SALT LAKE COUNTY lost it's Sheriffs Dept!

To my fellow truth seekers/freedom fighters, open carriers and Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake County!

I know this doesn't directly threaten RIGHT to carry right now in Salt Lake County but i couldn't think of a better forum to post it in other than the main Utah forum. This is indeed a great threat to liberty in SLCounty as the Sheriff is suppose to be the last line of defense against federal tryranny and protecting your un-alienable rights of LIFE, LIBERTY & PROPERTY of which carrying a gun is one! Here is an article about what happened just over a year ago in Salt lake county by Bob Tuskin a broadcaster on http://www.OracleBroadcasting.com I believe that this will help to increase the abuses against the people by some police officers. There are still many good cops left but when the older ones retire or die off the younger ones who are more gung ho will be very determined to enforce "corporate policy" and "revenue collection" rather than honoring their oath to the Constitution!

THE SHERIFF WHO SOLD HIS COUNTY

http://www.bobtuskin.com/2011/05/26/the-sheriff-who-sold-his-county/

and here are some solutions maybe

http://www.SheriffMack.com
http://www.OathKeepers.org
http://www.CopBlock.org

:question:

Lol....wow, someone has a lot of time on their hands. With that much time you'd think they'd do the research and get their facts straight.

Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Department was officially dissolved

Click to expand...

Not true at all. The Sheriff's Department is still there, the policing end has moved to the unified model. There are still Deputies at the courts, jail and county facilities.

I'll get on here later and do a little point for point on how wrong that page really is....don't have the time for it right now. Might want to do some research on the why's of agencies going to a unified model (see County Fire, now UFA....yup, that U is Unified).

Of course, all municipal corporation (city) police in the Salt Lake County have now become “Unified”, and often have this fact printed on the sides of their shiny, expensive new Dodge Chargers and SUV’s. The “Draper City Corporation’s” Police Department is even the proud owner of an old but quite operational military tank!

Click to expand...

UPD doesn't have expensive new Chargers....they're still driving the old and busted Crown Vic's. Draper is not a part of Unified Police and I take offense to the use of the word 'tank'. I was on tanks in the Army and what Draper PD has is definitely NOT a tank

This single act abolished the traditional jurisdiction of each city (municipal corporation), and gave law enforcement authority and power to neighboring forces. Thus, in Salt Lake County, the Salt Lake City Corporation (city of Salt Lake) Police now have jurisdiction not only in Salt Lake City, but also in all other municipal corporations (cities) and unincorporated areas within Salt Lake County

Click to expand...

That happened long before UPD came about. The days where you could flee across imaginary lines to get away from the police are long gone.

But remember, this now mandatory “police protection” before January 1, 2010, was paid for by taxes and provided for by the Sheriff’s Department of Salt Lake County. But once that office taken over by a criminal cabal and was dissolved, the law of the land was not there to protect its people from this type of tyranny of government, and a traitorous elected Sheriff literally sold his soul and that of his people to the Federal Government… for profit.

Click to expand...

Can't win for losing. People want transparency in government so they know where their money is going. A fee was initiated so they knew where that money was going and there was outrage. Since that fee is now going away, property taxes will most likely be raised to pay for policing. I guess people would rather have an increase in tax so they don't know where their money is going instead of knowing what they're paying for.

Of course, Utah could go the way of Tennessee where you can decide that you don't need specific services and if you opt out (or forget) to pay for those services, you don't get them. (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-no-spray-firefighters-let-home-burn/)

In a perfect world the economy would be fantastic...city, county and state governments would be making money hand over fist from their investments and could go away with sales, food, gas, property and every other tax. I'm not sure if you've noticed but our economy is in the crapper. Investments aren't making the money they used to make, utilities cost more, OPEC is bending us over and that rise in the price of crude has an effect on the gross majority of industry in the US. That money has to come from somewhere......taxes.

I'm sure people can always dig their own well for water, have a wind farm and solar panels for power, grow their own food, do their own policing, firefighting and hospital care, etc ad infinitum.

