Talk:Sheriffs in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

South Carolina has been omitted from the state sections.71.68.192.249 (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fatality handling, coroner, SAR[edit]

At least in California, USA, the Sheriff has the responsibility to recover any deceased persons within their county. That is why often the full title is Deputy Sheriff Coroner, and that is one of the main reasons Search & Rescue teams fall under the Sheriff’s department instead of Fire/Rescue branch or local Police Departments. If there is a deceased person, legally (not minding and local agreements between agencies) the Sheriff has sole duty to recover the body. Does anyone know more about this, especially for other states in the USA? To me it is one of the crucial differences between Sheriff & Police departments, as well as the reasoning behind "Sheriff Rescue" squads. (Unsigned)

Uh, yeah, but not in all 58 California counties;San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod ordered the coroner's office merged into the Sheriff's Department a few years back as a cost-saving measure, and a similar thing exists in both Riverside and Inyo Counties...here in L.A. County, it will be a VERY long time before a merger will happen between the LASD and the Department of the Medical Examiner(our official name for "Coroner's Office")...Michaela92399 02:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Search and Rescue squad" evolved from, and is more likely a modern term for, the "posse" of old who would have been called out just as often if not more so to look for lost people, as to track down a rampant fugitive. As to unifying the offices of Sheriff and Coroner, this is mostly an organizational option; while that is the arrangement in Orange County I think the two offices are still separate agencies in Los Angeles County, and moving a body from a crime scene in San Francisco could (I am not sure) be a function of Public Health. - knoodelhed 08:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Law enforcement function in US[edit]

I think the concept of the sheriff as the county's principal police authority might have more accurately evolved from the Anglo-Welsh High Sheriff, as that is clearly an executive function while the Scottish sheriff is a judiciary role. - knoodelhed 08:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The judicial role of the Scottish sheriff and the quasi-executive function of the High Sheriff in fact derive from the same source - the shire reeves who were charged with maintaining the King's peace. The Anglo-Welsh High Sheriff lost its direct judicial power whilst the Scottish office lost its executive functions. Davidkinnen 09:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this belong[edit]

This was located on the sharif article, however, I took it out because it adds nothing to that article. However, I searched this article and there was no mention of "shire reeve." Perhaps someone can find a place to insert this into this article.

The English term sheriff is not related to the Arabic term; it is a contraction for the Anglo-Saxon office of "shire reeve."

Pepsidrinka 05:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked dictionary.com, all the references agree with this origination of the word (Shire Reeve). However, I remember this question appearing in a trivia quizz, and it was stated that this is a popular misconception and the origination is actually a contraction of the equally plausible "shire bailiff". I don't have access to the full OED, which I'd consider to be the definitive reference source on the subject, so I'm not comfortable saying so either way. Perhaps if someone could check the OED for the first-usage examples, could discount this conclusively.

Ace42 01:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minority sheriffs?[edit]

Is there a record of sheriffs who came from a minority background, like African-American, Native American or female? --149.226.255.200 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Governor of Texas is not the “High Sheriff” of the state. That term is not used anywhere in the Texas statutes or Texas Constitution. Moreover, the governor does not have any general authority over a sheriff.

Additionally, the Governor of Texas is not the “Chief Texas Ranger”. That term is also not used anywhere in the Texas statutes or Texas Constitution, and the governor is not designated as a Texas Ranger or any other type of peace officer for that matter.

The Texas Rangers normally answer to the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety (Texas Government Code §411.021). However, the governor can assume command of the TX DPS for various reasons (TCG §411.012), but this is not the same as being the “Chief Texas Ranger”.

sheriff, a mini dynasty[edit]

Some Muslim people in india have a family name of sheriff followed by their first name. The term "sheriff" is added next to their first name of all members of their family. People with this name are wide spread all over india.

This is usually written in English as Sharif, such as Omar Sharif. Bearian 19:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deputizing[edit]

Have we covered how a sheriff can deputize people? Jeff503 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I added material for Undersheriff before I logged in (under 71.245.156.223), and added the "verify tag". Bearian 19:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean to include information indicating that Sheriffs (generally) have a power to deputise then that information may be relevant to this article. It would then be relevant to indicate that the titles used by those deputies are varied depending upon the jurisdiction in which the Sheriff operates and the various roles they are deputised to perform and include Deputy Sheriff, Under Sheriff, Assistant Sheriff, Sheriff's Officer, Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Assistant Bailiff,.... (Can anyone else add to this list?) I would suggest however that the article refrains from describing "how" the Sheriff makes those appointments because it will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction for example from mere oral or written deputisation through to appointment processes requiring variously approval of the court judges, by other court officials and/or by the the government in the jurisdiction.Lanyon 01:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Sheriff[edit]

In the article it states: " many counties' agreement with the sheriff's department allows the elected sheriff to keep the remaining funds allocated.[5][1] " I went to the referenced page and found this under allocation of funding for feeding prisoners:

(A) The county fiscal body shall make an appropriation in the usual manner from the county general fund to the sheriff for feeding prisoners. The sheriff or the sheriff's officers, deputies, or employees may not make a profit from the appropriation. The sheriff shall deposit all meal allowances received under IC 36-8-10-7 in the county general fund for use for any general fund purpose.
(B) The sheriff shall pay for feeding prisoners from meal allowances received under IC 36-8-10-7. The sheriff or the sheriff's officers, deputies, or employees may not make a profit from the meal allowances. After the expenses of feeding prisoners are paid, the sheriff shall deposit any unspent meal allowance money in the county general fund for use for any general fund purpose.


