1 commonwealth of pennsylvania - pa …comcast.net 1 house of representatives commonwealth of...
TRANSCRIPT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
* * * *
House Bill 466 - (Marshall) Sheriffs Legislation
* * * *
House State Government Committee
Irvis Office BuildingRoom G50
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Monday, May 8, 2017 - 10:00 a.m.
--oOo--
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Honorable Daryl Metcalfe, Majority ChairmanHonorable Jim ChristianaHonorable Cris DushHonorable Matt GablerHonorable Kristin HillHonorable Jerry KnowlesHonorable Brett MillerHonorable Brad RoaeHonorable Frnk RyanHonorable Rick SacconeHonorable Thomas SankeyHonorable Craig StaatsHonorable Justin WalshHonorable Judy WardHonorable Jeff WheelandHonorable Matthew Bradford, Minority ChairmanHonorable Donna BullockHonorable Mary Jo DaleyHonorable Madeleine DeanHonorable Pamela DeLissio
1300 Garrison Drive, York, PA 17404717.764.7801
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
MEMBERS PRESENT (CONT'D):
Honorable Isabella FitzgeraldHonorable Stephen McCarterHonorable Brian SimsHonorable Jared SolomonHonorable Emilio Vazquez
NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Honorable Jim MarshallHonorable Barry JozwiakHonorable Kathy Rapp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan BoyleMajority Executive Director
Pam NeugardAdministrative Assistant
Amy HockenberryMajority Research Analyst
Karen PriegoMajority Research Analyst
Glendon KingMajority Research Analyst
Kim HilemanMinority Executive Director
Linda HuntingtonMinority Legislative Assistant
Susan FingerMinority Secretary to Chairman Bradford
Kathy SeidlMinority Research Analyst
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
INDEX OF TESTIFIERSTESTIFIERS PAGE
Opening comments by Majority ChairmanMetcalfe............................ 5
Remarks by Representative Jim Marshall 7
Sheriff Carolyn Welsh................. 8Chester County Sheriff's Office
Sheriff Eric J. Weaknecht............. 10Berks County Sheriff's Office
Commander Leo O'Neill................. 12Allegheny County
Rob Greene, Esquire, District Attorney 23Warren County
Douglas E. Hill, Executive Director...Warren County
Chief Inspector Paris Washington...... 47Philadelphia Sheriff's OfficeHomeland Security, Special Operations,Special Investigations & Training
Greg Champagne, President............. 61National Sheriff's Association
Sheriff Michael Slupe, President...... 61PA Sheriff's AssociationButler County Sheriff's Office
SUBMITTED WRITTEN TESTIMONY
(See other submitted testimony and handoutsonline.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: This
meeting of the House State Government is called to
order. Today we'll be having a hearing to consider
House Bill 466 offered by Representative Marshall.
And prior to inviting our first
testifier up, who will be Representative Marshall,
we ask everybody to please stand, and,
Representative Sankey, you might lead us in the
pledge.
(Pledge of allegiance held off the
record).
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you,
Representative Sankey.
Before we get started, Representative
Marshall is here. Representative Marshall, if you
could take a seat there before the committee.
Before we let you start your comments, if I could
ask Representative Hill, our member secretary, to
please call the role.
(Roll call held off the record).
REPRESENTATIVE HILL: We have a quorum,
Representative.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you
very much, Representative Hill.
Once again, this morning's public
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
hearing is going to be on House Bill 466. It has
been the tradition of the committee since I've been
Chairman, we hold hearings so that we can receive
information and expertise from those that we have
invited as our guests.
There will be an opportunity for members
to engage in some Q and A. But I'd respectfully
ask the members to limit to your interaction with
the testifiers to a Q-and-A type of a format. It's
not the time for us to pontificate as members or
debate. These are our guests that will be
testifying. We'll debate with each other,
hopefully, at a future meeting on this legislation,
if it takes a debate form.
But during today's hearing, I would ask
respectfully to the members to limit your
engagement with out guests to asking them questions
in trying to gather information that could be
beneficial to our future debate in consideration of
this legislation. We'll also be working to stay on
schedule.
With that, we'll let Representative
Marshall lead off with a few remarks on the bill,
and then we'd invite Representative Marshall to
join us, if he'd like, to join the committee to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
talk with our guests. Thank you, Representative
Marshall.
REPRESENTATIVE MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to come
before you and the members of your committee to
bring this bill to light and to have the public
learn more as we all learn more about the
opportunity.
I believe that House Bill 466 will help
to bring statutory clarity. It's been requested by
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and my hope is that
we can have dialogue and gather information on
this.
Again, I appreciate this opportunity to
be before the committee. I'd like to defer the
rest of my time to the guests here today.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you,
Representative Marshall. Please feel free to join
the members seated on the other side of the table.
At this time, we'd like to call our
first testifiers Sheriff Weaknecht from Berks
County and Sheriff Welsh from Chester County. I
believe there might be a sheriff or a deputy here
from Allegheny County that was, possibly, going to
sit with the panel if any questions came up that he
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
could lend his expertise to, because I believe in
Allegheny County they know some of the powers that
we're actually discussing here today to -- in a
broader way give the sheriffs across the state.
Thank you, sheriffs, for joining us, and
either -- whoever would like to begin may begin.
SHERIFF WELSH: May I begin?
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Yeah, go
ahead.
SHERIFF WELSH: Good morning, members,
and thank you so much for having us here today. My
name is Carolyn Welsh. I am the sheriff of Chester
County, Pennsylvania. I have served as sheriff for
17 years. I'm past president of the Pennsylvania
State Sheriffs Association and on the executive
board of the National Sheriffs Association.