Is our government perfect? Far from it. Money is mismanaged, votes are by outside pressures and not what's best for their constituents and there is corruption. But this is America, not Utopia. Not much is free and you have to pay to get services. Where we live isn't perfect but I'd rather live here than most other places on this Earth.

That's just a quick once-over....I'm sure I can go more in depth but I'm in the middle of doing other things.

The big question is what would YOU suggest happen to all of the issues brought up on that page?

What I don't understand is the constant push at all levels for centralization.

Why have a UPD?

GenkiSudo said:

UPD doesn't have expensive new Chargers....they're still driving the old and busted Crown Vic's. Draper is not a part of Unified Police and I take offense to the use of the word 'tank'. I was on tanks in the Army and what Draper PD has is definitely NOT a tank



That happened long before UPD came about. The days where you could flee across imaginary lines to get away from the police are long gone.



Can't win for losing. People want transparency in government so they know where their money is going. A fee was initiated so they knew where that money was going and there was outrage. Since that fee is now going away, property taxes will most likely be raised to pay for policing. I guess people would rather have an increase in tax so they don't know where their money is going instead of knowing what they're paying for.

Of course, Utah could go the way of Tennessee where you can decide that you don't need specific services and if you opt out (or forget) to pay for those services, you don't get them. (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-no-spray-firefighters-let-home-burn/)

In a perfect world the economy would be fantastic...city, county and state governments would be making money hand over fist from their investments and could go away with sales, food, gas, property and every other tax. I'm not sure if you've noticed but our economy is in the crapper. Investments aren't making the money they used to make, utilities cost more, OPEC is bending us over and that rise in the price of crude has an effect on the gross majority of industry in the US. That money has to come from somewhere......taxes.

I'm sure people can always dig their own well for water, have a wind farm and solar panels for power, grow their own food, do their own policing, firefighting and hospital care, etc ad infinitum.

Is our government perfect? Far from it. Money is mismanaged, votes are by outside pressures and not what's best for their constituents and there is corruption. But this is America, not Utopia. Not much is free and you have to pay to get services. Where we live isn't perfect but I'd rather live here than most other places on this Earth.

That's just a quick once-over....I'm sure I can go more in depth but I'm in the middle of doing other things.

The big question is what would YOU suggest happen to all of the issues brought up on that page?

Click to expand...

Yeah I know you will probably be too busy to go over it in more detail and give more point to point information to refute some of the things in the article. My big main concern is that will the elected office Sheriff still be kept intact just as strong as it was prior to this and also like in most other counties. The office of Sheriff is most important and a last line of defense to protect the citizens of each county from tyranny, defending the un-alienable rights of the people that are protected by the Bill Of Rights and Constitution. I fear that this will not be the case in this new structure. Thanks so much for your input thus far on this matter. I just find it troubling from my first read.

The office of Sheriff is most important and a last line of defense to protect the citizens of each county from tyranny, defending the un-alienable rights of the people that are protected by the Bill Of Rights and Constitution

Click to expand...

This is the sticking point I'm wondering about. Why is the name 'Sheriff's Office' the last line of defense? What makes the Sheriff's Office any different than any other police agency? Maybe if I understand why this is the thought process I can see where you're coming from.

In the end, the reason the UPD was formed is that the Sheriff's Office was losing member cities (most recently Cottonwood Heights and Bluffdale). The Unified model was an attempt initiated years ago in order to head off the problems that arise from having countless separate agencies in the same valley.

County Fire did this years ago and despite the naysayers and claims that it would never work, it has been working great. I'm not sure how much you know about the jurisdictional disputes the different fire agencies would have but it was not pretty going on calls in border areas. Disputes and bickering of these imaginary lines end up causing a loss of service to the citizens of those respective cities and animosity between agencies. They're all on the same team and it's pointless to have firefighters getting into tiffs with each other over a line drawn in the sand for tax purposes.

While the police agencies aren't as bad as fire was with the jurisdictional issues, the problems are still there. The unified setup is not only an attempt at relief from taking the precious seconds or minutes of dispute when someone needs help but also an attempt at saving city governments money. Not sure if you've kept tabs on Midvale PD moving to UPD in July but UPD is saving Midvale millions of dollars and will end up providing better service to the residents of Midvale. I think I beat the UPD fee to death but, in the end, the money has to come from somewhere with the economy as it is and an attempt at transparency went over like a turd in a punchbowl.

