DEPUTIES DEBATE AUTHORITY

Imagine you've just been robbed at gunpoint.

As your attacker takes off down the Pottsville streets, a county
sheriff's deputy rounds the corner. Struggling to catch your breath,
you call for the deputy to arrest the man, but, as willing as he may
be, a recent court decision has handcuffed his legal powers.

"It's absurd what the (Pennsylvania) Supreme Court has done,"
Schuylkill County Sheriff Harold Rowan said Tuesday. "They decided we
did not have the authority (to arrest)."

Two state Supreme Court rulings, the most notable in November 2007,
have eroded sheriff departments' powers. However, House Bill 466,
proposed by state Rep. Craig Dally, R-Northampton, would restore
deputies' power, but Pennsylvania State Police officials and others
argue deputies don't have the needed training to deal with criminal
situations.

Convict will walk

In Bradford County, a convicted methamphetamine dealer will probably
go free because of the court's November 2007 decision in The
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Cory Dobbins.

In the case, the court decided sheriffs and deputies do not have the
same arrest powers as local police - despite being armed with a
magisterial district judge's search warrant.

The dealer, Cory Dobbins, is awaiting release because all evidence
seized by the deputies has been suppressed by the court.

"Frankly, he'll be out cooking meth, trying to manufacture meth. Who's
getting screwed here?" said Jim Hazen, executive director of the
Pennsylvania Sheriff's Association.

The court's decision means a deputy can only make an arrest if he
actually sees the offense or if he has a warrant from a county
president judge, leaving deputies in a precarious position.

In 2003, Bradford County deputies visited the home of April Harris,
whose name had come up in connection with a meth investigation. While
Harris wasn't home, the deputies smelled meth in a nearby barn on the
property. The deputies approached Dobbins, who was near the barn,
detained him and later secured a search warrant from the magisterial
district judge.

The evidence of a meth lab inside the barn was enough to convict
Dobbins in the Bradford County Court of Common Pleas.

The state Supreme Court, which received the case through appeal,
decided the deputies had acted illegally, arguing they are not trained
as local police and do not have the same authority.

In a situation where a citizen is in harm's way, Rowan said deputies
will act.

"I guarantee you he (the deputy) will go after him," he said. "But,
the case could be blown. Now we have to hold this guy until the local
police file a report."

Pottsville Police Chief Joseph Murton V said the appropriate action
would be just that: Detain the alleged criminal until police arrive.

Murton said Pottsville police have always had a positive working
relationship with the county sheriff's department and restoring arrest
powers to deputies would be "an asset."

Lawmakers get involved

At a Feb. 21 hearing, the state House of Representatives Judiciary
Committee heard concerns from all parties on deputies and their powers.

Lt. Colonel Frank E. Pawlowski, deputy commissioner of operations for
the state police, testified against restoring sheriff's department
power.

"Unfortunately, this legislation (House Bill 466) gives sheriffs
additional police powers without truly recognizing the total needs of
the criminal justice community, which relies upon the services
sheriffs provide to the courts, the prisons, and the public as a
whole," Pawlowski said.

Pawlowski also said it is imperative deputies can still fulfill their
duties inside the courthouse before returning pre-November 2007 arrest
powers.

Dennis Kane, head of the county sheriff's criminal division, said the
court's decision "ties the hands" of deputies and puts even more
pressure on local police departments.

"It's absurd to think we have the resources and we're hampered by the
court," Kane said.

The 2006 Supreme Court ruling didn't affect deputies' arrest powers,
but did start the ball rolling.

In Kopko v. Miller, the first case attacking deputies' powers, the
Supreme Court ruled sheriff's deputies couldn't be trained to conduct
wiretapping operations, inferring they did not have full police powers.

Hazen said he understood the case as dealing only with
wiretaps.

"We weren't happy with the decision but we could live with it," Hazen
said.

Deputies' main foes in their fight for arrest powers are Pennsylvania
State Police officials in Harrisburg, according to Hazen.

"Frankly, they somehow perceive the sheriffs as a threat," he
said.

"My opinion is people are afraid of (police) regionalization," Kane
said, adding some fear the establishment of a sheriff's department
that acts more as a county-wide police force.

Rowan stressed the sheriff's department does not want to expand its
powers in any way, only to have them restored to pre-Dobbins levels.