Chester County has a population of
510,000 people and 73 municipalities. There are 47
police departments, and the unincorporated areas
are covered by the Pennsylvania State Police. The
Chester County Sheriff's Office has built an
outstanding relationship with all levels of law
enforcement. We have worked and trained with the
United States Marshals, worked with the United
States Secret Service, the Pennsylvania State
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
Police, and all municipal agencies in every
township and borough in the county.
Ninety percent of the Chester County
Sheriff's Office deputies are certified in Act 2
and Act 120. They are respected and highly
regarded by the other agencies.
My message is very simple; three Cs:
Consistency, clarification and cooperation.
Consistency. The good relationship we
have in Chester County is not the circumstance in
many of the counties in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. That is why this legislation is so
necessary. Authority should be consistent, and the
2,500 highly-trained and certified deputy sheriffs
should be equal with every other agency throughout
the state. The citizens desire that. Authority of
these well-trained law enforcement officers should
not be determined by a good or bad relationship
with any other elected official.
Clarification. Each county sheriff
should be clear on the authority of the office of
sheriff. That authority should not change from
county to county.
And last, cooperation. The full
cooperation of every level of law enforcement,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
federal, state and local, is necessary in order to
provide the best safety and security to our
citizens.
The Pennsylvania deputy sheriffs are a
force multiplier in the event of a natural or man-
made diaster, and there should not be any question
regarding their authority and ability to work side
by side with every other law enforcement agency.
The citizens of this great Commonwealth deserve to
have 2,500 highly-trained deputy sheriffs to serve
and protect.
Thank you.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you,
Sheriff Welsh.
SHERIFF WEAKNECHT: Eric Weaknecht. I
am the sheriff of Berks County. I've been with the
sheriff's office for almost 33 years. I've been
the sheriff for the last 10.
The biggest problem we have in Berks
County is, we are responsible for serving warrants
for all municipal police. That's thousands of
warrants a year. We also conduct approximately 100
traffic citations per month.
On multiple occasions, we will come
across controlled substances. Our district
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
attorney has made the rule that if a control
substance is found, it is considered an
investigation, therefore, because it has to go to a
lab to get the suspected contra -- to see if it is
contraband, if it's illegal.
What we have to do on the service of the
warrants or if it's plain view on a traffic stop
is, call the local municipality to come in and file
the charges on what a deputy sheriff has found.
What that does is, it takes two agencies then to
prosecute that case. You're looking at overtime
for the prosecuting agency, and the deputies have
to be called as witnesses as to how they found that
substance. So, that is a big problem for us,
especially in the city of Reading, where we have a
diminished police department, and also, under Act
47 financially, so they're spending a lot of money
on overtime.
The other problem we have is, obviously,
the deputy sheriffs -- a lot of my deputy sheriffs
are part-time police officers. So when they're
wearing this star and they come across a controlled
substance, they can't prosecute that case. But
yet, when they go home and change uniforms, same
training, same person, and work in a part-time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
policeman capacity, they can then prosecute that
case. So we're just looking for clarification on
this, and 466 does that. We're asking for your
support on this bill.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you.
Sir, do you have anything you'd like to
add before we start with the Q and A.
COMMANDER O'NEILL: No. I'll just be
here for, hopefully, to answer some of the
questions as it pertains to Allegheny County.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you.
Members with questions? Representative
Knowles.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOWLES: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and welcome all.
I'm going to express my gratitude to
Sheriff Weaknecht. Thursday he did a
concealed-carry program for me, and we've had a
total of somewhere around 1,500 people in the
course of time in Schuylkill and Berks counties.
If anybody wants to do a concealed-carry program,
he's the guy to see. He does a great job.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Not a
commercial time, Representative Knowles; time your
questions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
REPRESENTATIVE KNOWLES: Okay, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
I guess there would be two questions.
The one would be, in terms of if, in indeed, this
legislation were to pass, would this require in any
way an increase in numbers in terms of your
complement? Do you feel that it would?
SHERIFF WEAKNECHT: Absolutely not.
SHERIFF WELSH: Absolutely not in
Chester County, either.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOWLES: Okay. The
other quick question is, in spite of what we're
dealing with state police coverage and local police
coverage, if you could design the ideal situation
in terms of law enforcement within communities and
within counties such as Berks, Schuylkill and
Carbon, what do you believe that ideal situation is
in terms of the structure? Do you think the, you
know, county police, local police, state police, I
would just be curious to know what you would have
to say about that.
COMMANDER O'NEILL: Well, currently, in
Allegheny County, we have about 120-some odd police
departments within the county itself to include a
county police force. We work hand in hand with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
them on a regular basis. A lot of times, even the
Pittsburgh Police who is in Allegheny County,
they'll get warrants for homicide suspects, Megan's
Law violators, rapists. A lot of times they don't
have enough time to devote to deal with going after
those folks, so they come to us; they defer to us.
Because we have county-wide jurisdiction, we're
able to track those folks down.
So, we work hand in hand with both our
county and the state police, as well as numerous
smaller borough departments with no problems
whatsoever at this point. They actually come to us
because they know of our abilities, and the fact
that we have the 120 powers; that we can
investigate and look further into their warrant to
track that person down, but it's worked very well
for us.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOWLES: Thank you very
much for the job that you do as a former county
commissioner. I'm well aware of what the sheriff's
department does, and I thank you for your service,
all of you, that are here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you,
Representative Knowles.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
Representative Daley.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Sorry.
