Freed explained the system of cross-designation, which is a tool used by District Attorneys to appoint special county detectives, conferring upon them full police powers. In the counties it has been used, Freed reported this tool has worked "remarkably well," and further would solve many potential problems the association has identified with HB 466. Among other issues, Freed noted not all deputy sheriffs have "extensive law enforcement training." Further, cross-designation would limit and allow to be worked out in advance issues of civil liability. Freed warned "a county-wide law enforcement agency would be an expensive proposition with a need for police cars, increased training, increased supervisors, and of course, increased overtime for court appearances." He urged the consideration of cross-designation as a more affordable alternative.

Noting the argument regarding increase civil liability because of using deputy sheriffs, Rep. Dally asked if Freed would agree that clearly defining their powers would actually help decrease the civil liability. Freed said he would agree.

Rep. Pickett noted in Freed's testimony that it said the Kopko decision "clarified the duties of our sheriffs departments." Freed said he did not believe Kopko clarified the duties because the court opinion was more nuanced. He said it did clarify the current status. Rep. Pickett asked if the association's survey of its members included a breakdown by rural versus non-rural counties. Freed said eighth class counties were more likely to support the legislation but some of the smaller counties were opposed to it. He noted he has a "great relationship" with the sheriff in his county but that is not necessarily the case in all of the counties. Freed said the decision to oppose the legislation was made by the 43 of 67 district attorneys who attended their 2007 midwinter meetings.


See next POst

[larrymeyer]

Rep. Gabig agreed "cross designation is a strong tool". He asked if as a result of the court cases, the General Assembly needs to get back at least to the status quo prior to the court decisions. Freed responded that the "short answer is yes". Rep. Gabig said something needs to be done and the association should provide some positive input. Freed responded that he is unaware of any counterproposal by the association but they are willing to work with the other groups in finding a solution.

Andring asked who pays for the deputy in Cumberland County who works on the district attorney's drug task force. Freed explained her salary is paid by the sheriff's department and any overtime is reimbursed to that office by the district attorney's office.

Ellen Kramer Adler, Esq., Director, Legal Department, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV), stated PCADV supports the enactment of HB 466 "due to the extent that it would clarify the arrest powers of duly elected county sheriffs and their deputies." She cited the confusion that has arisen in light of the Kopko decision and stated "victim safety is of paramount concern in our work with victims of domestic violence and in our collaborative efforts to support other victims of crime. For that reason in particular, we believe that the proposed amendments…granting sheriffs and their deputies the power to execute an arrest without warrant, are essential." Adler suggested the bill be amended to require the "same training" as that provided to municipal police officers, instead of the "same type of training" as currently provided for in the bill.

Amy Rosenberry, Executive Director, PA Chiefs of Police Association, stated her association strongly opposes HB 466 for a variety of reasons. She particularly expressed concern with the provision that would require the "same type of training" and with the certification and screening of sheriffs, explaining that municipal police officers undergo extensive screening that sheriffs are not subject to. Rosenberry referred to a meeting between committee staff and several stakeholders held before the legislation was introduced and expressed her surprise and disappointment that the "numerous critical and very valid problematic issues" that were discussed at this meeting were not addressed by the legislation.

Rep. Dally asked to correct the record, noting that Rosenberry indicated the meeting took place last August, before the legislation was introduced. However, he stated, the legislation was introduced last February. Rosenberry conceded she may have been incorrect with the date, but she affirmed the meeting was held before the bill was introduced. Rep. Dally then asked if the association could support the legislation if the language was changed to require the same training instead of the same type. Rosenberry stated they would be more willing, but noted the association has additional concerns. Rep. Dally argued that a lot of the concerns raised about the legislation are "red herrings" that can easily be dealt with through legislation or the 911 system. Thomas Armstrong, Chief of Easttown Township Police and Vice President of the PA Chiefs of Police Association, interjected that the association has concerns regarding certification.

Rep. Pickett stated her support for the bill, arguing that the reality is the opportunity to use manpower has been diminished due to the court decision.

Sergeant David Ruberry, Deputy Sheriff, Northampton County, County Representative, Deputy Sheriff's Association of PA, discussed the many essential functions that deputy sheriffs provide and the danger they face in performing those duties. He remarked on the "sheriff haters" that are seeking to undermine sheriffs and take away their authority. Sgt. Ruberry urged the committee to act on the legislation to restore and clarify the power and authority of deputy sheriffs. He argued this issue is not about funding or training; it is about power and authority. He remarked that the "whole issue is that we are a holdover of common law" and are not statutorily authorized. Sgt. Ruberry provided the members an overview of the training that sheriffs receive, noting an incident where a man was unqualified to be certified as a deputy sheriff however he was able to become a municipal police officer.

Rep. Mackereth asked Sgt. Ruberry if he would oppose changing the language to require the "same training". Sgt. Ruberry stated he would not. Rep. Mackereth commented on the need for clarification of the duties and training of sheriffs. Sgt. Ruberry indicated they are constantly monitoring for improvements.

Doug Hill, Executive Director, County Commissioner Association of PA (CCAP), acknowledged that CCAP "has long fought the establishment of the law enforcement model of sheriff…Instead we have adhered to the settled, traditional -- and statutory -- role sheriffs have historically held in Pennsylvania as agents of the court." As court decisions were handed down, CCAP accepted a tacit recognition of the sheriff arrest powers granted by the Court, however CCAP does not feel this granted an imperative to actively undertake those functions. However, he continued, further court decisions led to increased confusion and ultimately CCAP altered its platform to support the clarification of sheriff powers. CCAP opposes an extension of police powers to sheriffs. Regarding HB 466, Hill stated "We believe the bill certainly satisfies the requirements of the Dobbins decision by statutorily setting out the ability of sheriffs and deputies to perform arrests, and in the settings and circumstances we came to accept over time in the wake of Leet. As such, we support its consideration as a means to resolve the Dobbins dilemma." He referred to two matters that must be taken in account as a part of the deliberations: whether the arrest powers are cast as permissive or as a duty; and the issue of resolving Dobbins must be kept separate from the larger and distinct discussion of adequacy of police services generally, and creation of regional policing specifically. Hill stated HB 466 "is intended to address one particular problem, and should remain focused there."