It looks as though the Sheriff is responsible for feeding prisoners, but any balance remaining is to go to the "general fund for use for any general fund purpose". It is possible that in practice there is a way for the Sheriff to get moneys remaining from this use, but in the quoted state code, I don't see how that would be legal. Any attorneys want to take this on?Crocadillion 17:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for Upstate New York only, Sheriff have great latitude to shift money around within their budgets. They often bring in net revenue by commissions from collections and sales of forfeited property. The net moneys go to the coutny's general funds. I don't have a cite at my fingertips, but look at: [2], CNT, article 17. Bearian 00:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm Crocadillion 16:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Orleans Parish sheriffs' offices in 2010...[edit]

This is just as bad as when we Californians were ordered(in 2000) to vote the 58 counties' municipal courts into oblivion, along w/ the court police services[marshals] Michaela92399 02:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Despite casual use of the term "officer" by some federal agencies to refer to their personnel authorized to make arrests and carry firearms,<refBureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, July 2006.</ref they are only special agents, not law enforcement officers. They have no command authority over civilians or local law enforcment officers, such as sheriffs, constables, and state officers. This has come out in several cases where there has been a jurisdictional dispute between a county sheriff and a federal special agent.<refCastaneda v. USA, Case No: 2:1996cv00099, Wyoming District Court, Casper, decided 29th April 1997. Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis: "If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave or retain them in custody."</ref><refPrintz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997),</ref Only U.S. marshals can be said to be law enforcement officers.

The first reference only shows that the term "officer" is used, so we have no reference for the assertion that it is incorrect. Why does that matter anyway? This article isn't about federal agents. The second reference, to a concurring opinion in Printz v. United States, doesn't mention "Castaneda v. USA, Case No: 2:1996cv00099, Wyoming District Court, Casper, decided 29th April 1997". Furthermore, there are sources out there which claim this case and that quote from it are a hoax.[3][4] Until we can find a reliable source that mentions this finding we should leave this out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger_proposal[edit]

These two articles talk about the same level of government police agencies. Just by a slight name difference. Take for example Counties in 48 states vs Parishes in Louisiana, diferent name for the same thing. Merging the duplicating information into one article would make more sense. The County Police is basicaly just a list of county police forces, whereas the sheriffs article is an article. I feel that these articles touch the same subject and should be merged. --Mrboire (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking that the title of the article should also reflect the duality and possibly be named County law enforcement (USA) or something simular. I know that a very large portion of counties in the US have either a police or a sherrif, and only a small number of counties (relative) have both, but they are both law enforcement agencies and 1 article would serve as a central point. I do find that the county police article has gotten very US heavy with each state listed and each county listed, I think the article has gotten away from what it should be an article and not a list. I do not oppose a List of County law enforcement agencies (US) article that could serve this function. The content in the County Sherrif/Police articles that are US Specific could be a short paragraph with a "See the main article about County Law enforcement in the US" link at the begining to give some general info to a reader, and then if they need specifics go to the main article. Just trying to make it easier to find info/navigate WP.--That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Merger: Sheriff's perform many and more diversified duties than your average county police. IE Court stuff.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marion County Sheriff's merger with Indianapolis PD[edit]

I tried to bring this up on the regular page but didn't have time to cite a "literary source" before a "demand for reliable literary source" was reported!...but can someone else place the appropriate "literary source" to this now-in-effect" merger, plus explain why the only remaining police department in the area is in nearby Speedway?...thanks...Baldwin91006 (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete[edit]

I've tagged this for incompleteness because, frankly, it's missing most of the Western states. (And by "most" I mean -- Idaho, Montana, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Colorado other than Denver County, Utah, Wyoming, and so on). The article definitely doesn't deserve to be a B-class, but since I'm not a member of either of the WikiProjects I won't re-assess to C.