Malfunction on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CCAP has
an official policy statement for 2016-17 that
supports a change in policy related to sheriffs,
but I think one of the issues that they outline is
related to the cost and the cost of the additional
training. They have a whole outline of A through K
of pieces that they're interested in.
Are you familiar with that document?
SHERIFF WEAKNECHT: I am not.
SHERIFF WELSH: I am not either, no.
SHERIFF WEAKNECHT: But if I could
address, there would be no change in training.
SHERIFF WELSH: Every deputy sheriff is
currently trained to the Act 120 standards, Act 2
standards and even beyond, so there would be no
additional training costs involved with the
authority.
SHERIFF WEAKNECHT: And as far as
manpower, that would fall under the county
commissioners through salary board. So even if a
sheriff would request more deputies, that would be
driven by the county commissioners themselves
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
because of the salary board.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: All right.
Mr. Chairman, can I just have a
follow-up question?
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Certainly.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Thank you.
Related to the cost, PCCD did estimate
there would be an increase in the cost for
providing the training to ensure that the two
different kinds of training were in sync. They
said that it would be, potentially, a 30 percent
increase in their training cost.
Are you aware of that?
SHERIFF WEAKNECHT: No. I actually sit
on the training commission, and I never heard that
discussed at any meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Okay. Thank you.
SHERIFF WELSH: Not only that, I've
never heard it discussed, but remember, the
training for the deputy sheriffs in PCCD is funded
by funds; a 10-dollar per charge on civil process
served to PCCD. So, PCCD Act 2 or sheriff
deputy/sheriff training is fully funded by the
deputy sheriffs.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Thank you.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE:
Representative Dush.
REPRESENTATIVE DUSH: Thank you,
Chairman.
Actually, much of the clarification I
was just going to ask for was already addressed.
So, Sheriff Welsh, you're saying that
they're trained both to Act 2 and Act 120, all
2,500 deputies?
SHERIFF WELSH: I can't address. I was
addressing Chester County.
REPRESENTATIVE DUSH: Do we have --
That's the price I was gonna get to. Do we know
how many are certified to each? Does the
association know, by any chance?
(No answer).
REPRESENTATIVE DUSH: Okay. We'll get
to that. I see a nodding of the head. We'll get
to that, I guess, when that part comes up.
I do want to say, for Jefferson County
and Indiana County, and Sheriff Gotwald is here
from Jefferson County. I know Sheriff Fiock
(phonetic) would be. But in talking to my
municipal police officers who are also deputies
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
sheriffs in both counties, they would be grateful
for the assistance and the ability to -- and our
municipal governments also wouldn't incur the cost
of having two officers testify when there only
needs to be one. I'd like to thank you, Sheriff
Weaknecht, for addressing that as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you,
Representative Dush. Representative DeLissio.
REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Gentlemen from Allegheny County, you
mentioned that your office is often -- because of
your county-wide powers, your office is often asked
to deliver warrants where local municipalities
can't get to.
Is there any type of tracking or cost
involved or reimbursement or charge for that, or is
that just done as kind of a quid pro --
COMMANDER O'NEILL: Well, it depends on
what type of warrant it is. I mean, if we're going
after a homicide suspect, a lot of them --
For instance, we had one a year or so
ago in Wilkinsburg where we had a number of people
that were killed. We worked in conjunction with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
the county police on that case. They were the lead
agency. But, because of our contacts and our
ability to help them track them down, we didn't
incur any additional costs. We just shifted our
detectives to that case to track those guys down.
They happened to be within our county, but many
times we go outside the county as well.
If they're out on bail, sometimes we can
track them down and get the bail to pay for us
bringing them back. It all depends on the type of
warrant and what the charges are and, quite
honestly, how far we're going for them.
REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: So, there
could be situations, whereby, your department, if
you will, is reimbursed?
COMMANDER O'NEILL: Yes, definitely.
REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: Okay. And is
there data, not to cite today or this morning, but
is that -- So the reimbursement we established
happens. Is there any data that quantifies that or
any type of report that you might be able to submit
or -- you know, of X amount of man-hours, this
amount is outside and reimbursed? Do you know if
you track it to that degree?
COMMANDER O'NEILL: Honestly, I don't
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
know that we do. Our investigators, they would
submit that paperwork to our administration, which
I'm not sure if it's done. I know -- When they're
out on bail, I know that we go back to the agencies
and we'll go and recoup our costs from them.
Depending on the warrant, we do do that. We do
have records of that.
But as far as tracking them out of
state, I can't say that. Other than, you know, we
incur airline costs and stuff like that to go and
get them, and that stuff certainly is tracked.
REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: Thank you.
COMMANDER O'NEILL: Sure.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you,
Representative DeLissio.
Representative Wheeland.
REPRESENTATIVE WHEELAND: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Thank you all for attending. Packed
house today.
Like Representative Knowles, in my past
life, I was a county commissioner; chairman of the
board for Lycoming County; had a great working
relationship with our sheriff, Sheriff Mark Lusk.
But I do have, and I guess it's more of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
a comment, but feel free to chime in, but it's just
a thought that I had; that there is no police
agency in Pennsylvania which does not have a
civilian head.
For example, mayors appoint the police
chiefs; even the Governor appoints the commissioner
of the PSP. And let's say, for whatever reason,
that the head police officer, chief, commissioner,
does not do a satisfactory job or tends to go
rogue, or whatever the case might be, he can be
removed immediately by the civilian. That does not
occur in the case of a sheriff. I believe
Lancaster County currently is under a process.