State Reps. David Argall, R-124; Neal Goodman, D-123; and Tim Seip,
D-125, said they support the bill and plan to vote "yes" when it hits
the Legislature floor.

"We need to return their (sheriffs and deputies) abilities to what
they were pre-Supreme Court ruling," Goodman said, adding he expects
Bill 466 to pass "overwhelmingly."

Training debated

Opponents of the bill argue deputies aren't properly trained to handle
criminal police matters.

While Murton said he would welcome the return of deputies arrest
powers, more training could be necessary.

"I'd like to see them (deputies) have some additional training, such
as rules of criminal procedure," Murton said.

Richard Sheetz, executive deputy attorney general, also testified
against deputy powers, echoing Pawlowski's testimony that police and
deputies should be kept separate - in large part because of different
training requirements.

According to information provided by the Pennsylvania Sheriff's
Association, municipal police undergo 754 hours of training under Act
120.

Deputies go through 760 hours of training, under Pennsylvania's Act
2.

"There's a big contrast," Murton said. "There are vast differences.
They're similar, but geared for different modes."

Deputies, for example, have no training for a motor-vehicle collision.
Municipal police have no court system training.

"The core curriculum, I would argue, is the same or very similar,"
Hazen said. "The training argument doesn't hold water."

During the House hearing, Pawlowski disagreed. Training, he said,
should be essentially identical.

"If sheriffs are given the same powers and duties as municipal police
officers, it is imperative that they be subject to the same
requirements as municipal police officers," Pawlowski testified.
"Consequently, If deputy sheriffs are going to serve as police
officers, they need to be certified as police officers."

In a time when many argue more police are needed to patrol the
streets, Rowan said restoring arrest powers is a valuable step.

"Twenty-five hundred (deputies statewide) ready to go," Rowan
said.

Until the bill passes, Rowan said the threat of harm is
elevated.

"It's dangerous to us and it's dangerous to the citizenry," Rowan
said.

There is one exception to the court's decision.

The Allegheny County Sheriff's Department has full police powers
because of a 1994 law.

No other Pennsylvania sheriff's department has the same
power.

"All sheriffs should have been included in that," Hazen said. "They
(Allegheny deputies) have full powers like any cop does."

Schuylkill County Sheriff's Deputies Info Box:

Sheriff: Harold J. Rowan

Major: Dennis Kane

Captain: David Snyder

Sergeants: John Hayes, Maureen Barnes, Barbara Szczyglak, Scott Taylor

Deputies: Jennifer Rainis, Christopher Rooney, Keith Berezwick, Shawn
Chaplick, Charles Dries

Clerk: Charlanne Frantz

Salaries: Average $30,000, higher depending on rank

Duties: Handling protection from abuse orders, warrants, subpoenas,
courtroom security, transportation of prisoners, secuirty personnel, central
booking and dealing with civil papers

U.S. Rep. Tim Holden, D-17, and county commissioner Francis V.
McAndrew both former Schuylkill County Sheriff.

Source: Sheriff Rowan

INFO BOX: Supreme Court Case

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Cory Dobbins

Decided: Nov. 20, 2007

Originally decided in Bradford County Court of Common
Pleas

Appealed to Pennsylvania Superior Court and later Supreme
Court

Majority decided "the acts of these deputies 'illegal'...and orders
suppression."

Written opinion - summary of case by Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Justice Max Baer

"Bradford County Sheriff's Deputies Christopher Burgert and David Hart
visited a residence in Troy, Pennsylvania, to locate and question one
April Harris, whose name had come up in connection with a prior
methamphetamine-centered investigation in Bradford County. The
deputies did not find Harris at her mobile home, but as they moved
deeper into the property they detected what they believed to be an
odor of ether, a chemical deputies knew to be used in the manufacture
of methamphetamine, emanating from a nearby barn. The deputies
observed a man nearby on the property. They approached the man, whom
Deputy Hart recognized as Appellant Cory Dobbins, and identified
themselves as sheriff's deputies.

Based on their observations and the information provided by Officer
McKee,

deputies sought and obtained a search warrant from a district
magistrate. They then returned to the property with one or more
additional deputies and executed the warrant.

Inside the barn, deputies recovered methamphetamine and substantial
evidence of methamphetamine manufacture."

Supreme Court decides the Bradford County deputies do not have full
police powers to execute the search and arrest Dobbins.