Saturday, August 04, 2007

What ARE the Powers of a Sheriff vs the Feds?

I've read elsewhere, and even heard it suggested in comments here at WarOnGuns, that the sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer in his county--and that federal agents may not conduct investigations without his cognizance. One of the reasons generally given is that because he is elected, he represents the highest actual authority--the people.

Generally cited to back up these claims is the case of Castaneda v US. The story goes something like INS targeted a family in Wyoming with an Hispanic surname as illegal aliens and recruited the local sheriff to assist in the bust. It turns out they were citizens, and in the resulting legal settlement, the ruling was made acknowledging the doctrine of "Sheriff Supremacy."

Thing is, I can find no such ruling from any court. I found sites that say there was a private and undisclosed settlement, and even sites that quote the court as saying this, and one (but not an "official" one) with a docket showing the case was dismissed. I found sites that say precedent was established and sheriffs can now wield this power if they only knew--if they only would. I found sites claiming the whole thing is a hoax. And a general conclusion among the "naysayers" is that any sheriff who tried to interfere with a federal investigation would soon find himself behind bars and facing charges.

This latter part is believable, regardless of any purported stare decisis, only because my experience has been that the largest, most vicious gang controls the turf. And my sense is that such a doctrine would run afoul of the Constitution being "the supreme law of the land"--and as doors swing both ways, it could allow sheriffs to enforce all kinds of infringements on civil liberties.

My point in all this being, I was going to write an open letter to the sheriff in Twin Falls about the persecution of Red's Trading Post, with the assumption that he has some sort of say in what goes down in his county. But when I started doing my basic fact-checking, I quickly realized I could not back that assumption up.

Feel free to chime in with comments and educate me. I'm not trying to slam the door shut on this. But this is a legal area where I freely admit ignorance, and I need more than unsubstantiated opinions and wishful thinking.

13 comments:

  1. Have you checked WestLaw and LoisLaw? When i worked for my father's Law firm we had an account with both companies, and you could find any cite in the U.S. and its territories, including Military Cases under UCMJ. I no longer have access to them, but if you have a law Library near you they usually have an account for with one or the other for attornies to use.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Have you checked with Sheriff Richard I. Mack? He is credited with writing the Castaneda story that appeared in gunowners.org that was published in May of 2000.

    Hopefully that helps,
    punch

    ReplyDelete
  3. No, Mark, but that's a good idea. I'll ask a relative who's an attorney. And btw, thanks for blogrolling WoG. I've reciprocated for "Talk Radio".


    And no, Punch, I don't have contact info for Sheriff Mack--I did read his piece on this, and alluded to it in general terms.

    Perhaps I'll email GOA.

    Thanks to you both.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I previously attempted to contact Sheriff Mattis of Bighorn County after this news article:

    http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=439&Itemid=36

    Neither the Sheriff, or anyone from his office would reply.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not surprising, JR. Check out this link, a response to the url you provided. My suspicion is that this is an urban legend, spread by a few who have not checked their facts, and propagated by wishful thinkers and those who "heard it somewhere." There's probably enough of a nucleus of truth, ie, there may have been a case called Castaneda, that reached a settlement (as opposed to achieved a court ruling), the sheriff you mention may have issued statements based on his hearing about this doctrine but now wants to distance himself (and that he won't respond may be an indicator), etc. One essay--by a writer who I will not name because I'm not doing this to damage anyone's credibility--even cited a bogus Hitler quote in the article dealing with this. So we have people following a lead based on assuming it's true.I sure hope someone proves me wrong on that, but so far, I haven't come across any authoritative source to convince me otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I finally posted my blogroll, I got tired of answering E-mails about which blogs I read for my show topics. I have been reading your blog for the last 4 months and I find it very informative and it can lead me to other sites which prompt ideas in my head for topics for my show.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Poking through LEXIS, I discovered there is a US v. Castaneda case in 1993 : UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

    9 F.3d 761; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 27717; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7922; 93 Daily Journal DAR 13532

    June 8, 1993, Argued, Submitted, Seattle, Washington
    October 5, 1993, Filed


    It's a drug case, all in the state of Washington.

    Darn little since 1940 even has the word "Wyoming" in it.

    There is also a 1998 US v Castaneda,
    No. 97-40307

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

    162 F.3d 832; 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 30866
    , a RICO case from Texas.

    I won't claim I've done an exhaustive search, but a case such as the one described by Sheriff Mack does not seem to be supported.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Could this be it? Seems to involve some Mexican-Americans in Wyoming, the INS, and a Sherrif or two, and seems to end in a settlement of some sort:

    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/castaneda_v_us_docket.txt

    ReplyDelete
  9. That's the docket I saw, Nimrod, but I didn't find it from as credible a source as you. Yeah, I think that's it, and if it is, here's the key part in my mind:

    3/6/97 -- SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE HELD before Magistrate Judge Beaman; case settled (jw) [Entry date 03/10/97]

    4/23/97 95 JOINT MOTION by parties to dismiss (jw)

    4/29/97 96 ORDER by Honorable William F. Downes granting joint motion to dismiss [95-1] dismissing case (cc: all counsel mld from CPR 4/30/97; EOD 4/29/97) (jg)


    Which means there wasn't a RULING.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No "ruling", therefore no "stare decisis", and therefore no precedent, right?

    You'll probably have to get someone to go to the courthouse to see if they can get more info, directly.

    Glad I could help a little.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Which means there wasn't a RULING."-David


    Which begs the question "Why do you suppose the state and the feds agreed to settle rather than risk a ruling?"

    You can bet your ass the defense had no power to force a settlement. Ergo, why did the government offer one if they were not fearful of the outcome?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dunno, SA--we've seen what judges will do, and neither of us know the details of the case. Sometimes things are settled because it's cheaper to throw a couple hundred thousand at the problem, and besides, it's not their money.

    Bottom line, from what I can see, sheriffs who try to exert this supposed authority will soon find themselves facing charges.

    ReplyDelete

Keep it on topic. Submit tips on different topics via left sidebar Contact Form.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.