Commission v. The Sheriff

Richard Hobbs's picture

I have no dog in this fight. I’m happy with the police protection that we receive in this county and I’m pleased that the county commission is fighting to maintain the high standards we have here as to our housing densities and tax rates.

However, after reading this recent news article I am perplexed at what is going on. When Judge Ison originally gave a temporary order, I thought perhaps the Commission had a legal position to stand on. Now that he has overturned that order and ruled as he apparently has, I am now of the opinion that it appears the Sheriff has the right to spend his money without going through any procurement procedures established by the county.

The question I have is who is giving out such wonderful legal advise that this matter couldn’t be resolved more amicably. I read the news story about how the deputies were wearing old shoes because the paperwork was too hard to figure out and I said, why is that relevant? Or for that matter, how does an audit that might show some faulty bookkeeping on the Sheriff's part relevant either? What is relevant is whether the law permits a Constitutional officer such as the Sheriff the right to spend his budgetary money without having to follow county procedural spending rules. Its not whether these rules are cumbersome or not, it is whether he has the authority or not pursuant to law.

So why did this come down to a Court case? That’s what I’d like this paper to print, not the spicy gossip section of how the parties are feuding with each other, but what is the basis for the position of each of the parties. It appears that the Judge who studied the law thinks the Sheriff is correct. How is this possible that something of this nature requires so much litigation? I’d just like an honest investigative story as to why this matter had to go before a judge.

I am an attorney, and I know that sometimes laws can be somewhat ambiguous. I read them all of the time, but as to why this issue was taken to this level is something I’d like to know. So I’d ask this newspaper to give us the factual legal arguments and less soap opera drama about the parties.

The truth is out there, and the Free Press should be investigating it from a legal perspective, not one predicated upon the easy story of high emotion, but of what the actual legal issues and laws were and how each party did or did not interpret these laws in such an adversarial manner.

Perhaps, as I have time, I’ll read the briefs of the parties and figure it out for myself, but that’s a time constraint that I do not have. This newspaper should find the time to get a real honest legal opinion about what the true issues are, absent of all of the biases of the actual parties.

And yes, as always, I’m writing this post as an individual, not in any official capacity whatsoever.

Richard Hobbs

Richard Hobbs's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
The Sheriff vs the Commission
Submitted by robert m on Wed, 05/03/2006 - 12:49pm.

If in fact you are an attorney, I am surprised you haven't tied together the judge's reasoning and reasons for his action.

When he granted the Temporary Order in early April it was at the request of the Board of Commissioners and their legal counsel. It was billed as an emergency, but apparently no emergency ever existed. Cars purchased by the sheriff, untagged and sitting locked behind the razor fence at the jail compound do not create an emergency. Perhaps not the BOC, but the county attorney certainly knew there was no emergency, and should have known there was no chance of the BOC winning.

For Judge Ison granting the TOR was simply buying time so he would have time to study all the facts in the case and deliver the correct ruling, which he did. It was originally set for 14 days but was dragged out another 2 weeks by the need for counsel on both sides to prepare their arguments.

There is no doubt in my mind that Judge Ison knew on Monday, May 1, 2006 the likely ruling he would make. Going through the formalities took 1 1/2 days, but I doubt there was any argument from either side that had much influence on the outcome.

It seems to me that 99% of the time judges will grant temporary injunctions, and frequently vacate or amend such orders. Pretty much how it works from my point of view.

login to post comments
Perhaps, but not always
Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Wed, 05/03/2006 - 2:15pm.

I've been in front of Judge Ison on dozens of cases. My first criminal jury trial was in front of him. He has eaten me alive in front of a packed courtroom, only for me to get him reversed on the very grounds for which he was rebuking me. So I'm someone familiar with these types of matters. . . generally.

I am however, not familiar with the TRO or the underlying causes of action involved in this litigation. I would disagree that TRO's are usually given and usually reversed. A TRO hearing typically has a brief finding by the Court that there are meritorious arguments that are being presented, and that there is a strong likelihood that the requesting party will prevail and that irreparable harm will result if no TRO is given. I don't think Ison was trying to set this case up for the dramatic ending that you seem to believe. I would surmise that he reviewed the TRO and felt the Commission was correct. Then when he had his hearing, and upon doing further legal research, he determined that he may have been wrong earlier, and decided to correct his ruling. Then again, he could very well be absolutely wrong and could be overturned on Appeal. Who knows, because this newspaper is only reporting the tangential and sordid aspects of this case, rather than the actual facts of what this litigation is about, it is anybody’s guess.

I know you may not believe this, but Judges, like us Lawyers, are not fully knowledgeable about every area of law. I could research this issue and come to my own conclusion, but it would take countless hours of research. However, my point was that this entire fight was over one particular issue. The issue, as I understand it, dealt with the legality of what authority the Sheriff had over his monies. Plain and simple. I hope the Court is correct in its finding, and I hope the ruling explains how this misunderstanding could have reasonably occurred. Because, if it was not a reasonable legal mis-understanding, then I want to know that whichever lawyer or law firm gave such poor advice to the county commissioners, needs to be dealt with in a very swift and definitive manner. (That’s a legalize for “your fired”.)


login to post comments
Richard, if you read
Submitted by robert m on Wed, 05/03/2006 - 5:28pm.

the state constitution you will see that a county governing authority
has no control over a constitutional officer except to provide them with a budget, ie, the wherewithal to do their duties under the law.They are forbidden by numerous court ruling of abusing this power.
Constitutional, as well as all elected officials, are similarly forbidden abuse of their powers.

Our system of government allows virtually anyone to run for office, but, unfortunately, some people are elected who are not guided by a desire for good government. I hope that is not the case here.

I didn't imply or suggest that Judge Ison set up a dramatic second hearing. I did suggest that he bought time by allowing the TRO to allow himself to study the case and surrounding law completely. He was aware that the order was temporary and little damage could be done in 14 days.

Finally, I did not imply or suggest that TROs are typically granted and usually reversed. I did suggest that TROs are occasionally granted and reversed, either by the original judge granting the order or a higher court.

I agree that the BOC obviously got poor advice. Keep in mind, however, that there are overbearing BOC members and they sometimes prevail over good advice. That may be the case here, but we may never know.

login to post comments
good questions, r hobbs
Submitted by iluvthebubble on Wed, 05/03/2006 - 11:18am.

I'd be interested in knowing how the judge reached his decision, too. I generally agree with what you said, particulary about this being a question of law; not sure how all the background facts are really relevant. But the fact that the judge ruled one way at the first hearing and then essentially reversed himself at the next suggests that the legal questions are not as straightforward as you might think. And because the sheriff put on evidence at the second hearing but not the first also suggests that the sheriff's evidence made quite an impression on the judge, even if it seems irrelevant based upon the news stories. Maybe the judge will issue a written opinion that will explain his thinking.

login to post comments
Judge Ison
Submitted by yada yada yada on Fri, 05/05/2006 - 5:22pm.

And, maybe, the judge will be reversed.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.