Republican State Senator Jonathan Perry of the Vermillion, Lafayette area, is working on legislation that could require training, certificates and a permit fee to allow these Good Samaritans to get past law enforcement into devastated areas.
Read on:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/gotta-regulate-people-helping-people/
I wouldn't worry about it. Legislation like that stands no chance of getting passed. Nobody would agree to limiting the help that is immediately available in a disaster area. I certainly don't agree with it and I think it's a perfect example of government overreach to dictate who can and can't help in the event of an emergency.
Looks like disasters are under the control of government.
When the tornado hit Greensburg, Bush made two trips there. The Fed's poured a lot of money into Greensburg and now it's quite the prosperous little town built with Federal money. That's gonna cost the locals.
When the tornando hit Udall in the 1950's, Eisenhower never showed up nor did he have anything to do with it. Look how the Fed's have expanded their authority/power since then.
Lately, Obama is visiting Louisiana for the flooding. The Republicans will get involved therte too. More government control.
It's easy to see why you're not worried.
I just said I felt as though that was an example of government overreach. How did this turn into an issue with me? There's nothing anyone can say to you that you are ever satisfied with. Sadly I knew better than to engage you in conversation but I figured in this case we had similar opinions.
Have a good day. Smile. Try to find something, anything that makes you happy.
Mike you should know by now that Redcliffe is ALWAYS RIGHT. We quit reading his BS along time ago, the only reason I read it now was because of your response. EVERYONE IN HOWARD AND ELK COUNTY HAVE A GREAT DAY.
Quote from: frawin on August 27, 2016, 11:36:28 AM
Mike you should know by now that Redcliffe is ALWAYS RIGHT. We quit reading his BS along time ago, the only reason I read it now was because of your response. EVERYONE IN HOWARD AND ELK COUNTY HAVE A GREAT DAY.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT!
Perhaps Mike should understand that you don't believe other people should have a different oplnion or view other than yours.
And that you don't believe others' can think for themselves. $o you have to tell M8ke what to think.
Will you be doing the same thing if Mike perhaps gets elected as sheriff?
Tell him what to think, that is!
May you have a great evening.
Everyone is welcome to tell me what they think if I'm elected. In fact I would hope you would feel comfortable doing so. We may not always agree but at the end of the day elected officials work for the community. Ross I think you and I would probably see things differently sometimes but I'd welcome you to express your concerns to me if you have them. Sometimes it helps to see a situation from someone else's perspective.
Quote from: Mcordell on August 27, 2016, 06:58:14 PM
Everyone is welcome to tell me what they think if I'm elected. In fact I would hope you would feel comfortable doing so. We may not always agree but at the end of the day elected officials work for the community. Ross I think you and I would probably see things differently sometimes but I'd welcome you to express your concerns to me if you have them. Sometimes it helps to see a situation from someone else's perspective.
Mike, I have no problem with people expressing their opinion.
The problem I was addressing was putting someone down for having a different opinion and telling someone else how to think or what they should think.
I have in the past spoke with many of our Sheriff Deputies and the Sheriff as well.
I have even asked them for their opinions on some things.
Some time they don't answer and I appreciate their reasons for not answering.
But i was dumb enough to ask. I have never had any problem with our Sheriff's department and I have called on them a few times. They were always helpful and professional and yet a neighbor.
I have spoke with you personally and I welcomed you to Elk County. but I don;t expect you to remember me.
I told you i was just a crazy old fart and a few other things.
I hope you enjoy living here in Elk County as much as I do.
I just read an article about the US Coast Guard crossing the waters into Canada and saved the lives of a family whose home in a remote area was on fire. They notified Canada while they were doing it. Otherwise the family would have perished.
Normally i believe permission would be required, but this was not a normal situation. And I have yet to read of any complaints from Canada.
Quote from: ROSS on August 27, 2016, 08:38:29 PM
I have spoke with you personally and I welcomed you to Elk County. but I don;t expect you to remember me.