So, it's just a concern that I have, and
feel free to comment, if you would like. Thank
you.
SHERIFF WEAKNECHT: We have to stand for
election every four years, so if we're not doing
our job, then the citizens have a chance to remove
us. So, I think that pretty much is -- makes
sheriffs do their job because of the fact, if
they're not, they can replaced.
I do understand it's a four-year term,
but most police chiefs work under contract. A lot
of times municipalities will remove that chief of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
police for cause, but they'll still have to pay a
portion of that contract out. So, that's one of
the things that I think is extremely important
about the office of sheriff is that, you do have to
stand for election.
SHERIFF WELSH: Just to follow up with
what Sheriff Weaknecht said, you are correct that a
police chief answers to the governing body. That
could be the township commissioners; it could be
the borough council. In a city like Philadelphia,
it could be the mayor. Depending on how good or
not good that governing body is, they appoint or
unappoint the police chief.
Once again, as Sheriff Weaknecht said,
we have to answer to the people every four years
and be held accountable.
REPRESENTATIVE WHEELAND: Thank you very
much.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you,
Representative Wheeland.
We had a couple other members who wanted
to ask questions, but we're out of time for this
panel, so they'll be first on the list for the next
question series.
Thank you all for being with us today.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
Thank you for your taking time out of your
schedules and for your testimony, we appreciate it.
And thank you for your service to the citizens of
our state. Thank you.
Our next testifier will be District
Attorney Rob Greene, and he is from Warren County.
Sir, you can take a seat and start your testimony
when you're ready.
SHERIFF GREENE: Good morning.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Good
morning.
SHERIFF GREENE: I'm used to standing
when I talk, so this is gonna be odd.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: You're
welcome to stand if you'd like, but the microphone
doesn't reach.
SHERIFF GREENE: I want to thank
everyone for having me here today. I think it's an
extremely important issue. I want to thank the
members. I want to thank the Pennsylvania State
Police, municipal police officers, and most
important today, the men and women sitting behind
me, the sheriff deputies and the sheriffs that are
elected to help us with what's, I think, is
paramount in all of this is public safety.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
I want to apologize to the members of
the committee because I did not prepare a speech.
I got a couple e-mails that, we still don't have
your speech and we need to make 50 copies when you
get here. You can make them yourself or we can
make them for you. I didn't have a speech
prepared.
To me, I kind of speak off the cuff, and
that's the way I handle my law practice. That's
the way I handle being the district attorney now.
I've been the district attorney in Warren County
now for three and a half years, and I'm seeking
re-election this year and, fortunately, a week and
a half from now, no one is running against me as of
yet, so it looks like I'm gonna be doing pretty
good.
But, this is a matter of public safety.
That's the key. When you can increase over 2,000
law enforcement officers with a stroke of a pen or
with a vote, at no cost to the taxpayers, I don't
know what I'm missing.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Sir, not to
interrupt you, but can you pull your microphone up
just a little bit? They are broadcasting under PCN
right now. Just so the listening audience can --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
SHERIFF GREENE: Can you hear me now?
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Yes, sir.
We could hear you, but I wasn't sure if the TV
audience could. Thank you.
SHERIFF GREENE: I think public safety
is the absolute issue. If you could increase the
law enforcement officers across the Commonwealth by
2,000 plus, 2,500 law enforcement officers with a
stroke of a pen, it doesn't make sense not to.
I do have some notes that I took. I'll
put my glasses on, which makes me look about 20 IQ
points smarter, so we got that.
Last night it came to me. Last night
when we came in, checked into the hotel, a lady was
driving a big tour bus, and she came by and there's
a, I don't know, about 15 sheriff deputies, the
elected sheriff standing up front and we're
standing out there. She walks by and says hello,
and the sheriffs are talking to her about what
we're here for. We're here because we're the
sheriffs and that kind thing, and I was standing
there.
She went in. She's getting her luggage.
I started to walk to my room and she stopped me.
She said, can I tell you something for a second?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Can I bother you just for a second? I said sure.
She said, I just want to thank you for what you do.
She thought I was a sheriff. So, I, instead of
correcting her, just said, you're welcome. I
really appreciate you saying that. She said, no, I
really mean that. I really appreciate what you do.
Most of the civilians in the
Commonwealth have no idea that sheriff deputies do
not have law enforcement powers. I can say this
for a fact because I've addressed this issue. When
I was elected the district attorney of Warren
County, I wanted this to be an issue.
I talked with the sheriff. Larry Kopko
was the sheriff of Warren County, which somewhat
started this Kopko versus Miller, have made this --
I'm really glad this is here, because I made this a
point to make sure to address this issue.
When I talked to groups that I talk to,
mainly about drugs or something along those lines,
talking to parents of teenagers, at least 80 to 90
percent of them have no idea that sheriff deputies
are not law enforcement officers. And I think if
they did know, that that would -- that should
affect your decisions on what -- see what they
think.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
I'm in a rural county, and we're a very
large county geographically. It probably takes, if
you're running code, 30 to 45 minutes the soonest
you're gonna be able to get from one side of the
county to the other. On any given night, even the
weekends, there's probably one Pennsylvania State
Police parol car patrolling the entire county.