I'm not intimately familiar with the structural organization of UPD but, from what I understand, it is this. The individual cities are on a board with Sheriff Winder as the CEO. This is for a couple of reasons: 1. Those individual cities now have a representative who can not only vote on things that will effect UPD as a whole but more importantly, they now have a larger role in determining certain police matters in their respective cities. If they feel that their city isn't staffed well enough or is overstaffed, they now have more of a say in issues like this. 2. Those members of the board are civilians who may or may not have law enforcement experience....the Sheriff is there to be the voice of police experience and knowledge for those civilians. I'm not sure of the limits or extent of his power in votes or the limit and extents of the member cities. AFAIK he's there in case one of the member cities say something like, 'oh I think having two officers on Saturday nights from 5pm-2am is plenty...that's all we want to staff and pay for'.

The Sheriff's Office had leprosy, for lack of a better term. Cities were slowly sloughing away in order to have their own police department. While, I don't think that's a problem in general....when it comes to our valley it can cause several problems, a few of which I've gone over. Can you imagine how police response would be in ten years time when all cities had their own police department? I'm driving through what I think is Millcreek and have to scroll through my phone to find the non-emergency number for Millcreek PD. I finally get ahold of them to find out that I'm really in Holladay. So now they transfer me to Holladay PD for this reckless/DUI driver I'm following. By that time, I'm getting close to Cottonwood Heights so Holladay PD send an officer out to check their area and transfer me to CWHPD since the driver and I are now in their area. Cottowood Heights tells me that it's a border area and since I'm on the north side of the road, I'm actually in Holladay so they transfer me back.

From 2100 South to 7200 South on the east side there are eight cities. Can you imagine having eight different non-emergency phone numbers? Can you see how easy it is to not know if you're in Millcreek, Murray or Holladay depending on what side of the intersection you're on? A Unified Police Department is a means to rectify problems that can arise from having this many cities in a relatively small valley.

I can go on and on with jurisdictional issues from experience and dealing in hypotheticals. In medical issues with the fire department, these little tiffs between agencies can and have caused deaths. In police issues, these disputes can cause loss of life or a criminal getting away when they normally would have been caught.

In the end, I think the UPD frenzy is just like it was when UFA first switched over from County Fire. Many people were up in arms about everything under the sun when, at the end of the day, the unified model provides a better service to the residents for far less money.

It's not the name "Sheriffs Office", it it the OFFICE of Sheriff. The elected law enforcement representative of the people. The Office of Sheriff dates from Old England when the SHIRE REEVE was the high official in the political subdivision (generally a Shire equivalent to our County).

The Sheriff has a LOT of power with which to protect the people who elect him.

I think the concerns of the OP are that the consolodation of law enforcement has eliminated the Sheriffs Office however, it sounds like the Sheriff is still in charge.

Of course it's up to the individual Sheriff to make sure that he retains his power and represents the people. Can you Say Sheriff Mack or Sheriff Arapaio? Unfortunately, many have become nothing more than political hacks, playing political games.

Yeah I wiki'd Sheriff too

I do see the concern and the difference between an elected and an appointed head of policing. But considering our current political landscape where those we vote in don't do the will of their constituents anyway, is there really a difference if they're elected or appointed by those we elect?

Mack and Arapaio are just two individuals who, as you said, have unfortunately gone the way of doing things for publicity (that usually coincide with what is right). If Arapaio was the Chief instead of Sheriff he still has the same ability and means to do what he's done. That title doesn't afford them any extra ammunition when dealing with the Federal Government.

What is the 'A LOT' of power that Sheriff Winder has that Chief McGuire doesn't have over West Jordan? He has the same authority in enforcing the laws that are in the books, he has a jail that is staffed with WJPD and a courtroom that has WJPD Bailiffs. If he or she has a disagreement with what the government is doing, they have just as much right to bring a suit against the government.

I'm just not getting where you're coming from regarding a Sheriff or a Chief. If you can explain, aside from the title and being elected/appointed, the differences it would help.