I told you i was just a crazy old fart and a few other things.
I hope you enjoy living here in Elk County as much as I do.
I do remember you. We have actually spoken on a few occasions. Once when you stopped in my driveway to visit, once when you initially passed around a petition and asked for a signature, and a few other times. You were also at the candidate forum, although we didn't speak as I didn't want toninterruptnyour conversation.
I do very much love living here and raising my children here. This is most definitely our home.
Quote from: frawin on August 27, 2016, 11:36:28 AM
Mike you should know by now that Redcliffe is ALWAYS RIGHT. We quit reading his BS along time ago, the only reason I read it now was because of your response. EVERYONE IN HOWARD AND ELK COUNTY HAVE A GREAT DAY.
Frawin, you never appear to agree with conservatism unless it's more like neocon.
Since Mr. Cordell has responded to this posting, I have several questions for the Sheriff's candidate, questions for both candidates actually, if they would both weigh in. Are you a member of Oathkeepers? If not, would you make a public statement of support before the election? See https://www.oathkeepers.org/ See their list of ten things they will NOT support.
Are either of you a member of CSPOA? That's Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officers Association. They have a 2014 Resolution that is similar the the Oathkeepers' mission. See http://cspoa.org/2014-resolution/ Would you make a public statement in support of CSPOA before the election?
Some of us in Elk County would 'sleep easier' knowing the next sheriff will be honoring ALL unalienable rights; and will, without fail, place those rights above the dictum of DC or Topeka.
I, for one, will not cast a vote for a candidate who does not support one or both these organizations. And I would encourage other county residents to likewise withhold their support for a candidate, or both candidates, under these circumstances.
Quote from: Wake-up! on August 28, 2016, 07:35:35 PM
Since Mr. Cordell has responded to this posting, I have several questions for the Sheriff's candidate, questions for both candidates actually, if they would both weigh in. Are you a member of Oathkeepers? If not, would you make a public statement of support before the election? See https://www.oathkeepers.org/ See their list of ten things they will NOT support.
Are either of you a member of CSPOA? That's Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officers Association. They have a 2014 Resolution that is similar the the Oathkeepers' mission. See http://cspoa.org/2014-resolution/ Would you make a public statement in support of CSPOA before the election?
Some of us in Elk County would 'sleep easier' knowing the next sheriff will be honoring ALL unalienable rights; and will, without fail, place those rights above the dictum of DC or Topeka.
I, for one, will not cast a vote for a candidate who does not support one or both these organizations. And I would encourage other county residents to likewise withhold their support for a candidate, or both candidates, under these circumstances.
Excellent Post
I'd like to expand on the above question!
Who out there would back a Sheriff facing off with the State or Federal Government?
By that I mean physically stand side bye side with the Sheriff !
I would. because I took that oath in 1964 !
Would you? Post it right here, please!
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14203146_10207619082057312_4775889855554834770_n.jpg?oh=e6c671dd76cb57c3545205976d59c30f&oe=583D1740)
I will happily address your question regarding both organizations.
The oathkeepers organization's list of 10 orders they will not follow is listed below:
Quote1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
.
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
In regards to this list, I am absolutely in agreement with each item and I would publicly pledge support for these principals. I am not a member of the organization, nor will I become a member of the organization. I will not pay an annual due to an organization in order to pledge support for the oath I have already taken as a law enforcement officer and doing so would not further my commitment to these principals. I also will not pledge blanket support for the organization as a whole. The reason I cannot do that is because, as with any organization, at some point the board of this organization may make determinations or decisions that are not in line with my core values and I would not choose to be associated with them on that level. Much like I have sworn to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America, but have not sworn support for the federal government as a whole. I would publicly support the principals upon which the organization was founded, but not allegiance to the board of the organization.
In regards to the constitutional sheriff's and peace officers association, their 2014 resolution is below:
QuoteBE IT RESOLVED THAT, The following abuses will not be allowed or tolerated:
1) Registration of personal firearms under any circumstances.