Rep. Dally noted his intent is simply to restore duties of sheriffs, not to create regional forces.

Dr. William Pettigrew, Jr., Member, Deputy Sheriff's Education and Training Board, provided an overview of the training sheriffs receive, which includes 760 hours of basic training. He noted that training for sheriffs is available at a single location, whereas municipal police officers can receive training at one of 20 different locations. He argued that the single location provides a continuity of training for all deputy sheriffs, no matter where they are employed. Dr. Pettigrew stated the Act 2 training program for sheriffs is comprehensive law enforcement training, which includes physical conditioning and continuing education. He urged enactment of HB 466 to reaffirm the authority of deputy sheriffs to perform law enforcement duties, noting that schools rely on deputy sheriffs as school resource officers.

Rep. Dally asked if it would be possible to incorporate all of the components of Act 120 training for municipal police officers into the Act 2 training of sheriffs. Dr. Pettigrew indicated that is feasible. He noted that there are 20 sites where municipal police officers can receive training whereas sheriffs receive training at only one location, which ensures consistency in the level of training they receive.

Rep. Pickett asked if both training courses could be merged into one. Dr. Pettigrew stated he is not familiar with all the details of Act 120 training curricula, but he did not see why such a merge would be a problem. He indicated that could be a benefit for everyone.

Steve Chronister, President of the York County Board of Commissioners, explained that his county has developed an action plan to address crime and is looking to successes elsewhere. A component of the county's law enforcement is the sheriff's department, which will be used to form a criminal response unit. He urged the committee to pass the legislation "so your Pennsylvania Counties can receive the much needed help to drive crime out of Pennsylvania." He concluded by remarking that he is not asking for increased funding.

Rich Keuerleber, York County Sheriff, stated his support for the legislation. He said the bill will help small and rural counties that have only a few deputies and no nearby State Police barracks. Keuerleber urged the committee to clarify arrest powers once and for all.

Rep. Dally thanked Chronister for his enlightened presentation and reiterated his intent is not to create countywide forces. He then asked if York County is a home rule county, to which he was told it is not.

Harry Schneider, Legislative Chairman, Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association, spoke briefly in support of the bill, noting that several sportsmen and gun ownership associations also support the bill. He urged the members to correct the "absurdity" that sheriffs aren't real law enforcement officers.

Written testimony was submitted by the following:

Craig Webre, Sheriff and President of the National Sheriffs' Association
Mark Koch, President, PA State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police
Bruce Edwards, President, PA State Troopers Association
Andrew Hoover, Legislative Assistant, ACLU of PA
Jeff Cox & Kimberly Collins, PA Legislative Services

[TaePo]

Another blow to seperation of powers.

Can we not see where this all could lead??

If we are at such a war footing that we need to change our complete historical context of government, then tell me which flight to take and all I ask is that you pay for my ammo.

I would rather a few million of us go over to the middle east and be done with terrorism once and for all.

[billamj]

In most of the states that I've lived in the Sheriff's office does have law enforcement duties, so I don't really see this as being anything too huge.

[tes151]

What's the downside here? More cops to clean up the human garbage from the streets of York county. The only thing that could be better is if they are required to be non-union so as to not cause my taxes to go up too much.

[ALS]

Down south the Sheriffs department is the big dog in town. Their personnel are usually of better quality than the local police dept.

At least in Allegheny county we could get a whole lot of coffee drinkers and donut eaters in the court house out patrolling the streets. That in the long run could possibly cut LE costs for some of the smaller communities.

[Statkowski]

Once lived in Nevada and Oregon (not at the same time, though). Out there, the Police Department went as far as the city limits. Outside of the city limits, for the rest of the county, the Sheriff's Department was the police force.

Here in Pennsylvania we could have similar, with the County Sheriff's Department contracting with the poorer townships and boroughs to serve as the police force (where right now there is essentially none). With a broader manpower base from with to draw upon, as opposed to the typically Pennsylvanian mom-and-pop two-person police force, both training and availability of resources would be improved.

[TaePo]

Sheriff dept. are basically a part of the judicial system. Not the executive branch. Sure, if they see a crime in-progress or someone needs help, provide it. But patrol?

They work and execute directives of the court, writs, auctions for taxes, prisoner movements, serving papers/subpoenas etc.

Police report to the elected mayor and take directions from the executive side.

I am not an expert in the matter but that has always been my understanding of it and is my 2 pennies worth.

What we need to do is effect a change in how our society operates and get more people involved who are responsible etc.

[billamj]

Originally Posted by TaePo

Sheriff dept. are basically a part of the judicial system. Not the executive branch. Sure, if they see a crime in-progress or someone needs help, provide it. But patrol?

They work and execute directives of the court, writs, auctions for taxes, prisoner movements, serving papers/subpoenas etc.

Police report to the elected mayor and take directions from the executive side.

I am not an expert in the matter but that has always been my understanding of it and is my 2 pennies worth.

What we need to do is effect a change in how our society operates and get more people involved who are responsible etc.

That is only the case in Pa. and it is not a Constitutionally decided situation. It is only dependent on the legislative and executive branches of the STATE changing those laws and it goes right back the other way. BTW, I'm not sure that I've ever heard of a county having a Constitution so I think that your point is moot anyway since Sheriff's deputies are employees of the county.