We have three municipal police
departments; one that's a part-time sheriff, so we
have three and a quarter, I guess, which patrol
their areas. But the majority of the geographic
land in Warren County is not patrolled except by
one Pennsylvania State trooper. God forbid he's on
an accident call and something else happens in
Warren County, which does happen quite often. The
sheriff deputy should be able to go out to that
call and investigate the scene and have the same
powers as law enforcement officers.
The only logical reason that I can think
of of why the legislators -- why you, as
representatives, would not want to pass a bill like
this, besides the obvious political overtone that
is out there, but the only logical reason is the
training. They argue that the training of Act 2 is
not as adequate as Act 120. I don't know. The
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
only way you're gonna know that is if you talk to
someone who actually went through Act 120 training
and went through a deputy sheriff training.
However, everyone I've talked to seems
to say they're exactly the same. They had
basically the same instructors; they're trained in
the same way. My experience as being a defense
attorney for 12 years and now the D.A. for three
and a half years, I see absolutely no difference
but for the fact the sheriff deputies don't have
that experience. The reason they don't have that
experience is because they were told in 2003, 2004,
they were no longer law enforcement officers.
My FOP, which I'm a member of, took a
vote last week, and the FOP voted unanimously in
favor of House Bill 466. All of our members are
municipal police officers, some deputies; majority
are municipal police officers and, unanimously --
We have 38 members. Twenty-nine of them, I believe
voted, and everyone voted unanimously in favor of
House Bill 466.
This might be a rural-city issue. Maybe
that's the reason why there's an argument, which I
don't really see a logical argument for it. With
that being said, the rural counties need this.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
I have a Warren County Drug Task Force
that I started when I became the D.A. We have a
heroin epidemic nationally, and Warren County,
unfortunately, is not immune to this epidemic.
This task force that was created, and the sheriff,
who's my intelligence officer, who's one of the
main thrusts in getting this going, and a deputy
sheriff, Dee Barrett-Klakamp, who's in the room
today also, was one of my coordinators, and getting
that going has put a huge dent.
We had a huge bath salts problem. We
pretty much eliminated bath salts in Warren County.
Now heroin is starting to come in and we have meth
labs. But it's a fantastic venue for us to use to
keep drugs out of Warren County.
We do use deputies on the Warren County
Drug Task Force, but they have to be Act 120, for
the funds I get from the Attorney General's Office,
which is fantastic they do that, can only be used
for those officers. So, that creates a vacuum, in
that, there are half -- half of our sheriff
deputies are not Act 120 and, therefore, can't
participate.
I honestly don't see the argument for
not passing this bill or not getting this through
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
committee or arguing further on down the line.
There is no logical reason to not make sheriff
deputies law enforcement officers with full powers
just like municipalities and state police.
And thank you for your time.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you,
sir. Members with questions, we had Representative
Daley and McCarter who had questions for the last
testifier. Would Representative Daley like to lead
off?
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: That would be
great. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Greene, thank you for being here
today.
SHERIFF GREENE: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: So, I live in
Montgomery County, which is about 800,000 people,
and a lot of local police departments. And your
comment that it might be an urban city issue, I
think may not just be city, but --
So my question is: In an area that has
a lot of local police departments and a pretty
large sheriff's department, I'm concerned about
chain of command, and I'm concerned about how that
actually would fit into the local police
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
departments, because I think that that's a -- I
don't know if it's completely different. I've
never lived in Warren County. I've lived in
Montgomery County my whole life.
But, do you have any comments on that?
SHERIFF GREENE: First off, you can come
to God's Country any time you'd like. It's up in
northwest PA.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Oh, great.
Probably a great place to vacation.
SHERIFF GREENE: It's wonderful.
Absolutely. And I think there is that
issue right now, and it's not an issue, but you
have the state police with the same coverage as the
City of Warren Police or the Conewango Township
Police and the other municipal police departments,
and it works out fine. There are no issues.
With the sheriff's department, I see the
sheriff's department more as, if there's -- if
there is a burglary in part of my county that the
state police have sole jurisdiction at this point,
and at the sheriff's department the House Bill 466
passes and they will dual jurisdiction, your
question is, as I understand it, if they both get
there at the exact same time, who has jurisdiction?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
Well, let me put it to you this way:
First off, the decision maker in my eyes would be
the district attorney. The district attorney is,
by statute, the chief law enforcement officer in
Warren County. I've never been to Act 120 school
or Act 2 school or don't know anything about law
enforcement but what I've seen. I was in the Army,
but other than that, but they --
I appreciate you've anointed me to be
the chief law enforcement officer in Warren County.
I'd be able to say who has jurisdiction, one or the
other.
That being said, the Pennsylvania State
Police, they are fantastic. Fortunately, in Warren
County, we only have one homicide a year, maybe. I
mean, it's -- I've had four since I've been D.A.,
and the sheriff's department or the local municipal
departments can't handle a homicide. We need to
call in the state police, and they have their
investigative team that comes from Erie to
investigate that.
It's a matter of logistics and whether
the -- the sheriff's department or the local
municipality be able to handle it or not. I don't
see that as an issue. Once in a blue moon, if both
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
arrive at the same time, and you have a sheriff
deputy that has a huge ego and a trooper that has a
huge ego, then maybe you'd have an issue of whose
case that is. But I think that can be easily
worked out, and I really don't see that as an
issue. The same way it's not an issue right now,
when a crime happens in the City of Warren and they
both have jurisdiction.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Thank you.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE:
Representative McCarter.
REPRESENTATIVE McCARTER: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
If I could follow up on that, again,
Representative Daley's question a little bit, I
have the same concern, really, in a county where we
have 49 different police departments and trying to
integrate into that, the sheriff's department in
terms of chains of command.