2) Confiscation of firearms without probable cause, due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.
3) Audits or searches of a citizen's personal affairs or finances without probable cause, and due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.
4) Inspections of person or property without probable cause and constitutionally compliant warrants as required by the 4th Amendment and issued by a local or state jurisdiction.
5) The detainment or search of citizens without probable cause and proper due process compliance, or the informed consent of the citizen.
6) Arrests with continued incarcerations without charges and complete due process, including, but not limited to public and speedy jury trials, in a court of state or local jurisdiction.
7) Domestic utilization of our nation's military or federal agencies operating under power granted under the laws of war against American citizens.
8) Arrest of citizens or seizure of persons or property without first notifying and obtaining the express consent of the local sheriff.
In reviewing the list published by this organization, I find many similarities, however there are a few points I feel need clarification before I would offer my support.
In regards to #5, I believe it would be important to specify that temporary detention of a person is not done on the basis of probable cause, but rather reasonable suspicion. A law enforcement officer must reasonably suspect that a citizen has committed or is about to commit a crime in order to detain them. Probable cause is the requirement for arrest. Arrest and detention are not the same thing. Based upon the wording, I cannot support that particular aspect of that portion. I would support the remainder, namely that searches of people cannot be conducted without probable cause, and that detention of people cannot be done without due process compliance or informed consent of the citizen.
Also, in regards to #8, I believe it should be noted that local law enforcement such as city police officers are not required to obtain consent of the sheriff prior to effecting a lawful arrest. I do believe that federal officers or officers operating in this jurisdiction who do not have overlapping jurisdiction here such as neighboring counties seeking an individual with a lawfully issued warrant should notify the sheriff's office of their intent, however there is no means of forcing them to do so.
Aside from those particular issues, I do believe I can offer my support for this resolution, but again not for the organization as a whole due to the reasons listed above.
Thank you for your reply!
In response to the Oathkeepers, you said, "I am absolutely in agreement with each item and I would publicly pledge support for these principals." Excellent! I realize this is a public forum, albeit one that appears to have limited viewing. Will you repeat your statement of support in speaking engagements you have before the election (assuming you have some additional political 'rallies' coming up)? Will you also provide your public support in the weekly Prairie Star just as you have here?
Regarding CSPOA Resolution, Item 5; would you speak in more detail on 'reasonable suspicion' versus 'probable cause'? Just what determination separates the two? When does the former become the latter? Who defines 'reasonable'? How would you, as Sheriff, insure that officers under you strive to be consistent in distinguishing between the two, and acting accordingly?
Thanks for your time.
Quote from: Wake-up! on August 29, 2016, 11:29:27 AM
Thank you for your reply!
In response to the Oathkeepers, you said, "I am absolutely in agreement with each item and I would publicly pledge support for these principals." Excellent! I realize this is a public forum, albeit one that appears to have limited viewing. Will you repeat your statement of support in speaking engagements you have before the election (assuming you have some additional political 'rallies' coming up)? Will you also provide your public support in the weekly Prairie Star just as you have here?
Regarding CSPOA Resolution, Item 5; would you speak in more detail on 'reasonable suspicion' versus 'probable cause'? Just what determination separates the two? When does the former become the latter? Who defines 'reasonable'? How would you, as Sheriff, insure that officers under you strive to be consistent in distinguishing between the two, and acting accordingly?
Thanks for your time.
I would happily state my support for those principals in any public setting as I do believe them to be reasonable and constitutionally based. I will not promise to publish said support in the prairie star as publishing ads like that are not inexpensive and I am trying to allocate campaign funding to where it is most important. I am not saying I'm against the idea altogether, but rather that I cannot promise to do something that I am uncertain I will follow through with at this time.
