| |
|
|
| Bill Would Define Sheriff's Powers
|
|
Bill would define sheriff’s powers
By CHUCK HAYES
Staff Writer - Warren "TIMES OBSERVER"
A push is on to have state lawmakers vote on a bill which would clarify the powers of Pennsylvania’s 2,300 sheriff’s deputies.
Several court rulings, including a state Supreme Court ruling in the wiretapping case of (Warren County Sheriff Larry) Kopko versus Miller have clouded the question of whether sheriff’s deputies have police powers.
But the Pennsylvania Sheriffs Association in February authored legislation, H.B. 466, which would clarify that deputies do have investigative and arrest powers provided they have proper training.
Jim Hazen, executive director of the state sheriffs association, said on Tuesday that the bill remains stalled in the House Judiciary Committee.
But last week, Hazen sent a letter to Rep. Craig Dally, Northhampton County, chief sponsor of the bill, which is co-sponsored by State Rep. Kathy Rapp of Warren.
“I asked him to bring the bill up for consideration,” said Hazen. “We can’t get them to move it out of the judiciary committee to the floor.”
Hazen said he has also met with the committee’s chairman, the state’s district attorneys association, the Coalition Against Domestic Violence, state police, the attorney general’s office and Fraternal Order of Police in an effort to move the bill out of committee.
If the bill is moved to the floor, Hazen is confident of support by lawmakers.
During a special session on crime last year, said Hazen, an overwhelming majority of House members indicated they would support a bill to clarify that sheriff’s deputies do have law enforcement powers.
At a time when lawmakers are considering spending $56 million to put an additional 10,000 police officers on the streets of Pennsylvania by 2010, Hazen said, passage of H.B. 466 “would automatically put 2,300 more law enforcement officers on the street.”
“There are a couple of issues involved,” he said. “Some people just don’t want to see an expansion of powers by the sheriff’s offices.”
Hazen said his response to that argument is that the bill would not expand the powers of deputies, only clarify that they do have investigative and arrest powers which have only recently been called into question by conflicting court decisions.
“The Kopko wiretapping Supreme Court decision caused confusion and chaos” which would be eliminated by the bill, he said.
Hazen acknowledged that some counties are satisfied with having deputies handle only court-related functions, such as serving warrants and transporting prisoners.
“The reality,” said Hazen, “is the county commissioners control the purse strings. If Larry Kopko wants to do some rural patrols and they say there is no money, the reality is he won’t be able to do it. There is a decision-making process that goes back to the county commissioners.”
Voters, in turn, can elect commissioners “who agree with their philosophy” of whether deputies should be limited to court-related duties or also perform law enforcement functions, said Hazen.
“Training is a non-issue,” said Hazen, because the 760 hours of police training received by sheriff’s deputies is more than is received by municipal police officers.
Hazen said if the bill is not introduced by the end of the current legislative session, it will be “dumped” and will have to be introduced again next year.
Section: News Date Posted: 10/24/2007
|
| |
| |
|
|