I'm having difficulty in seeing how that
plays out also in terms of where that works in a
county the size of Montgomery County, as an
example.
SHERIFF GREENE: Sure.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
REPRESENTATIVE McCARTER: I guess the
question that really comes back to that also deals
with pay issues. I don't think it's -- I think
it's fair to say that the deputy sheriffs do not
have quite the same pay stature at the present
moment as the police officers do, and they're not
covered under Act 111, and they're not also part of
Civil Service completely in the same vein.
So, would this trigger all those changes
in terms of, number 1, becoming part of Civil
Service; number 2, Act 111 and seeing the --
obviously, the pay raise also doing the same job
categorization that we're talking about would have
implications -- far-reaching implications for many
of the counties, larger counties in particular,
which would have major budgetary issues, I think,
as a result of that.
SHERIFF GREENE: I don't think so, and I
can only answer for Warren County and I can't talk
for the sheriff.
But I am gonna say, with regards to, in
Warren County, the sheriff would be seen more as,
in that situation that I just talked about with
regards to both arguing at the same time, the state
police would have jurisdiction over that case,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
because the sheriff would be seen more as a backup
role and they are there for support. They're the
only ones that show up, then, absolute, they would
investigate and have those powers. So, I don't see
that as an issue in my county. I don't know how it
plays out in other counties.
With regards to your other question, I
don't see that as an issue, but I can't answer that
intelligently because I don't know enough about it.
REPRESENTATIVE McCARTER: Thank you.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE:
Representative Sims.
REPRESENTATIVE SIMS: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Greene, for testifying.
You obviously are testifying in support of H.B.
466. Are you a member of the Pennsylvania District
Attorneys Association?
SHERIFF GREENE: I am.
REPRESENTATIVE SIMS: And are you aware
that they are not supporting this bill?
SHERIFF GREENE: Kind of. I know Rich
Long is here. I've talked to him a couple times
last week. I am aware they did not support it in
2008. I have not seen a letter or anything saying
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
they're not supporting it this year. I have been
told verbally by Mr. Long that he believes they're
taking the same stance this year, but I'm not aware
of any referendum or vote to that.
I have talked to other district
attorneys in counties close to mine, and they're
in favor of it, so -- But, yes, I am aware that
they take an opposite position of what I'm --
REPRESENTATIVE SIMS: I suppose I'd like
to ask for your opinion. I have an e-mail here
from a gentleman named Greg Rowe, who is the
Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association's
legislative liaison, and it's dated yesterday. And
he says that the PDAA does not support H.B. 466,
because adding a new entity to provide general
police powers may cause duplication and issues of
dual jurisdiction, especially without any oversight
by the local and state police. They are concerned
about the impact on the balance of powers under
current law possessed by local and state police and
sheriffs.
Do you disagree?
SHERIFF GREENE: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE SIMS: And you mentioned
that your local FOP voted unanimously in favor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
Are you aware that the state FOP is opposed as
well?
SHERIFF GREENE: I am.
REPRESENTATIVE SIMS: Do you disagree
with the state FOP?
SHERIFF GREENE: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE SIMS: Why do you think
that it is, then, that they oppose this if your
local FOP supported it unanimously?
SHERIFF GREENE: That's a good question
because it's -- My FOP supports it unanimously, and
it's municipal jurisdiction, municipal officers,
Act 120 have nothing to do with the sheriff's
department and they voted unanimously for it.
I am not only in favor of House Bill
466, I'm here speaking today because I think it's
such an important thing. Why the District
Attorneys Association and why the FOP publicly are
opposed to it, I don't know. I was never asked.
I'm a member of both.
REPRESENTATIVE SIMS: The reason I ask
is that you have pretty impressive credentials, as
you've laid out. And as a member of both, I am
incredibly curious. I'm a little bit surprised to
see the, sort of, disparate approach from
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
individual district attorneys, individual FOPs
versus the statewide.
So, as a member of both, could you give
me a little bit more about why it is, do you think,
that they're opposed if your local is so
supportive?
SHERIFF GREENE: I would have to guess,
and I don't want to speculate as to why they --
besides something political that is out of my area
of expertise.
REPRESENTATIVE SIMS: Okay. Thank you,
sir.
SHERIFF GREENE: Thank you.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE:
Representative Sims. Thank you, sir, for making
the trip down here today.
SHERIFF GREENE: Thank you.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: We'll move
on to our next testifier. Thank you for you time
and expertise and sharing that with the committee.
I know Representative Rapp is in the
audience, who represents Warren County, and
Representative Jozwiak is here in the back and
would invite both of the members to take a seat up
front, if you'd like to join us, instead of sitting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
in the audience or standing in the back. In
Representative Jozwiak's case, he's been standing
for, probably, a better part of an half hour.
You're welcome to take a seat with the committee,
if you'd like, sir. Thank you for being here this
morning.
Our next testifier will be Mr. Douglas
Hill. He's Executive Director for the County
Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Hill, thank you for joining us. You can begin when
you're seated and ready, sir.
MR. HILL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
and members of the committee, and thank you for the
opportunity to present our comments today.
I believe you have our written comments
in front of you. I'm not going to bother you with
reading those to you. I think I'll just start by
responding to some of the discussion you've already
been having.
For the County Commissioners Association
of Pennsylvania, we have had a position for quite
some time on the arrest powers of the sheriff's
department. We have had a position as well and
concurrently with whether the sheriff's department
should be functioning as the equivalent of a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
municipal police department.
