Consider expanded sheriff’s department

To the editor:

An alternative to municipalities being charged a $100 per resident fee for Pennsylvania State Police coverage may be no farther than the Maryland border.

Pennsylvania is surrounded by states that use their county sheriffs to patrol areas that do not have their own local police force. The county sheriff departments of Ohio, New Jersey and New York states have full police (arrest) powers and patrol unincorporated areas and provide assistance to local departments.

Maryland sheriffs (except for Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Baltimore City, Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George’s counties) are the primary law enforcement agencies for their counties.

West Virginia uses its sheriffs for law enforcement and collecting county taxes. Only in Pennsylvania are the trained, armed, uniformed and patrol vehicle driving deputies relegated to prisoner transport, court security and serving summonses. This is a tremendous waste of existing resources. If this is because “that’s the way it has always been,” it is not a reason; it is an excuse!

One would expect that costs to upgrade sheriffs departments for this expected role would be much less than the $31 million in new revenues, which would be quite a windfall for the Commonwealth.

Small municipal police departments formed due to this legislation would always be in search of operating revenue, possibly in the form of traffic violation fines.

There is no reason to reinvent the wheel with this issue.

Just look beyond Pennsylvania!

Tony Gonzalez Sr., member
South Middleton Township Planning Commission

TOWANDA — In the public reception area in the Bradford County Sheriff’s Office, there is a petition on the counter that the public can sign, which is aimed at increasing the police powers of sheriffs and their deputies.

Recent decisions by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have significantly curtailed the ability of sheriffs and their deputies to make arrests and investigate crimes.

“I do believe that sheriffs need to play a vital role in the law enforcement community in their counties, as they have for hundreds of years,” said Bradford County Sheriff Steven Evans, who made the decision to place the petition on the counter. “We just want to be able to help protect our county.”

The petition supports Pennsylvania House Bill 466, which would restore the ability of county sheriffs and deputy sheriffs to participate in law enforcement duties as needed in their communities, the petition states. The reinstatement of those powers will help keep Pennsylvania residents safe in their communities, the petition states.

House Bill 466, which is sponsored by Rep. Craig Dally, R-Northampton, has its roots in a case involving sheriff’s deputies investigating a methamphetamine production lab in Bradford County. That case led to a state Supreme Court ruling last November that sheriffs lack the power to investigate suspected drug violations.

Generally speaking, sheriffs and their deputies can make arrests for breaches of the peace or traffic violations, but otherwise they need specific authority under state law to make arrests for certain crimes, such as drug violations.

House Bill 466 would give sheriffs and their deputies basically the same police powers as municipal police officers, Evans said.

If the bill became law, sheriffs and their deputies would be able to make arrests and investigate crime to the same extent as municipal police officers, he said.

If the bill passed, it would not cause the Bradford County Sheriff’s Office to evolve into a regional police force, Evans said.

“We’re too busy with the work we have now” to become a regional police force, he said.

Some local residents have expressed concerns about the cost of giving the Bradford County Sheriff’s Office a larger law enforcement role.

Evans noted that even before the Supreme Court decisions were handed down, the Bradford County Sheriff’s Office was not a “responding agency.” In other words, unlike the state police or local municipal police agencies, the Sheriff’s Department had not been summoned in the past by 911 dispatchers when a resident reported a burglary, rape, mugging or other crime, Evans said.

In the past, when the Bradford County Sheriff’s Office had expanded police powers, it served as an agency which supplemented other local police agencies’ enforcement, and assisted them when needed, he has said.

“We were not actively patrolling,” except when the sheriff’s office received PennDOT grants to conduct DUI patrols in high-crash areas, he has said.

Evans said that restoring police powers to sheriff’s departments would benefit Bradford County.

“We (the Bradford County Sheriff’s Office) in the past have been successful, particularly in (investigating) meth cases,” Evans said.

Among the duties of the Bradford County Sheriff’s Department are transporting prisoners, performing courthouse security, and serving bench warrants.

Among the concerns raised by opponents of House Bill 466 is that it would increase the labor costs of sheriff’s departments. Evans, however, has disputed the contention that there would be increased labor costs.

The petition in the Bradford County Sheriff’s Office, which has 31 signatures so far, has been on the counter “for a little while,” Evans said. When asked, he did not specify how long the petition had been on the counter. The petition is being circulated by the Pennsylvania Sheriffs Association.

HARRISBURG –   The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency recently presented the 2008 Crime Prevention Office of the Sheriff Award to Chester County Sheriff Carolyn Bunny Welsh.
 
The award, a joint endeavor of PCCD and the Pennsylvania Sheriffs’ Association, recognizes the importance and contributions made by a sheriff in the realm of community crime prevention efforts.
 