Cheers --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 06:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Much As I Like Toy Story . . .[edit]

Should Woody REALLY be in the list of fictional American Sheriffs? Unlike everyone else on the list, he has no actual legal authority at all in the fictional universe. I'd go ahead and remove it myself, bit I've decided to ask what others thing first before being a buzzkill. -WarthogDemon 17:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---seems reasonable to include Woody if it is in fictional sheriffs, its about the cultural impact and perception of sheriffs. Woody is likely the source where many people become aware of the word sheriff, given that Toy Story is a childrens movie, and one of the most popular ones ever, and no doubt contributed to a positive view of sheriffs for many young kids. afterall the section is fictional sheriffs, and many sheriffs do provide more of leadership role like a COO rather than a CEO/Police Chief--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.20.215 (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chief law enforcement officer[edit]

Seems like there should be more written about the special nature of a Sheriff's authority. Such as the fact that any law enforcement agency, local/state/federal, that wishes to operate inside a county must get permission from the sheriff to do so. Also that in an emergency the local sheriff is in charge of any national guardsmen who are deployed into his county.--Drewder (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this "special authority?" The US Constitution would seem to disagree with you. It says that federal law is supreme. I've never heard of a federal agent needing permission from local law enforcement to operate. I do know of a case where federal marshals have arrested a county sheriff. Sperril (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The position, authority, duties and powers of an elected sheriff generally depend on the respective state's constitution and laws. For example, Article VIII of the Florida Constitution establishes elected county officers for each county. These constitutional county officers include a sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections and clerk of court. Chapter 30 of the Florida Statutes lays out the legislatively assigned duties for Florida sheriffs. But neither the Florida Constitution or state laws I have found mention any type of formal hierarchy for county sheriffs in Florida, in relation to other law enforcement. While the county populous elects their sheriff, there is no indication that state or federal law enforcement may only operate within the county, at the mercy of the elected sheriff. Concurrent jurisdiction comes to mind.
Even boasted at times, it seems the use of 'chief law enforcement officer' is a bit of a misnomer, as the real difference among local, county, state and federal enforcement is more likely their constituting instrument. That is, whether their office was created by local ordinance, legislative law, or state constitution (and thus subsequent election by the people). Conversely, some states may not provide for sheriffs at all (Alaska possibly), while others may specifically designate the sheriff as the chief law enforcement officer of the county. The issue is viewed differently depending on use and purpose. For example, in federal rule 81 FR 2657 the ATF defined chief law enforcement officer as the local chief of police, county sheriff, head of the State police, or State or local district attorney or prosecutor. SomeThingsLaw (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I teach con law at a university and I can tell you that Drewder reflects a very common misunderstanding regarding the “superiority” of federal law. It only applies to areas of law specifically delegated to the federal government (basic 10th Amendment.) Federal law is not superior, nor does it apply, in matters outside that domain. States law does. When sheriffs are designated the CLEO of the county, that means they outrank all other state-level LEOs in the county, including municipal police chiefs, enforcing state laws. The vast majority of laws are state laws. They have no relation to federal LEA’s enforcement of federal laws. That is a completely separate, parallel system of law and LE. It’s the same for all state law enforcement, not just sheriffs. Federal agencies have no jurisdiction over issues not involving federal law. They assist when invited by state or local LE. ~~~~ Venqax (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a former elected sheriff, federal agent and an asst prosecutor, I will tell you much of the above is hogwash. The sheriff may not require ANY federal agent to request permission to operate in their county (and this is covered at FLETC). Nor can the sheriff interfere with a fed. UNLESS the agent is violating the law (a real criminal law) and if the violation is due to a local law restricting federal law, the sheriff should be prepared to defend that in federal court. I was once held by an Idaho sheriff one time for just this sort of thing. When the U.S. Attorney arrive she informed the sheriff he was subject to arrest by the marshals AND that he should be ready to pay off my mortgage and my kid's collage tuitions as I could sue in both federal and state courts for unlawful arrest and imprisonment. I was then allowed to leave.

As a sheriff I ordered my deputies to not get involved with the feds except to back the up in an emergency if they called. Nor did I allow them to become involved in federal task forces, etc. Why? I want to have case by case control and if I felt it was warranted, I would allow my deputies to assist the feds. If the feds violated some procedural law like an immigration policy/law of the state, I ordered them to observe and report but not to interfere... But truth be told we had a great relationship with the feds and some retired feds were on my sheriff's posse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:A080:9580:E4B8:EF96:FCE5:DDAC (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sheriffs in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sheriffs in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the star comes from?[edit]

Where does the star comes from? When was it used for the first time?

Why a six or seven branch star? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.217 (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The authentic Sheridan badge is a Star Of Sharon, which is a geometrical pentagram with six coronets (the symbol commonly known as a 'Star Of David' is the same pentagram but without the coronets, seemingly to show a failure to comply with the law). The star mostly used by the Navy Institution Admiralty Constabulary (POLICE) is the Zorogram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.61.223.53 (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks History section[edit]

This entry needs either a section on the historical facts of the office in the USA or a link to a separate piece if such already exists. When and where was the first "Sheriff's Office", or at least official, in the USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBloodyHell (talk • contribs) 11:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

Idk if this has been discussed but I feel like the introduction doesn’t make sense. The titles of the article indicates is about sheriffs but the introduction indicates sheriffs are deputized by sheriffs which doesn’t make sense. CyberSecurityGuy (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Deputy sheriff" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Deputy sheriff and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#Deputy sheriff until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Deputy Sheriff I" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Deputy Sheriff I and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#Deputy Sheriff I until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"County sheriff" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect County sheriff and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#County sheriff until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sheriffs_in_the_United_States&oldid=1206222469"