This really wasn't an issue until 1994.
Up until that time, under Pennsylvania's law and
practice, the sheriff's role has been primarily to
serve process on behalf of the court. It was in
1994, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued the
Leet decision, and in the Leet decision they found
that the sheriffs also had a common law arrest
power, so that did change the playing field
somewhat.
The clarification of those seems to make
sense because, if you have someone, as others have
testified, trained and in uniform and to have them
not have the ability to make arrest didn't seem to
make any sense, so that's where the court was
headed in '94.
The court since then has clarified and
then partially rescinded those arrest powers, so
you have the Kline decision that essentially said
you can't do an arrest under the vehicle code
unless you've been trained to the vehicle code, and
so, deputy sheriff's training was amended to
include that type of training.
Following that, we had the Kopko
decision in 2007, and that partially rescinded the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
arrest power because it seemed to tie it closely to
the definitions that were available in statute
relative to specific laws; so Kopko, and then
Dobbins the year after that.
With Kopko, I should say, our
association changed its position relative to
sheriff arrest powers, and we said very simply that
they should be restored and clarified statutorily
so that we were all operating on a clear playing
field.
But, beyond that, we still had the open
question, and it occurs to me that the discussion
you've already had in your questions blurs the line
between simple arrest powers, and then, are they
actually the equivalent of a municipal police
department, and that's, at this point, where our
association draws the line. We do not believe --
We do believe firmly that the statute
should be clarified so that arrest powers are clear
and unambiguous, so that they can on sight execute
an arrest, so they can with clear statutory
authority participate on a district attorney's drug
task force and so on. But, in terms of then taking
the next step and becoming a municipal police
department, we think that can become problematic.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
So, the two specific questions that we
have with 466 -- And, by the way, I'll say, because
I didn't say clearly already, we do support
consideration of the legislation. But, at the same
time, we support clarification, and the reason is
to get to that same ambiguity that you all have
been expressing so far.
The two related matters are, first,
whether this is cast is permissive or is it duty.
And while that sounds a bit arcane, the reason is,
under current case law, the row offices, the
sheriffs and all the others, are elected officials.
The county commissioners are equals. We just
simply have the budget authority, contracting
authority and personnel authority that they do not.
But what the courts have repeatedly
affirmed is that the county commissioners are
required to fund each of the rows sufficient for
them to administer duties. And so, duties becomes
the operative word. So, if it's not a duty, then
it's a matter of budget negotiation; it's a matter
of salary board negotiation, if it's permissive.
But if it's a duty, we have an obligation to fund
to the extent the row office can make that
assertion.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
The second issue is one that a couple of
you have raised already, and that is, if it is the
legislature's intent that the sheriff's departments
actually serve as the equivalent of municipal
police department, then we would like to see some
of the same protections that are available to the
public in that context. And so, that includes
things like standardized procedures on how we
delineate that as a department, because it
currently doesn't exist. It's something we're
creating from scratch.
Second, the department has to be under
some level of civilian review, so whether that's
reporting to the board of commissioners or whether
there's a separate review panel to satisfy that
point.
Very clearly, and we know this from our
emergency management responsibilities at the county
level, you have to be clear on mutual response
agreements, command and control, hot pursuit, and
then other things like Civil Service. The list
goes on a bit, and I have that full list in the
testimony.
But the bottom line is, we do support
consideration of 466, but again, we need some
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
additional work on the language to be clear that
its exclusive intent is to address what the Supreme
Court has issued in four separate cases relative to
their power, and that it not be extended to
creating them as an equivalent of municipal police
department.
I'll be happy to take your questions.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you
very much, Mr. Hill.
Members have questions? Representative
Daley.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hill, good to see you today. So,
Pennsylvania has 67 counties; some large, some
small, some urban, some rural, some very diverse in
population. Do you see this as something that can
work in every single county if the list of what
CCAP has laid out could actually work?
MR. HILL: Well -- Excuse me.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Or do you see
challenges for counties that have full police
departments and, um, already?
MR. HILL: I think it's largely gonna be
situational. I think that's what we referred to in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
the opening bullets in our list; that you have a
way to make that determination locally and see what
fits best.
I would say, it also raises in some
respect the issue you already have in parallel with
state police jurisdiction where municipalities are
paying for both state police and for their local
police departments. So, by extension, county-wide
policing, how does that play in the municipalities
where you have a police department versus
municipalities where you do not?
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Thank you.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you,
Representative Daley. Representative Hill.
REPRESENTATIVE HILL: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hill, no relation. Thank you for
being here today. Question for you:
This legislation, as drafted, would it
have your support, or do you believe that these
other things that you said need to be addressed
need to be drafted as amendments to move this
legislation forward?
MR. HILL: It's a two-part answer.
In simplest terms, we do not support the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
bill with this specific language. It does, at
minimum, need clarification to say, all we -- this
is -- we don't have language, but to be clear that
all we are doing is establish with clarity that the
sheriffs have arrest powers, period. We do not
want it to create any ambiguity that it also
creates them as the equivalent with a municipal
police department.
And so, our concern is, as currently
written, and as many of you already read the bill
and seem to believe in your interpretations, it
does seem to go beyond that threshold. So, that's
what we'd like to have clarified.
Then secondly, we do not at this time
support creating sheriff's departments as an
equivalent municipal police department. So the
second part is, and in a different context we would
recommend, if you want to head down that path, then
here's the long list of policy questions that you
need to consider and have included in that separate
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE HILL: And is that
something that you would be willing to clearly
articulate for us?