Welsh has served as Chester County sheriff since 2000 and is a member of the Pennsylvania Sheriff’s Association. In that capacity, Welsh has supported a number of community-based crime prevention efforts, including D.A.R.E; the “Think Safe” program, which provides young children with an action plan in the event of a dangerous situation; and “Shop With a Cop,” where sheriff deputies volunteer their time during the holiday season to help underprivileged children buy gifts for their loved ones. 
 
Welsh is the first woman to be elected sheriff in Chester County and is one of only 22 female sheriffs in the nation. She is also the first to be elected president of a class at the National Sheriffs Institute at the Department of Corrections in Longmont, Colorado.

PCCD Executive Director Michael Kane will present the award to Welsh tonight during the President’s Banquet at the 86th annual Pennsylvania Sheriff’s Association Summer Conference in Trevose, Bucks County.
 
 PCCD is Pennsylvania’s lead agency for criminal justice policy issues, distributing state and federal funding for programs to prevent crime and strengthen communities. PCCD also provides vital support services to law enforcement and financial assistance to victims of crime.
 
 For more information about PCCD,  visit the PCCD web site.
 

Area police did an outstanding job Tuesday morning during a short but dangerous standoff in Stroudsburg. They nabbed their man with no one hurt.

The scary scenario unfolded like a made-for-television movie right outside the doors of this newspaper. A 14-year-old girl called police around 7:30 Tuesday morning saying a man had kidnapped her at gunpoint from her Middle Smithfield Township home early Tuesday morning and raped her in a room at the Budget Host Inn room. She had gotten out of the room somehow. She also told police the man had a gun.

Stroud Area Regional Police responded, approaching the room of the accused man, 27-year-old Derek J. Bengtsson. Police said Bengtsson fired shots as they reached the room door, trapping one officer in the bathroom and prompting the others to pull back and alert the special response team.

Within minutes, police from all over had surrounded the hotel, warned neighbors to stay inside and blocked traffic from the area. Negotiators also arrived and went to work. By 9:20 a.m., without another shot fired, Bengtsson surrendered.

Assisting SARP were officers from the Pocono Mountain Regional Police, state police at Swiftwater, the Monroe County Sheriff's office and the Monroe County District Attorney's office. Domestic relations officers were on hand, with Stroudsburg Fire Department volunteers and the MedEvac helicopter on standby. Pocono Township Police helped handle the routine police calls that continued coming in for SARP during the standoff.

It takes good training, constant readiness and good instincts to react thoroughly and professionally to a crisis like this one and to end it without anyone getting hurt. Credit goes to SARP and to all the other officers and department officials who participated, cooperating smoothly. They risked their own lives while keeping their heads in a life-threatening situation.

With Bengtsson under arrest, the District Attorney's office can pursue this alarming case through the legal channels. Meanwhile, local residents should feel confident that law enforcement in Monroe County is second to none.

-Pocono Record

From the TIMES OBSERVER:

A bill which would clarify the powers of Pennsylvania's 2,300 sheriff deputies remains stalled in Harrisburg.

Article Poll - Do you think sheriff’s deputies should have the power to investigate crimes and make arrests?

Yes 60%
No 40%

A bill which would clarify the powers of Pennsylvania's sheriff's deputies remains "bottled up" in the House Judiciary Committee.

But the director of the Pennsylvania Sheriff's Association says if the bill is not acted on during the current legislative session, it will be reintroduced in January.

Several court rulings, including a state Supreme Court ruling in the wiretapping case of (Warren County Sheriff Larry) Kopko versus Miler have clouded the question of whether sheriffs deputies have police powers.

The sheriffs association has drafted legislation, House Bill 466, which would clarify that the state's 2,300 deputies do have investigative and arrests powers, provided they have proper training.

Jim Hazen, executive director of the sheriffs association, said the bill was first introduced in October 2006 but not acted upon, then reintroduced in February 2007, but has remained stalled in the committee since.

The bill is co-sponsored by State Rep. Kathy Rapp of Warren.

"It's still bottled up," said Hazen, "but either it or a modified version will be reintroduced in January or February."

Many lawmakers have said they will support the bill, but Hazen said that in May every member of the legislature received a letter of opposition to the bill from the Pennsylvania State Police, Fraternal Order of Police, Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association and Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association.

The letter stated that if deputies take on additional law enforcement duties they will not be able to perform traditional court-related duties.

"When our sheriffs can not adequately perform these duties, this imposes a burden on the other law enforcement agencies which must step in and perform these functions," the letter stated.