In regards to reasonable suspicion and probable cause, the difference between them, plainly put, is essentially how it sounds. Reasonable suspicion is the burden of proof necessary to temporarily detain and question someone, in other words they are not free to leave but are not under arrest. This burden is met when a reasonable person would suspect that someone has committed or is about to commit a crime. The reasonable man standard is applied in court cases all the time and the officer must determine the inherent reasonableness of the suspicion at the time of detention, however in the event someone were to go to trial, that standard of reasonableness would be applied by either a judge or a jury and it is important that the same conclusion be met. If an officer oversteps their authority and detains someone without reasonable suspicion, as determined by a court or jury, then the detention itself would be nullified and any evidence obtained and used in the case would likely be considered fruit of the poisonous tree and thereby excluded from being used in a trial.
Reasonable suspicion would be the standard applied if an officer were on patrol and found someone behind a closed business in the middle of the night dressed in all black and carrying a crow bar. While the behavior itself is not inherently illegal, it would be reasonable for an officer to suspect the person may have committed or is about to commit a crime and would therefore be legally justified in stopping and questioning the person. The officer would not be legally justified in arresting the individual as they would not have probable cause to believe they had committed a crime.
Probable cause is the burden of proof for an arrest. Just like reasonable suspicion, it is exactly what it sounds like. Probable cause means a person in the officers position would probably be caused to believe the individual had committed a crime. In the case of probable cause, the officer could effect a lawful arrest and present a case to the prosecutor, whose burden of proof at trial is even higher, beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case of the person behind the business, if the officer stopped and questioned the individual and found a broken window on the back of the business, broken glass and cuts on the suspect, and items from within the business in the person's possession, the officer would have probable cause to effect an arrest for burglary. If the officer stopped and questioned the individual and found they had no stolen property, the business had not been burglarized, and there were no other indications the person had committed a crime, the officer would not have probable cause and thus would release the individual.
That is the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. I wouldn't need to ensure the deputies working for me understood the difference because it is one of the basic principals of law enforcement. If I found a deputy had effected an unlawful arrest by not establishing probable cause, or was stopping people and forcing them to identify themselves without articulable reasonable suspicion, then they would no longer be employed by the sheriff's office and I would find a qualified individual who was able to make that distinction. I cannot and will not have an agency that violates people's constitutional rights.
I don;t know if it is true or not but i had a man tell me you stopped him for speeding just outside of Elk Falls.
He stopped he said because of flashing lights.
He said you approached his car and asked for drivers license and insurance.
He told me he asked who you were and stated he did not know you and simply drove off.
As I said I don't know to believe him !
But just supposing it is true, why would you stop someone in Elk County for speeding?
Also isn't it true that the Sheriff is the most powerful position in the County?
No sir that's not true at all. I have never stopped anyone in Elk County for any reason. Also, nobody has ever driven away from one of my traffic stops anywhere because "they didn't know me". The only time I have ever even utilized my emergency equipment in this county was in responding to an emergency call in Wilson County and on one occasion where I effected a lawful stop in Wilson County and the individual ran, resulting in a pursuit that crossed over into Elk County before returning to Wilson County where I apprehended the individual.
This is one of the more ridiculous rumors I have heard. I'm not sure why someone would make that story up.
Quote from: Mcordell on August 30, 2016, 06:34:37 AM
No sir that's not true at all. I have never stopped anyone in Elk County for any reason. Also, nobody has ever driven away from one of my traffic stops anywhere because "they didn't know me". The only time I have ever even utilized my emergency equipment in this county was in responding to an emergency call in Wilson County and on one occasion where I effected a lawful stop in Wilson County and the individual ran, resulting in a pursuit that crossed over into Elk County before returning to Wilson County where I apprehended the individual.
This is one of the more ridiculous tumors I have heard. I'm not sure why someone would make that story up.
Thank you. I always try to go to the source of a story before believing it.
