Sheriff vs Judge vs FL Statute

Status
Not open for further replies.

steve4102

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,458
Location
Minnesota
This could get very interesting.

https://www.thegunwriter.com/22402/...constitutional-crisis-between-sheriff-courts/

According to the linked article, the Sheriff of Sarasota Co. has pulled his deputies from the Clerk of Courts office where they had been screening those that entered for firearms.

The Sheriff says the Clerk of Court is not considered a gun free zone under FL law, and as a result screening and not allowing access to those legally carrying is violation of State Statute 790.33.

Judge Williams ordered the Sheriff to return the deputies, the Sheriff refused.

Sheriff Knight claims the Judge is legislating from the bench and the Sheriff has support from some of FL legislators.

This power struggle will be fun to watch.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure the Sheriff is a principled and worthy man, but I can't help but believe that statutes creating PERSONAL liability for violating the law are a wonderful goad for gaining the attention of someone who might not otherwise be too interested in citizens' rights....


Larry
 
Violations of the preemption statute by a public official can lead to $5,000 fines and other costs, which the official must pay themselves. If the offender is an elected official, they can be removed from office.

Hhmm, could this "activist judge" need to find a REAL job?? ;)
 
but I can't help but believe that statutes creating PERSONAL liability for violating the law are a wonderful goad

I remember speaking with some of the Gibson Dunn appellate lawyers who came to argue the first couple of preemption cases once the statute was passed. As far as they knew this was the first time, ever, a state had created personal liability for a lesser executive official violating the law in their official capacity (i.e. passing a prohibited law). God Bless Marion Hammer!
 
What is the point? Why now all of a sudden, and what is the Sheriff trying to accomplish?
 
What is the point? Why now all of a sudden, and what is the Sheriff trying to accomplish?

Seems like he wants to follow the letter of the law and allow licensed folks to carry where they should be legally able to do so. Also he probably does not want his department to face criticism/lawsuit for violating the law.

Violations of the preemption statute by a public official can lead to $5,000 fines and other costs, which the official must pay themselves. If the offender is an elected official, they can be removed from office.



.
 
I think the point of the search would be not to stop those legally carrying, but to stop those who may not legally carry, i.e., convicted felons, people with domestic violence orders, people dissatisfied with their sentences, etc. These disgruntled people can generally be found.........in a court or court clerks office.
 
I think the point of the search would be not to stop those legally carrying, but to stop those who may not legally carry, i.e., convicted felons, people with domestic violence orders, people dissatisfied with their sentences, etc. These disgruntled people can generally be found.........in a court or court clerks office.

If you read the details, they WERE stopping those who were legally carrying.
 
As a veteran of the Florida law enforcement scene.... Y'all might want to remember that both the judge and the sheriff are elected officials.... I'm not sure I have a dog in this fight since it's not just about the law - but also politics... I did note that the judge involved appeared to reduce his profile a bit as the controversy became public...
 
What is the point? Why now all of a sudden, and what is the Sheriff trying to accomplish?

Following the law as it is written? Putting deputies out with the public to do something useful instead of standing around boosting political egos?

If the Clerk of the Court's office feels they need armed security, there are plenty of private companies that can do that. The Sheriff's Department doesn't exist to provide political bodyguards.
 
The Sheriff refusing a judge's order is contempt of court. It's the Courts that decide what is and is not legal, not LEO administrators.
"...claims the Judge is legislating..." But he is not with the "The Sheriff says the" statement? Not his jurisdiction to decide what the law means.
 
The Sheriff refusing a judge's order is contempt of court. It's the Courts that decide what is and is not legal, not LEO administrators.
I don't think so. I'm not 100% sure, but does refusing to comply with an administrative procedure instruction constitute "contempt of court?"

I didn't read this as a Judge's official legal opinion on what the law said. Merely an instruction to the Sheriff to do something he (the judge) wanted done.

"...claims the Judge is legislating..." But he is not with the "The Sheriff says the" statement? Not his jurisdiction to decide what the law means.
Again, it doesn't really read like the judge was offering an interpretation of the law. It appears that the Sheriff's legal team looked into the request and concluded that the law wouldn't support the Judge's instruction, and so told the Sheriff to ask a higher court to rule on what the law actually does require.

Read this account again:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/2...pellate-court-to-throw-out-chief-judges-order

It sounds like there are several parties involved. In fact, a FL Senator started the whole thing off by getting himself denied to a public (non-courtroom) building and officially notifying the Judge that the Judge's instructions were not in compliance with the law.

SO, the message I'd take away if I were a Floridian, is that my elected officials actually DO care and sometimes do the right thing.
 
I think the point of the search would be not to stop those legally carrying, but to stop those who may not legally carry, i.e., convicted felons, people with domestic violence orders, people dissatisfied with their sentences, etc. These disgruntled people can generally be found.........in a court or court clerks office.

They aren't doing background checks so there is no way to tell if a person is prohibited. Think of it this way, it would be like stopping you whenever they felt like to "check" that you're allowed to exercise your Rights. That's not how free men are treated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top