"That is why it would be a mistake to unnecessarily expand the responsibilities of sheriff departments when statistics clearly show most struggle with their existing complement to fully perform their current duties," the opponents said.

If the legislature does grant full police powers to deputies, the opponents said, deputies should be required to pass psychological testing, complete training and county commissioners in each county should have to vote on the expansion of deputies' powers.

Hazen responded, saying that the 760 hours of police training received by deputies make training a "non-issue."

Hazen also said that county commissioners "control the purse strings" of sheriffs departments and can decide whether or not deputies' roles should be limited to court-related duties or expanded to include law enforcement functions.

Show Your Support for Pennsylvania’s Sheriffs by Signing our online Petition

By endorsing the petition, you are telling state lawmakers that you support House Bill 466 that would restore the ability for county sheriffs and deputy sheriffs to participate in law enforcement duties as needed in their communities.  House Bill 466, which is sponsored by Rep. Craig Dally, is currently in the state House Judiciary Committee. 

The Pennsylvania Sheriffs’ Association will submit the signed petitions to the General Assembly in an effort to pass House Bill 466 and get it signed into law.  Your support is greatly appreciated.

By Sean Connolly
Special to the Law Weekly

sean[at]connolly-communications.com

When you see a deputy sheriff wearing a uniform, badge and a gun, do you see a law enforcement officer or someone with authority no different than a private citizen?

For the past few years, the sheriffs of Pennsylvania have been trying to get the General Assembly to see the former rather than the latter. I have helped the Pennsylvania Sheriffs' Association with its efforts to restore the sheriffs' authority to participate in the law enforcement activities following two state Supreme Court rulings.

In February 2006, the state Supreme Court ruled in Kopko v. Miller, 892 A.2d 766 (Pa. 2006) that sheriffs and deputy sheriffs were not defined as law enforcement personnel under state law. While the case dealt with wiretap training, the ruling resulted in deputy sheriffs being removed from the Attorney General's drug task forces. In November 2007, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Kopko ruling in Commonwealth v. Dobbins, PICS Case No. 07-1923 (Pa. Nov. 29, 2007) Baer, J. (26 pages). The justices remanded a meth conviction to the trial court for reconsideration (The defendant was recently re-tried and found guilty). The court said that, as the law is written, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs have authority "no different than a private citizen." That line stung the most, considering the extensive law enforcement training that deputy sheriffs are required to take to become state certified.

In its rulings, the court said it appreciated the way the Office of Sheriff has evolved into a modern law enforcement agency, but the statutes have not kept up with the pace of change. If lawmakers want sheriffs to participate in law enforcement activities, the court said, they need to say that in the law. There is legislation before the House Judiciary Committee that would give the sheriffs the authority to participate in law enforcement activities as needed in their communities. This legislation is particularly important to sheriffs in rural areas, where there are little or no municipal police and the state troopers on duty could be many miles away.

State Rep. Thomas Caltagirone, D-Berks, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has held several meetings and hearings on the legislation. At those meetings, the state police, municipal police and district attorneys have lined up in opposition to the sheriffs. The state police contend that they have the rural counties covered adequately. The municipal police question the qualifications and training of the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs. The district attorneys assert that they, not the sheriffs, are the top elected law enforcement officials in the counties and should call the shots.

It is a classic law enforcement turf battle. The opponents argue that the legislation, House Bill 466, gives too much authority to the sheriffs and allows them to become countywide police forces. They prefer the status quo of letting state police, municipal police and county detectives investigate crimes and make arrests, while the sheriffs focus on transporting prisoners, guarding the courthouse and serving writs. Most sheriffs in urban and suburban areas, which have plenty of state and municipal police, say they have no plans to begin patrolling the streets. However, sheriffs in rural areas are pushing hard for the authority to participate in law enforcement activities, including serving on drug task forces and making arrests when other law enforcement personnel are unavailable.

Rep. John Perzel, R-Philadelphia, has been pushing his proposal to put 10,000 police officers on the streets of Pennsylvania. The sheriffs support Perzel's proposal, but point out that the General Assembly can empower 2,300 fully trained deputy sheriffs by passing HB 466 at no additional cost to the taxpayers.

The question is whether the sides can find a compromise to allow sheriffs to rejoin the law enforcement community, or whether the turf battle will keep sheriffs without a clearly defined role in Pennsylvania.

BY JAMES LOEWENSTEIN
Daily and Sunday Review           

 The 2004 methamphetamine-manufacturing conviction of Cory Dobbins, 33, of Troy attained statewide importance when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled last November that critical evidence in the case could not be used against him.

 The evidence was gathered by Bradford County sheriff’s deputies, and the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s illegal drug law does not permit sheriff’s deputies to investigate crimes that occur outside their presence, which is the type of investigation that had occurred in the Dobbins case.