From my way of thinking, 'reasonable suspicion' is both reprehensible and contrary to the Constitution. I'm sure there is a litany of legal cases, interpretations, and challenges to the concept. And I have no doubt the legal framework has found it highly useful and therefore calls it legal. For all I know the Supreme Court has ruled in its favor. None of that makes it constitutional. I have not seen in any of the Framer's writings where they believed legal behavior (see your quote) merited detention by civil or military authorities. Nor is it written so in the Constitution.
My constitutional opinion aside, I ask again, what is reasonable? I ask because I don't believe it cannot be reasonably answered. What is reasonable to a white man may not be to a black man. I know what is reasonable to a man rarely is to a woman! What is reasonable to a 17-year old may not be to a 60-year old. What may be reasonable to a college graduate may not be to a high school drop out. What may be reasonable to a civilian may not be to a career military person. Ad nauseum. It is not possible to apply a single concept of reasonable to myriad circumstances and life situations, IMO.
Mike, you cited a 'classic' scenario, maybe even a textbook one, "if an officer were on patrol and found someone behind a closed business in the middle of the night dressed in all black and carrying a crow bar. While the behavior itself is not inherently illegal, it would be reasonable for an officer to suspect the person may have committed or is about to commit a crime and would therefore be legally justified in stopping and questioning the person". Would suspicion be greater if the person wore a hoodie? If the person were black? Does refusal to talk to an officer make suspicion more reasonable? Is it further reason if the person is carrying a hand gun, completely legal in this State?
And what about the officer who is assessing the situation. What if he/she had a bad day at home, the wife/husband left him/her, a kid was truant or pregnant, etc. Maybe the officer is taking steroids while pumping iron. His/her decision making can have as many emotional variables as the situation he/she encounters, variables that may cloud his/her judgment, or make him/her rush to judgment. When does 'reasonable suspicion' just become the new-speak for profiling? How can so many potential variables possibly draw a concensus of reason among police officers? Are you handed a cookbook, a recipe, told to memorize and react, regardless of what you think?
I'm sure you've heard all this before. As you see, the use of 'reasonable suspicion' bothers me. Backhandedly, I'm also saying you have one helluva tough job to perform well.
Last, are you and the incumbent doing any sort of Q&A together before the election? I would like your opponents response to this blog.
It can be a very complex and sometimes difficult job which is exactly why voters should select the candidate they believe most capable of navigating the legal complexities of the position while always ensuring they do their very best to protect the civil liberties of the community.
As for having a public forum, there will possibly be a forum however that is not decided yet. There has already been one forum to which Sheriff Hanks was specifically invited to come answer community questions however he chose not to attend. As it was, I was the only candidate who took the time to come answer questions and discuss community concerns. I cannot say one way or another if he would choose to attend the next one but if there is a forum I will be there.
In regards to your statement that reasonable suspicion is reprehensible and contrary to the constitution, let me ask you to objectively consider this. If you owned the store in my scenario, would you want an officer to observe that individual and simply leave because probable cause didn't exist? Would you later, upon discovery of those facts and coupled with the loss and aftermath associated with a burglary feel like the officer should have done more to stop the crime?
Let's take that a step further. You mentioned a gun, which is also inherently legal. If I were patrolling and came upon your residence, not knowing you or who lived there, and observed someone holding a gun and climbing into an open window on the side of the house, would you want me to stop and investigate, which would require the detention of the involved individual, or would you rather I think perhaps the gun toting homeowner locked himself out of the house and had to use the window, and then go about my business? If I did so, and that person harmed a family member of yours, would you blame me for not doing something about it when I saw the behavior or would you simply say you inderstand because I didn't have probable cause?
If you would want me to stop and investigate in instances when you are the hypothetical victim, then that same belief should apply across the board. The fact is, we would be highly ineffective in proactive crime prevention without the use of reasonable suspicion, which was upheld in terry v ohio. The key is finding law enforcement competent enough to be effective without violating people's rights.
Just a point of view for your consideration.