GenkiSudo said:

Yeah I wiki'd Sheriff too

........
I'm just not getting where you're coming from regarding a Sheriff or a Chief. If you can explain, aside from the title and being elected/appointed, the differences it would help.

Click to expand...

Actually I learned that in High School....some 30+ years ago. A basic criminology course that I took a great interest in. I did google it for the correct spelling though.

The difference is that an elected position can lose an election and so must be more responsive to the citizens. An appointed position has no such need and, in fact, must bow to his "handlers".

READ:

Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898) in which case Montana Sheriff Jay Prinz (joined by others including Sheriff Mack) sued the federal government for attempting to force the state to enforce federal Brady statutes..an WON
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10894716839911389166&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Sheriff Macks website...yes he sells books but he is also still on the front lines.
http://sheriffmack.com/

Yeah I'm somewhat familiar with Mack and the others.

Ok, I got ya. That makes a bit more sense for the concern.

There is more concern with a Chief losing his job by displeasing the mayor (or council) as opposed to a Sheriff getting fired (can and has happened). But unfortunately being more responsible to those who voted you in isn't often enough of a motivator to do their job. You can take a look at politicians as they often don't do their constituents will after their voted in as a reminder of this as they're in the media far more often than a Sheriff. We're lucky that we have Sheriff Winder....not sure if any folks on here have met or spoken to him but take my word for what it's worth, he's a keeper.

But back to the original post I was commenting on:

This is indeed a great threat to liberty in SLCounty as the Sheriff is suppose to be the last line of defense against federal tryranny and protecting your un-alienable rights of LIFE, LIBERTY & PROPERTY of which carrying a gun is one! Here is an article about what happened just over a year ago in Salt lake county by Bob Tuskin a broadcaster on http://www.OracleBroadcasting.com I believe that this will help to increase the abuses against the people by some police officers. There are still many good cops left but when the older ones retire or die off the younger ones who are more gung ho will be very determined to enforce "corporate policy" and "revenue collection" rather than honoring their oath to the Constitution!

Click to expand...

Sheriff, Chief, Commissioner or any other head of policing regardless of name....do you think the title has anything to do with them being able to take away rights? That's the lawmakers and the Sheriff isn't one of them. I don't think the title will have an effect one way or another on an increase in abuse against the people by officers. That's the individual officer and/or the people all the way up the chain of command of those officers. (I'll get to the corporate policy and revenue collection in a second).

I honestly don't think there is more abuse by officers today than there was in our history. What has changed is the media and availability of citizens to record interactions with officers. We've all heard the stories of decades past of officers beating confessions out of suspects....beating, killing, planting evidence was not only known but encouraged by newspapers and Americans alike. 'He's a criminal, he deserved what the police gave him'.

In recent times, mainly since Rodney King, the negative media coverage has (IMO) has probably decreased the instances of abuse. While I don't think I go a week or two without reading about some type of misconduct of an officer from minor things to shootings I highly doubt the police are running rampant like they were in the 1920-1980's. I don't have and haven't checked any numbers but it seems the case to me.

Also I'd have to disagree with the older officers being less gung ho and more apt to honor their oath than younger officers. That smells to me like rhetoric to bolster ones point. Those are not only individual choices but the influence of those around them young and old.

On to corporate policy and revenue. I'm not sure which 'corporate policy' is being referred to....the Mayor's personal agenda? Harassment and frightening of citizens? Yet again the comes off to me of more rhetoric. Revenue....we've all heard of quotas. Some agencies confirm, others deny. In the end, money has to be made to pay the bills. While I may not agree on a quota, the patrol officers I know don't often do traffic stops for the little things. If you do something blatant in front of an officer, there's a good chance you're going to get pulled over.

Having cops pull people over doesn't take other officers off the street who should be solving homicides and gang problems. While this argument wasn't used here today....it usually comes up. There are traffic cops whose only job is to do traffic stops, traffic accidents, traffic hazards, etc. They aren't patrol, they aren't narcs and they aren't detectives. That argument that is used so often is just hot air.