 Following the Supreme Court ruling, Pennsylvania’s Superior Court suppressed all evidence gathered against Dobbins by the Bradford County Sheriff’s Department, vacated Dobbins’ four-to-23 year sentence, and sent the case back to trial court in Bradford County.

 On Monday, the case was re-tried in the Bradford County Court of Common Pleas, and at the end of the trial, the jury found Dobbins guilty of all the charges that had originally been lodged against him, said Bradford County District Attorney Daniel Barrett.

 “Dobbins won in the Supreme Court, but all he won was a new trial,” said Barrett, when asked to comment on the case.

 Dobbins’ arrest occurred when Bradford County deputies went to a private residence near Troy in July 2003, seeking to question a woman in a drug investigation. At the time they detected a chemical smell coming from a barn. They approached Cory J. Dobbins, who escaped on foot, and then came across items used to manufacture methamphetamine before obtaining a search warrant.

 Dobbins was arrested less then two weeks later in Elmira, N.Y., and was subsequently convicted of methamphetamine-related offenses.

 Barrett said it was a challenge to re-try Dobbins because so much of the evidence and testimony used at Dobbins’ original trial could no longer be used, including the physical evidence gathered at the scene by the sheriff’s department, Barrett said.

 In this week’s trial, the district attorney’s office relied heavily on the testimony of others involved with Dobbins in manufacturing meth, Barrett said.

 With the passage of time, more of them were willing to testify, he said.

 Also testifying at this week’s trial was state police fire marshal Robert McKee, who reported during the proceedings that when he was investigating a fire on the same property in June 2003, he found items that suggested that methamphetamine manufacturing was going on on the property, Barrett said.

 Barrett said he appointed Bradford County Sheriff’s Deputies David Hart and Jamie Lammy as special deputy county detectives so that they could help coordinate the preparations for this week’s trial,  

 “They wore the badge of the district attorney’s Office and the county detective’s office in addition to their own,” Barrett said. 

 The jury found Dobbins guilty this week of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine, criminal conspiracy, and criminal attempt, Barrett said.
 
 Dobbins’s bail was revoked on Monday, and he is scheduled to be sentenced by Bradford County Court Judge Jeffrey Smith on May 15.
 

All he needed was a little nudge.

That opportunity came when former Montour County Sheriff Fred Shepperson offered him a job in 1978 as a corrections officer. Thirty years later, Gerringer has taken over for his mentor as county sheriff and is now the one guiding young law enforcement officers.

"The most important thing (Shepperson) always told me was that law enforcement has to work together," said Gerringer, who was honored Friday night by the Pennsylvania State Elks Association for his devotion to community service and work in federal investigations. "No matter what your badge reads, you do what's right for the community and to keep the people safe."

Gerringer was given the prestigious Enrique S. Camarena Award, named for the former federal Drug Enforcement Agency agent who was kidnapped in 1985 and tortured by drug traffickers. Gerringer, who chosen among 10 nominees from across the state, was humbled by the recognition and accepted the award during a celebration at the Danville Elks Club on behalf of all law enforcement officers.

"This is very important to me, and I'm very much honored," Gerringer said. "Everything I've done in my career has been a team effort, and we will continue to do things as a team."

Several of Gerringer's closest friends and fellow law enforcement officials spoke about the impact he has had on combating crime in area.

"When I moved to the area with my wife, no sooner did I hear about this horrendous shooting case at Geisinger (Medical Center)," said Jack McCann, an assistant U.S. Attorney. "I kept hearing about all of the work of this guy named Ray, who orchestrated the investigation and pursuit of these two guys who shot and killed a prison guard. Because of his effort, both defendants ended up in jail."

Mike Hudak, a retired FBI agent, said Gerringer best defines what law enforcement is about.

"When you bust through a door on a search warrant, and you're scared, it's hard to describe the trust you share with your fellow officers," Hudak said. "It carries over to everyday life, and Ray has continued to strengthen those bonds from the first day on the job.

"If I ever had a reputation in the FBI it is because of guys like Ray. Truth be known, the FBI rides on the shirttails of guys like him."

Montour County District Attorney Robert Buehner Jr., who grew up with Gerringer, said the award was long overdue and attributed to Gerringer's strong professionalism, commitment to family and community.

"I remember him as the little kid in the neighborhood watching the big boys play basketball," Buehner said. "I don't know who was more surprised when he became sheriff or when I became district attorney. Back then, the only thing we knew about the law was how to evade it."

Buehner highlighted three big cases that Gerringer played significant roles in solving. One included the largest Korean money laundering case ever in the country, according to Buehner.

