Has the Montco Sheriff's office stopped sending out LTCF renewal notices?

[mrjam2jab]

The most labor-intensive duty of the sheriff is to conduct an investigation of the applicant. The second most labor-intensive task in the process is the maintenance of the records associated with the investigation and issuance.

As in any organization, when a new administration comes to be there is a shakeup both in the priorities of the organization and a meting out of the resources available to it. Where the issuance of LTCFs will fall in the new office's priorities remains to be seen.

I guess my question was more of how much of it does the actual sheriff do...as opposed to a subordinate.

[tl_3237]

I guess my question was more of how much of it does the actual sheriff do...as opposed to a subordinate.

I would suspect that most, if not all, of the actual processing and issuance of an LTCF is done by subordinates in the Sheriff's office. I did not think that was the crux of what you were trying to bring out.

With a change in administration there is a potential re-prioritization of duties for those subordinates, which are the finite resources of that office. Since the Sheriff's office has more duties than the issuance of LTCF's (court functioning and security, tax sale, etc.), there is the potential that the new administration will divert some of those resources towards or away from LTCF processing. That could have either a favorable or adverse effect on the issuance timelines.

[twency]

I would suspect that most, if not all, of the actual processing and issuance of an LTCF is done by subordinates in the Sheriff's office. I did not think that was the crux of what you were trying to bring out.

With a change in administration there is a potential re-prioritization of duties for those subordinates, which are the finite resources of that office. Since the Sheriff's office has more duties than the issuance of LTCF's (court functioning and security, tax sale, etc.), there is the potential that the new administration will divert some of those resources towards or away from LTCF processing. That could have either a favorable or adverse effect on the issuance timelines.

tl_3237, can you speak to what legal (not electoral) penalty, if any, the sheriff theoretically might face for deliberately neglecting or otherwise failing in his duty prescribed by § 6109 to "At least 60 days prior to the expiration of each license … send to the licensee an application for renewal of license."?

I suppose one might sue the sheriff civilly and request that the court direct him to do so. But is there any applicable criminal penalty?

[tl_3237]

tl_3237, can you speak to what legal (not electoral) penalty, if any, the sheriff theoretically might face for deliberately neglecting or otherwise failing in his duty prescribed by § 6109 to "At least 60 days prior to the expiration of each license … send to the licensee an application for renewal of license."?

I suppose one might sue the sheriff civilly and request that the court direct him to do so. But is there any applicable criminal penalty?

There are a few statutes that facially would seem to apply but one must take into consideration whether the nonfeasance by the Sheriff was a conscious and deliberate act of delay without justification. I would seriously doubt that any court would sustain criminal sanction against the sheriff without convincing evidence that he acted out of malice. Should a particular act of nonfeasance be unintentional and non-systemic, such as inability to meet deadlines in a timely manner due to documentable lack of resources, then a court would resist applying criminal sanctions. At issue would be whether there is criminal culpability as defined in Chapter 3 of title 18 PA CS and, if so, whether the infraction was of a minor nature:

18 PA CS § 312. De minimis infractions.

(a) General rule.--The court shall dismiss a prosecution if,
having regard to the nature of the conduct charged to constitute
an offense and the nature of the attendant circumstances, it
finds that the conduct of the defendant:

(1) was within a customary license or tolerance, neither
expressly negatived by the person whose interest was
infringed nor inconsistent with the purpose of the law
defining the offense;
(2) did not actually cause or threaten the harm or evil
sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense or did
so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation
of conviction; or
(3) presents such other extenuations that it cannot
reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the General Assembly
or other authority in forbidding the offense.

Assuming criminal sanctions are justified then the following statutes provide some basis for determining the penalty:

16 P.S. § 411. Penalty for neglect or refusal to perform duties

If any county officer neglects or refuses to perform any duty imposed on him by the provisions of this act, or by the provisions of any other act of Assembly, or by any rule of court, or other provision of law, he shall, for each such neglect or refusal, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500).

16 P.S. § 450. Removal of county officers and appointees

(a) The county commissioners, the sheriffs, coroners, prothonotaries, registers of wills, recorders of deeds, treasurers, auditors or controllers, clerks of the courts, district attorneys and any other officers of the several counties, whether elected or duly appointed to fill a vacancy, shall be removable from office only by impeachment, or by the Governor for reasonable cause after due notice and full hearing on the advice of two-thirds of the Senate, or upon conviction of misbehavior in office, or of any infamous crime in accordance with the Constitution of this Commonwealth, but their title to office may be tried by proceedings of quo warranto as provided by law.


(b) Appointees to county offices or positions other than to elected offices shall be subject to removal at the pleasure of the appointing power, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, and they shall also be removed on conviction of misbehavior in office or of any infamous crime.

For the most egregious case then it may be possible to apply §6119. However, whether a court would define the failure to perform on the part of the sheriff contravening affirmative duties, as denoted by the use of the word "shall", to be an "offense" under the UFA would be conjecture at this point.

18 Pa CS § 6119. Violation penalty.
Except as otherwise specifically provided, an offense under
this subchapter constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Another approach would be to acquire a court writ of mandamus. Should the sheriff continue to ignore his duties as defined by the writ, he risks criminal sanctions for contempt of court.

[yldwill]

I received my renewal notice, went to Courthouse, 15 minutes later on way home for another five years. :-)

[fuzzywuzzy]

Wouldn't it be so much easier if they just put the date of expiration on your LTCF?

You could look at it. You could see when it expires.Then you would know when the 60 days are approaching and go in to renew it if they failed to send you a notice.

[twency]

Wouldn't it be so much easier if they just put the date of expiration on your LTCF?

You could look at it. You could see when it expires.Then you would know when the 60 days are approaching and go in to renew it if they failed to send you a notice.

They do.

But how often do most of us actually look at the thing?

And state law expressly requires them to send a "renewal application".

[fuzzywuzzy]

Sarcasm is totally lost on some people.

[twency]

Sarcasm is totally lost on some people.

We all know sarcasm is incredibly easy to convey and receive using bare text.