Unfortunately today revenue is in short supply and that money has to be made somewhere. Taxes, traffic stops, budget cuts, layoffs, reducing space in the jail....all of these have been done and every department in the valley that I know of is still millions in the red. I ask how that money will be made and if that 'revenue collection' really has a negative impact on an oath an officer swears? Doing one does not automatically mean you can't keep to the other.

I apologize. This response is probably all over the place but I'm working and have been trying to type a bit of it here and there.

GenkiSudo said:

That title doesn't afford them any extra ammunition when dealing with the Federal Government.

Click to expand...

There are several SCOTUS rulings supporting the fact that the Sheriff is the supreme law enforcement officer in a county and does have the authority to stop federal officers from acting in his county.

There was a case a few years ago where a Sheriff here in Utah arrested and jailed a BLM officer for cattle rustling. The charges were eventually dropped, but it was only because the feds backed down when they realized that they couldn't win.

rpyne said:

There are several SCOTUS rulings supporting the fact that the Sheriff is the supreme law enforcement officer in a county and does have the authority to stop federal officers from acting in his county.

There was a case a few years ago where a Sheriff here in Utah arrested and jailed a BLM officer for cattle rustling. The charges were eventually dropped, but it was only because the feds backed down when they realized that they couldn't win.

Click to expand...

I think that was DeMeo in Nevada unless there was one here in Utah that I'm not familiar with. Due to those interactions, Nevada passed a law requiring notification to the SO before any agency can seize animals. Those were, he believed, 10th amendment violations. He was an officer (maybe a Chief, I'm a bit hazy on that) on the east coast (NY, NJ or right around there) when he became constitutionally aware and was leaning on the 10th in interactions between Federal, State and Local agencies.

Would you mind citing those several SCOTUS rulings?

I'm still pressed to find any case law giving a Sheriff more authority than a police chief or any other officer for that matter when it comes to constitutional authority. I've been googling my buns off to no avail.

The ability of the people to have a powerful Sheriff to represent their interests was greatly diminished a few years ago when the legislature passed a law that required all candidates for Sheriff to be POST certified prior to filing for office. Previously, anyone could file and if he won, could then go get POST certified. In theory, even if the winning candidate could not get POST certified for some reason, he would still be the Sheriff, but would not have had arrest powers. Of course, he could instruct his deputies who did to effect arrests for him.

In any event, some gas station attendant in some rural area had the audacity to challenge a bad sheriff and actually win the election. For a complete outsider to so upset the good-ol'-boy network was just too much so now elections for Sheriff are all but guaranteed to be between one career cop and another career cop. Sometimes there is at least one really good choice. But far too often there is not and there is really not much practical ability for a true outsider to even run for the office any longer in Utah.

As for the unified police department, if residents in some cities or unincorporated areas like it, more power to them. I will continue to lobby the mayor and city council of my city to avoid it like the plague. My city and it's PD are far from perfect. But at least they are mine and I have some hope of affecting elections in it. I don't want the mayor of Salt Lake City over whom I have zero influence to have any influence or control over my city's police department...or fire department for that matter.

All peace officers in Utah have Statewide jurisdiction and interlocal agreements are more than sufficient to provide orderly services across local boundaries.

As for the UPD fee, I think the biggest problem was campaign promises not to raise taxes that were followed by the imposition of a mandatory fee (a tax by any other name). Personally, I'm fine with dedicated, mandatory fees for various services such as fire, sewer, police, etc. But the general property and even sales taxes collected by the municipality should be decreased accordingly. What is most annoying is that in tough times it is always the essential services like police and fire that are threatened with cuts so as to force the populace to accept tax increases.

In my household, we don't cut essentials when times get tight. We start by cutting luxuries: eating out, cable TV, vacations, etc. We still make the mortgage and insurance and utility payments.

Government should do likewise. Providig fire, police, sewer, water, and roads are essential services. Providing soccer stadiums, baseball parks, symphonies, operas, zoos, trails, parks, recreation and fitness centers, golf courses, and a host of other items are luxuries that might be nice to have when times are good (ignoring whether I should be forced to fund someone else's choice of recreation even in good times), but should be first on the cutting block when times get tough.

Charles