"This Korean guy purchased a local farm and turned it into a golf course," Buehner said. "We knew something was up and figured it was for drugs. Ray stuck with it, and we ended up shutting down a huge money laundering operation coming from New York City into Montour County."

Gerringer was also a leader in investigations that closed a $500,000 marijuana operation led by two brothers and a case involving a heroin overdose that led to convictions of more than 30 individuals in federal court, Buehner said.

"These cases were really solved through Ray's efforts," Buehner said. "He really deserves this award, perhaps it's a little overdue."

Looking back, Gerringer said he is grateful for the relationships he formed.
"I've been blessed to work with many great people from the state Attorney General's Office and several state police barracks," Gerringer said. "I've also been fortunate to be involved with the FBI, DEA, the IRS Criminal Division, and U.S. Attorney's Office. I've had the pleasure of being an investigator with the FBI on numerous occasions, including a number of grand jury investigations."

Many of those cases led to numerous nights away from his family, which Gerringer said, gave him great respect for their understanding and support.

"They've been the glue that's held me together," Gerringer said of wife, Melanie, of 20 years, and children, Sara, a Danville High School senior, and Tyler, a freshman. "There were many missed family and sporting events, because dad was out on drug investigations or executing search warrants."

In addition to his home life, Gerringer said he is thankful for his second family at work.

"We have a very small agency, myself and nine deputies," Gerringer said. "We're more than just an office. We socialize together, help one another with family activities and house projects. It really makes a big difference.

"The day I stop having fun with this job is the day I quit working."

Luzerne County Sheriff Michael Savokinas wants area legislators to support a bill that would give his deputies broader investigative and arrest powers.

Right now, they hold some powers in crimes they witness, but are limited in scenarios that might require some extra legwork.

“Some crimes we can’t investigate because we didn’t see it,” Savokinas said.

Savokinas said his roster is filled with people who also serve as municipal police officers. But when they come to work at the sheriff’s office, their powers are limited, he said.

Several court rulings have sparked confusion about the powers of sheriff’s deputies and initiated the current call to increase their powers.

The state Supreme Court ruled sheriffs are not investigative or law enforcement officers under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping Act, which Savokinas said hurts the ability of the sheriff’s office to conduct drug investigations.

Several months ago, the court ruled the sheriffs only have arrest authority for breaches of the peace and felonies committed in their presence.

Following the ruling, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office removed sheriff’s deputies from its drug task forces across the state.

The Pennsylvania Sheriff’s Association wants the decision put in the hands of legislators instead of the courts.

“This will completely define our powers once and for all,” Savokinas said.

There are 2,300 sheriff’s deputies in Pennsylvania. The proposal, House Bill 466, is touted as a necessary tool to help fight crime, especially in rural areas.

Outside the sheriffs union, there has not been much public support for the law. The Pennsylvania State Police Troopers Association and the state Fraternal Order of Police are against the bill.

Currently, the main duties of the sheriff’s department is courtroom security, prisoner transport, execution of warrants, real estate processing, administering protection from abuse orders and issuing gun permits.

Savokinas, a local police officer before becoming sheriff, said he can’t understand why the troopers and municipal police are against the extra help they would receive.

“It could help our communities. In no way could it hurt. We are so busy doing our own work, I’m not looking to go into a town and say, ‘We’re taking over your police work.’”
 

-- In February 2006, the state Supreme Court ruled that sheriffs are not investigative or law enforcement officers under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping Act.

-- And in November, the high court restated that sheriffs' common law authority allows only for arrests for breaches of the peace and felonies committed in their presence. Some sheriffs' offices, especially those in rural areas, subsequently wrestled with uncertainty over the extent of their law enforcement authority.

According to Franklin County Sheriff Dane Anthony, questions arose over how to approach their duties. "It would be nice to really define the office of the sheriff," Anthony said.

We agree, and we think House Bill 466 -- which would confer upon similarly trained sheriff's officials the same law enforcement powers and immunities enjoyed by municipal police -- would boost law enforcement manpower and help county police agencies settle jurisdictional issues to ensure maximum coverage efficiency. It makes sense to give deputies the ability to contribute to county law enforcement, and we doubt their traditional duties -- serving warrants and escorting prisoners, to name just two -- would suffer to the point the county might need additional personnel. More likely, they would continue working as usual, but also have the power to assist state and local police in extraordinary circumstances.

That seems like an optimal balance to us, especially when you consider that sheriff's deputies undergo the same 19 weeks of training granted to municipal police officers.