Mcordell-
You seem to be stuck on using the word "community" as it appears to some kind of higher power or influence upon you.
The terms individual, individual rights or individual liberty; all seem so distant to you.
We live in a community which is comprised of individuals. I've already determined there's no point in trying to engage is any sort of discussion with you about anything because no matter what I say, I'm wrong.
To answer your hypotheticals, Mike, I would want first and foremost, for the authorities to be law-abiders. And that means respecting the rights of suspects and victims. If that were my store, I would want the authorities to review the 24/7 cameras before they confronted anyone. I would not want the police to taser or shoot some 12-year old who was running from a siren two blocks away, because he had half a gram in his pocket (or one of a half dozen other reasonable scenarios), not because he was a burglar. But some officer, on a wild hair, decided the kid was reasonably suspicious. If the news can be believed, the reasonable suspicion wild hair is killing people in America's streets every week.
The scene you described at 'my' residence is very unlikely to happen. An owner, needing to break through a window to re-enter, would be foolish to climb through a window with a visible gun and risk discharge or damage to it. Not that foolish doesn't happen. And if someone was intent on burglarizing my home, they would be long dead at my hands in my home before I ever called any authorities for help. I haven't read Terry vs Ohio, I will, l but I find it unlikely that reasonable suspicion allows you to trespass on private property. I'm saddened for our country if it does.
In my life police should not be essential. I'd much rather you deal with corrupt County officials, hiring of relatives, theft of taxpayer monies, and crimes committed in the public sector on roads, at schools, etc. I am the first and foremost line of protection for my property. And when I am away, my neighbors are the second, they watch my property as I watch theirs, and we have granted each other the right to shoot first and ask questions later if there is an intrusion. That is the primary way private property is protected in a free society.
But your point was considered, and your summation is correct, "the key is finding law enforcement competent enough to be effective without violating people's rights". We disagree, but I believe 'reasonable suspicion' does violate people's rights, regardless of a court decision that allows police the use of it as a tool in enforcement.
the problem is, it's not possible for us to review security footage before confronting someone who we believe is in the process of or is about to commit a crime. I'm not sure where you made the leap from stopping someone to investigate their intentions to shooting a 12 year old who is running from a siren two blocks away. I wouldn't agree with shooting someone as they are running away whether they had drugs or were a burglar. Neither of those situations would, by itself, justify the use of deadly force. Reasonable suspicion has nothing to do with the use of deadly force. That's a connection you seem to have made for yourself but it doesn't apply to the way law enforcement works. Also, I believe your use of "if the news can be believed" is reasonable considering the news is almost never factually accurate and right now the mainstream media seems intent on demonizing law enforcement. Sure there are officers who have done wrong and who have committed crimes. That is most definitely not the case with the vast majority of law enforcement officers who go to work every day simply to do the right thing and to protect citizens from harm.
My scenario regarding someone climbing into a window wasn't intended to be realistic, but rather an extreme example of something that would definitely rise to the level of reasonable suspicion but the behavior alone is not illegal absent other known factors. My point was, if you would want law enforcement to check out that individual, where do you draw the line? Under what circumstances do you think law enforcement should be authorized to investigate suspicious activity?
Also, I don't understand how you drew the conclusion anything I said had to do with trespassing on private property. Walking into someone's yard is not trespassing. The fact is, if you don't believe in allowing law enforcement to stop someone and question them when they suspect they have committed or are about to commit a crime then you disagree with law enforcement being able to do anything other than take reports after a crime has been committed and to that end we will disagree. Law enforcement should be able to proactively protect people and property and the ability to stop and question someone is important to accomplish that goal. The constitution requires probable cause for arrest. Nowhere does it say you cannot be stopped and questioned temporarily, nor does it set the standard upon which to base those actions. That was left up to the courts who followed English common law upon which the majority of our legal system, including the constitution was based.
