COURT RULINGS HURT LAW ENFORCEMENT

To the Editor:

I am writing to offer my apology to your readers for my comment in the
article "Deputies debate authority" that appeared in your newspaper on
March 2. My choice of language was not appropriate and it lacked
professionalism.

The quote is accurate and I am not disputing it. However, as a
rationalization I become very passionate when discussing the issue of
the restoration of the powers and duties of the sheriffs and deputy
sheriffs of our state.

As an individual who has spent almost 40 years in law enforcement, it
is unbelievable to me that the criminal investigation and arrest
authority of these individuals is called into question as a result of
two recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions that, in essence,
stated that the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs need to have statutory
approval to carry out the duties that they have performed since before
our country and state were founded.

Of greater concern and disbelief to me are that other law enforcement
agencies and associations oppose the restoration of those powers and
duties while the sheriffs attempt to have the Legislature remedy the
situation.

Today, there are concerns and demands for more law enforcement
officers to protect our citizens and communities. However, the 2,300
trained and state-certified deputy sheriffs cannot perform basic
criminal law enforcement functions, unless the deputy witnesses the
offense and then only if it is a felony or a breach of the peace.

There have been adverse impacts resulting from the two recent Supreme
Court decisions.

With the first of the opinions, the attorney general of Pennsylvania
was compelled to remove 72 deputy sheriffs from his drug task forces
in the various parts of our state. In the more recent decision, a
known and convicted manufacturer of methamphetamine was released from
state prison because the deputy sheriffs did not have statutory
authority to investigate and arrest the individual, even after
obtaining a search warrant and subsequent arrest warrant from a
magisterial district judge, hearings at the county court level, a
conviction in county court after the evidence was presented and a
hearing before the Superior Court, where the conviction was upheld.

In both of these cases, the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs were acting
in good faith under the long-held theory of the common law that
allowed the sheriffs and their deputies to perform criminal law
enforcement duties. That concept has been in effect before the time
that Pennsylvania was founded.

The sheriffs of Pennsylvania are not attempting to expand their
historic powers, but they are attempting to have them restored. They
are not trying to form county police departments; the sheriffs are
working with the Legislature to have the criminal law enforcement
powers and duties reinstated in statute.

The sheriffs, and their trained and state-certified deputy sheriffs,
are concerned with protecting the people of their counties and
assisting to maintain public safety.

Again, I regret my comment in the article and I apologize to you and
your readers. I admit that I said it to your reporter, Ben Wolfgang,
and his quotation was accurate.

Jim Hazen,

Executive Director,

Pennsylvania Sheriffs' Association