-- By Matthew Major, on behalf of Public Opinion's editorial board

by Wes Skillings - 3/13/2008

Several hundred people gathered at the Capitol Rotunda in Harrisburg Tuesday in a rally to call for restoring law enforcement powers to sheriffs and deputy sheriffs throughout the state—powers that had been essentially removed by a pair of Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions. One of those decisions involved a case in Bradford County in July of 2003 in which two Bradford County sheriff’s deputies busted a methamphetamine lab and arrested the individual running it.

It was fitting that one of the speakers at the rally Tuesday was Bradford County Sheriff Steven Evans. It was two of his deputies at the time—David Hart and the late Chris Burgert—who discovered what turned out to be a meth lab on the property of a man named Cory J. Dobbins. At the time, sheriffs and their deputies with the required “Act 120” certification, which was the case with both Burgert and Hart, had the same powers of arrests and authorization as municipal police officers.

“I just spoke from the heart,” said Evans of his remarks Tuesday, and the issue is indeed close to his heart. “I told them the court case was a ridiculous ruling. Two deputies find a meth lab, get a search warrant and catch the bad guy. The Supreme Court overturns their legal authority to do it, and a meth maker is going to be set free.”

The irony of it all for Evans is that had Hart and Burgert both been on duty as municipal police officers that day, there would have been no question about the validity of the arrest and investigation. In fact, both of the deputies had served as municipal police officers.

The Harrisburg rally was essentially held under the aegis of the Pennsylvania Sheriffs’ Association, with the support of state lawmakers and concerned citizens, to urge the General Assembly “to restore the law enforcement duties of nearly 2,300 deputy sheriffs serving in Pennsylvania counties.”

Those duties and powers were essentially taken away in 2006 when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in a case known as “Kopko” that sheriffs and deputy sheriffs in the Commonwealth were not defined as “law enforcement personnel” under state law. That meant that this resource, which had been utilized by regional and county drug task forces throughout the state, has to step down, by order of the office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General, at the very time when the impact of illegal drugs, particularly methamphetamine, was at its worst. In Bradford County, the sheriff and his deputies were a high-profile weapon in the assault of methamphetamine on rural Pennsylvania, and were particularly effective in the public education aspect of countering the evils of the drug.

More than a year after Kopko, the Dobbins case out of Bradford County was used to uphold the finding of the former, remanding the conviction to the trial court for reconsideration. It had nothing to do with how the case was investigated or prosecuted, but simply that the court adjudged that the law gives sheriffs and deputy sheriffs no more authority than a private citizen.

The rally was held as a means of supporting House Bill 466, which would remedy the high court’s interpretation of the inherent investigative and arrest powers of sheriffs and their deputies by allowing them “to participate in law enforcement duties as needed in their communities.” The sponsor of that bill, Rep. Craig Dally, a Northampton County Republican, was also there to speak at the rally. Rep. Matt Baker, who represents a section of western Bradford County, is also a supporter of that bill.

There has already been a public hearing on House Bill 466, and Dally explained at that time why it is important to vest sheriffs and deputies with the same power given to municipal police officers with the required certification: “We need to do everything in our power to protect the safety and well-being of men, women and children who make up the family we call Pennsylvania.”

Rep. Baker has stated the importance of this legislation succinctly: “Without a law, the criminal arrested by a deputy sheriff knows he will be released.”

Evans has spoken on the issue to the local news media and notes that it will not cost the taxpayers of the county any more, and it will allow the county to determine how they want to utilize his department and personnel for law enforcement. The sheriff and all of his deputies have the same training and certification as municipal police officers, notably the Act 120 training and certification, as well as the continuing training and upgrades that come with it.

The Bradford County Sheriff’s Department, prior to the court rulings, played an active role in cracking down on meth labs in the county and played a significant role in putting a number of so-called “meth makers” in jail. Proponents like Baker point out that restoring full arrest powers to sheriffs and deputies would have a major impact on extending law enforcement in rural areas, particularly municipalities with no police presence.

What the Supreme Court did in its decisions on Kopko and Robbins was stated in the written opinion of Justice Max Baer:

“We have recognized the sheriffs’ authority to arrest for breaches of the peace of felonies committed in their presence and to enforce the Vehicle Code, but denied them the opportunity to be trained and certified to utilize the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act for wont of express statutory authority to do so.”

The authority of sheriffs has come up for clarification before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court five times in the past 15 years, but without stating those specific powers, as HB 466 does, a sheriff or deputy can technically make no arrest unless the crime occurs right in front of him or her. That means the key tool of investigation has been taken away from them.

“Pennsylvania needs this legislation,” said Erie County Sheriff Bob Merski at the rally. “There are nearly 2,300 fully-trained deputy sheriffs who are prepared to join the fight against crime in our communities and protect out citizens.”