I know we disagree on this and likely other aspects of law enforcement, however I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss it and share your views with me. Regardless of your interpretation and how it differs from mine, I can assure you if I'm elected I will respect the rights of each individual. I've never promised that everyone will always agree with me but I have promised I always work in accordance with the laws of the state of Kansas. I'm not beholden to federal law enforcement and I do not and will not enforce federal laws or executive orders. That's what I can promise you. I'd be happy to have your support but it is entirely within your rights to vote however you please.
Quote from: Mcordell on August 31, 2016, 06:23:42 AM
We live in a community which is comprised of individuals. I've already determined there's no point in trying to engage is any sort of discussion with you about anything because no matter what I say, I'm wrong.
Sheriff's officers ought to be talking about liberty, individual liberty and standing for it.
Community is a term more in line with socialism, not liberty. We're not here for the community, we're here for liberty. Does that make any sense?
Quote from: Mcordell on August 29, 2016, 07:44:39 AM
I will happily address your question regarding both organizations.
The oathkeepers organization's list of 10 orders they will not follow is listed below:
In regards to this list, I am absolutely in agreement with each item and I would publicly pledge support for these principals. I am not a member of the organization, nor will I become a member of the organization. I will not pay an annual due to an organization in order to pledge support for the oath I have already taken as a law enforcement officer and doing so would not further my commitment to these principals. I also will not pledge blanket support for the organization as a whole. The reason I cannot do that is because, as with any organization, at some point the board of this organization may make determinations or decisions that are not in line with my core values and I would not choose to be associated with them on that level. Much like I have sworn to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America, but have not sworn support for the federal government as a whole. I would publicly support the principals upon which the organization was founded, but not allegiance to the board of the organization.
In regards to the constitutional sheriff's and peace officers association, their 2014 resolution is below:
In reviewing the list published by this organization, I find many similarities, however there are a few points I feel need clarification before I would offer my support.
In regards to #5, I believe it would be important to specify that temporary detention of a person is not done on the basis of probable cause, but rather reasonable suspicion. A law enforcement officer must reasonably suspect that a citizen has committed or is about to commit a crime in order to detain them. Probable cause is the requirement for arrest. Arrest and detention are not the same thing. Based upon the wording, I cannot support that particular aspect of that portion. I would support the remainder, namely that searches of people cannot be conducted without probable cause, and that detention of people cannot be done without due process compliance or informed consent of the citizen.
Also, in regards to #8, I believe it should be noted that local law enforcement such as city police officers are not required to obtain consent of the sheriff prior to effecting a lawful arrest. I do believe that federal officers or officers operating in this jurisdiction who do not have overlapping jurisdiction here such as neighboring counties seeking an individual with a lawfully issued warrant should notify the sheriff's office of their intent, however there is no means of forcing them to do so.
Aside from those particular issues, I do believe I can offer my support for this resolution, but again not for the organization as a whole due to the reasons listed above.
So you're not interested in joining the Oath Keepers or the Constitutional Sheriffs.
What organizations or associations are you a member or will you join if you become the Sheriff?
Red,
I have no desire to be a member of an organization. Shouldn't my focus be on serving the county residents and not following the dictum of some organization? You seem to be quite contradictory, favoring certain principals when you want to and denouncing those same principals when you choose.
You seem to want me to join an organization that requires me, as a member, to pay an annual membership fee. What do you suppose happens to those fees? Well, those fees are collected and used for the advancement of the organization, not for the individual. Isn't that communism? You seem to be under the impression that use of public funds for the betterment of the community is communism so what's the difference?
Look at the bylaws of the oathkeepers. It's right in their bylaws that the founder has a permanent place on the board of trustees for the rest of his life while all other trustees have term limits, effectively granting him supreme power over the organization. Guess what happens when the terms of the board members expire. The BOARD elects new trustees, not the membership at large. The membership gets no say in who is leading the organization and making decisions on their behalf. Could you imagine if congress got together and elected new congressmen to replace those that left office? Isn't that tyranny red? Shouldn't they open up these elections to the membership?