Not everyone agrees, of course, and there are those who see this as sheriff’s departments trying to justify their existence and that it will put more people in harm’s way, particularly in investigating drug cases. One critic on the internet indicated the deaths of two Bradford County sheriff’s deputies, one of them Burgert, could have been avoided had not their duties been so extended. However, even though their deaths were statistically listed as methamphetamine-related, the two slain officers were not investigating a drug case when ambushed by Dustin Briggs, who now sits on Pennsylvania’s Death Row. They were serving warrants—one of them to Briggs’s girlfriend at the time, which was drug-related.

County sheriffs from across Pennsylvania gathered at the Capitol in Harrisburg Tuesday for the right to act as law enforcement officers.

The state Supreme Court ruled in November of last year that sheriffs and their deputies are not defined, under state law, as law enforcement officers. That, says Bradford County Sheriff Steve Evan, is impeding efforts to fight the production of methamphetamines in northeastern Pennsylvania.

"Bradford County has finished first or second in the state in meth lab seizures for a number of years," Evans said, "I'm happy to report that it's better now than it used to be. And I would suggest, humbly suggest to you, that part of the reason for that is because of our efforts."

State Representative Craig Daily, a Northampton Republican, has introduced legislation that would give sheriffs and deputies more power in Pennsylvania. He explained, "This bill vests sheriffs and deputy sheriffs with the power to investigate crime, and to make arrests -- the same power given to municipal police officers."

Daily says his bill, if passed, would require sheriffs and deputies to complete the same training as municipal and law enforcement officers. State police oppose the bill, because, they say, it would create jurisdictional conflicts.

Mr. Evans spoke at a rally that drew dozens of county sheriffs and their deputies from across Pennsylvania. They lobbied for a measure by Rep. Craig Dally, R-Northampton, to give sheriffs and deputies the same arrest powers as municipal police officers, provided they have similar law enforcement training.

“I ask the Legislature to help restore my ability... to continue the fight to make Bradford County a better place,” Mr. Evans said.

The sheriff said his deputies have played a key role in seizing clandestine methamphetamine labs in Bradford County. He said it’s incredible the state Supreme Court ruled sheriffs lack power to investigate drug cases without a specific law giving them authority to do so.

The court ruled in November on a 2003 case involving the arrest of Corry Dobbins, of Troy, on methamphetamine manufacturing charges by two Bradford County deputies. One of those deputies — Christopher Burgert — was later killed while investigating another methamphetamine lab in Bradford County.

The Pennsylvania Sheriffs’ Association touts Mr. Dally’s bill as a way to address the court ruling. The bill has drawn opposition from some law enforcement groups, but Mr. Evans said critics shouldn’t fear that sheriffs are making a power grab.

“We are living proof in Bradford County that is just not the case,” he added.

Rep. Tina Pickett, R-Wysox Township, said giving sheriffs broader arrest powers will help in rural areas where there are few municipal police departments and state troopers are spread thin.

“I view this (bill) as an opportunity to create greater cooperation, greater backup and support among all our law enforcement groups,” she added.

Also lending support at the rally were Sen. Lisa Baker, R-Lehman Township, and Reps. Mario Scavello, R-Mount Pocono, and Mike Peifer, R-Greentown.

Mr. Dally’s bill is before the House Judiciary Committee. The chairman, Rep. Tom Caltagirone, D-Berks, said recently the bill needs to be rewritten to address issues regarding proper training, liability insurance protection and whether county or state taxpayers will bear the training costs.

BY ROBERT SWIFT
Scranton Times, HARRISBURG BUREAU CHIEF
Contact the writer: rswift@timesshamrock.com

About 100 sheriffs and deputies - including several from York County - rallied in the Capitol on Tuesday for a bill to give them law-enforcement powers similar to police.

Rep. Craig Dally, R-Northampton, sponsored the bill that would vest sheriffs and deputies with the power to investigate crimes and make arrests. Co-sponsors include Reps. Bev Mackereth, R-Spring Grove, and Dan Moul, R-Conewago Township.

While sheriff's officials can make traffic stops and issue vehicle citations, courts have ruled the existing law does not give them any more law-enforcement powers than an average citizen. Their main responsibilities include courthouse security, serving warrants and transporting prisoners.

Backers of Dally's bill say it's needed in rural areas with few municipal police, and would restore powers that sheriffs once had. They also say it restricts sheriffs law-enforcement powers to areas where they are needed.

"I think all of us would agree that Pennsylvanians must use all of our available resources in the fight against crime," Dally said.

York County Sheriff Richard Keuerleber attended the rally with several deputies and county commissioners Steven Chronister and Chris Reilly.

Keuerleber said deputies need arrest powers to protect themselves and others while they are performing duties such as serving warrants or subpoenas.

"It's important when we're out in harms way to be able to affect an arrest," Keuerleber said.

Reilly called Dally's bill "a common-sense measure that gives us another tool in the fight against crime."

The bill does not have widespread support in the law-enforcement community.

Critics say the plan would cause jurisdictional confusion and pull sheriffs away from their current duties.

Some question whether sheriffs and deputies would get the same type of training as police, who receive more training in criminal investigation.

The bill received mixed reviews last month at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. The state police and Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association were among those who raised concerns.

The bill remains pending in the Judiciary Committee.

Sheriffs, Deputy Sheriffs and citizens from across the Commonwealth will be attending a rally organized by the PA Sheriffs' Association on Tuesday in support of House Bill 466, which would authorize Pennsylvania’s nearly 2,300 deputy sheriffs to participate in law enforcement duties as needed in their communities.

The rally is scheduled for 11 a.m. Tuesday, March 11, in the Capitol Rotunda, Capitol Complex. Your coverage is welcomed.
 
Several sheriffs including, Erie County Sheriff Bob Merski, President of the PA Sheriffs Association, will speak at the rally.  Rep. Craig Dally (R-Northampton County) is the sponsor of House Bill 466, which would statutorily restore sheriffs’ offices with the authority to perform law enforcement duties.  The legislation is very important to rural counties, which have fewer municipal police forces.
 
For more information, contact Jim Hazen, Executive Director of the PA Sheriffs’ Association, at 717-236-7336. 

Legislation sponsored by Rep. Craig Dally (R-Northampton)  that would better protect Pennsylvania communities by allowing Pennsylvania’s deputy sheriffs to participate in law enforcement and emergency activities in their counties (House Bill 466) was the focus of a public hearing today by the House Judiciary Committee.

House Bill 466 vests sheriffs and deputy sheriffs with the power to investigate crime and to make arrests, the same power given to municipal police officers. Further, the bill requires that before the power to investigate crime and to make arrests may be exercised, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs must complete the same type of training as municipal police officers.

“We need to do everything in our power to protect the safety and well-being of the men, women and children who make up the family we call Pennsylvania,” Dally said in opening remarks before a packed hearing room.   

“By enacting House Bill 466, the General Assembly can expand the public policy we set for sheriffs under the Protection from Abuse Act and the Uniform Firearms Act,” Dally said.  

“By enacting House Bill 466, we can meet the dedication and seriousness of purpose of some 2,500 deputy sheriffs with the statutory authority to make arrests and investigate criminal acts.”

Sgt. David Ruberry of the Northampton County Sherriff’s Department and the Deputy Sherrifs’ Association of Pennsylvania said enacting Dally’s measure would be a restorative measure. 

“We are asking for this legislation to clarify the sheriff’s long-standing, pre-existing, power and authority and to defeat efforts to reduce or limit the sheriff’s power and authority.

Also testifying in favor of the measure was Erie County Sheriff Robert Merski, incoming president of the Pennsylvania Sheriffs’ Association. 

“Sheriffs and sheriffs’ deputies need statutory authority to perform their law enforcement duties. Clearly, this is a time to grant that authority,” Merski said, noting that such activities as drug law enforcement and protection in local schools in Erie County have been hampered by the court’s decision.

The February 2006 decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Kopko et al. vs. Miller determined that sheriffs were not “investigative or law enforcement officers” under state law.

“Under this ruling, they would have no authority greater than that of the common man,” Merski said. “Many sheriffs’ offices, especially in rural areas, are faced with uncertainty over what law enforcement activities can and can’t be performed.”

The court issued its ruling while considering whether deputy sheriffs could receive training for wiretap investigations. However, the ruling created confusion over whether sheriffs are allowed to perform other law enforcement functions.

Following the court ruling, the Pennsylvania Attorney General was forced to suspend the nearly 75 deputy sheriffs who served on the Attorney General Drug Task Force operations across the state.

Montour County District Attorney Robert W. Buehner Jr. said that elected local officials could sort out possible jurisdictional problems if the bill became law raised by Lt. Col. Frank E. Pawlowski, deputy commissioner of operations for the Pennsylvania State Police.

“We need as many bullets as possible in our arsenal to fight crime,” Buehner said.   

Harry Schneider, chairman of the Pennsylvania Sportsmen’s Association, said that several sportsmen’s groups support the bill.   

Rep. Craig Dally
138th District
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
(610) 746-2100
(717) 783-8573

www.CraigDally.com         
Contact: Len Bennett

House Republican Public Relations
(717) 787-3407
www.pahousegop.com