So just to be clear, you want me to join an organization where I give them money that they can use for the betterment of the group, and swear an oath to follow the organization's rules when that organization is lead by an elite group who elected themselves? That's quite interesting. It seems your values only matter when you are pushing them onto other people.
I do not need to be a member of any organization to tell me what is best for the citizens of Elk County.
Mike Cordell, earlier you stated, "The constitution requires probable cause for arrest. Nowhere does it say you cannot be stopped and questioned temporarily, nor does it set the standard upon which to base those actions. That was left up to the courts who followed English common law upon which the majority of our legal system, including the constitution was based."
I took Civics probably a generation before you did. I learned two tenets of English Law; 1) 'Everything which is not forbidden is allowed' as a constitutional principle that was and is an essential freedom of the ordinary citizen (or English subject); and 2) the converse principle, 'Everything which is not allowed is forbidden' as a constitutional principle applied to public authorities, whose actions were, and still are, limited to the powers explicitly granted to them by constitutions.
Your reference that the Constitution 'does not say you cannot be stopped . . . . ' is contrary to English Law. The absence of explicit granting of authority (i.e., the Constitution must say you can stop and question without probable cause), means government, and therefore police, are denied the ability to stop and question temporarily. It does not give government, including the Court system, an open hand to do dang well as they please. That is what I learned in school. That is the contemporary argument posed by many Constitutionalists, including attorneys. Of course it is not what the government wants the people to believe, government wants ever expanding power, not limitations to power. I have little doubt you learned differently in school and in enforcement classes.
You also made a statement in your last blog entry answering me, that 'walking into someone's yard is not trespassing'. I take exception to that. I own the home and property I live on. It's perimeter is fenced and gated. As a private property owner, I say whom I give the privilege of entry to. No one besides myself has a right to enter. To say otherwise is to deny the rights of private ownership. The only way what you have stated can possibly be true is that private property rights no longer exist in this country, that no one owns their property, that I/we are merely serfs, leasing it from the government. Is that your inference? Is that your training? If it is, it is a sad day for our country.
See a new blog entry that I hope generates more views than this one has, and one more pertinent to the election.
This is the problem with hypothetical scenarios. In my mind I was referring to a city lot with no physical boundary like a fence surrounding ones front yard. This is of course a very complex legal issue but an unfenced front yard is still, of course, entirely owned by the homeowner, however it's inclusion in the curtilage surrounding the home is a legal complexity which would fall to the tests prescribed by the Supreme Court in making that determination. That being said, a fenced yard is more likely to meet the legal definition of trespassing as spelled out in statute. Also, I referred to a scenario in which potential criminal activity was in plain view of an officer which, again, carries legal implications in regards to the 4th amendment.
Nothing in any scenario is going to be a simple answer when it comes to applying constitutional law. It is more complex than most realize.
Now, I'm going to clarify the underlying point. My basic scenario involved an instance where an officer on patrol observes potential criminal activity in plain view on someone's private property. The criminal activity I described is such that immediate intervention would be required to prevent possible death or great bodily harm to someone. While the officer doesn't necessarily have probable cause to arrest the individual, in this instance, based solely on the information I laid out in the description of the scenario, the officer should most definitely stop the activity to investigate. If you are asking if I would go onto someone's private property without their permission in order to protect them from death or great bodily harm, the answer is yes. While I respect private property rights, the protection of individuals is paramount. If you wouldn't want me to enter your private property to protect you and your family from harm, well then I apologize and understand that we are just going to see things from a different perspective. I would not trespass onto someone's private property for non-emergency situations as I believe that to be contrary to the 4th amendment.
I'm not a proponent of joining any organizations however the two (2) mentioned by Wake Up make much more sense than the usual organizations.
Then you are saying that you will not be joining the KS Sheriffs Association?
Hope so - and it's bad enough that anyone must be government approved to be County Sheriff.