MR. HILL: We can. The bullet list in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
the testimony, I think, gives you the outline. If
that's the path the legislature would like to go,
we'd be pleased to be part of that discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HILL: Thank you very
much.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Other
members?
(No response).
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you
very much, sir, for your testimony. Thank you for
being with us. We appreciate it.
Our next testifier is Chief Inspector
Paris Washington from the Philadelphia sheriff's
office. He's also homeland security, special
operations/special investigations in training. You
have a long list of work that you do, sir. Thank
you for being with us today. You can begin when
ready.
CHIEF INSPECTOR WASHINGTON: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman and committee. I've submitted to you
my written remarks, so again, I'm not going to
repeat them for you.
I've been listening very carefully to
the comments this morning, and I think language is
important and the interpretation of that language
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
is very important. I agree with the previous
speaker. We're not police departments. The
sheriff's office is elected by the people and are
county officers.
I've heard a lot this morning about
training: Act 120, Act 2-114, Pennsylvania State
Police training. None of these trainings give
authority. They're mandated by you to make sure
that these appointed officers, in fact, are
qualified. In police departments, the local
jurisdiction gives the authority. The sheriff's
office, when he's elected, the Governor of this
Commonwealth gives him a commission and authority.
Pennsylvania State Police, which is an Executive
Branch of the Governor, gives the authority.
It's important to me, after 33 years of
continuous service, that when a citizen is in peril
and that they approach me, that I have the power,
the authority to help them without any delay.
In my submissions, the question of
authority comes up constantly. Why recreate the
wheel? In 1997, a blue ribbon panel of you asked
the state Attorney General that very same question;
an unbiased independent elected office.
In my submission, they clearly define
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
terms, and I think when you look at that, it makes
this even clearer. Do I want Philadelphia sheriffs
to be police? No. Do I want them to be a police
department? No. I want them to be what the
Constitution says they are; sheriffs.
I've worked on many task forces, ladies
and gentlemen. When I see U.S. Marshals, they say
the word police. When I see ICE, they say the word
police. Police is a function; not a position.
It's a function.
Throughout this Commonwealth, despite
what anyone tells you, not only do we have a drug
problem, but we have increased violence. Some
places have said to me, I don't believe it can
happen here. It can happen anywhere. And as many
law enforcement officers--notice I didn't use the
word police officers--law enforcement officers that
can assist in protecting our citizens, I took that
oath, probably the same oath you took.
In my brief, I talked historically about
two different government agencies. When William
Penn landed, and he came to this beautiful land, he
appointed a council of individuals to make laws.
You are that modern-day council. His second
appointment was a gentleman by the name of John
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
Taus, the first sheriff; the first law enforcement
in the new world. His job was to preserve the
peace.
Ladies and gentlemen, this has been a
debate for many years. I ask you, I plead with you
to clear the debate because you are the elected
officials who determine definitions. Please look
at that 1997 report from the state Attorney
General. See how he defines legally terminology
such as police powers. And I believe, like all the
citizens who elected you, that you will see a very
clear picture of what sheriffs are. They are the
oldest law enforcement officer in America and have
been here since the beginning of this great
country.
We're not asking to be better. We're
not asking to be worse. All we're asking is that
you recognize the authority that the sheriff's
offices have throughout history till this day. In
fact, every Supreme Court decision has made it very
clear, unless you aggregate the authority, it
exists.
I want to thank you very much for giving
me the opportunity. I don't get to come up here.
I'm very proud to say as a sheriff, deputy sheriff
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
working for the Honorable Joel Williams, who is a
member of this honorable body, that he believes
that sheriffs can be a significant assistance in
preserving the peace in this Commonwealth.
Thank you.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you
very much, Chief Inspector Washington. And please
pass on my greetings to Jewell, Sheriff Jewell
Williams. I appreciate having a chance to serve
with him here. We've always had a good rapport and
a good friendship throughout the time that we've
known each other. We appreciate him serving now in
the capacity of sheriff and allowing you to come
before us and work to educate us from the
perspective that you've brought today. I felt like
I was sitting in a professor's lecture. Good job,
sir. Thank you.
Members with questions? Representative
Solomon.
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
I'm just wondering, sheriff's office of
Philadelphia is a very busy place. So, with these
new responsibilities, how would that impact your
current duties?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
CHIEF INSPECTOR WASHINGTON: Well, you
just said a very busy place, we transport over five
to 600 prisoners a day to court, just alone. We
have a 24-hour warrant unit with thousands and
thousands of warrants. I can tell you that
Philadelphia sheriffs are members of FOP Lodge 5,
full members. My wife is a Philadelphia police
officer.
I can say without any doubt that in
Philadelphia, whether it's the Philadelphia police,
housing police, SEPTA police, we all understand
we've got to work together, because bad guys work
together.
Some of the latest research I've done
with being part of our homeland security unit is,
terrorists will cooperate with anyone to get the
goal done. They will do whatever it takes to win.
And I know all of you have been briefed that the
goal is to change our way of life in America. They
will do anything. They don't have an ego. They
have a mission.
In Philadelphia, the law enforcement
agencies, we have about 10 to 15, depending on what
side of the city you're on. We cooperate fully.
If it is an issue out of their jurisdiction,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
because sheriffs are county, we work together. I
don't know why things are the way they are. I
don't. Again, I'm from a very big city, and we
know how important it is to work together.
I cannot speak for other counties, but
I'll tell you this: If we don't get on the same
page, the bad guy will win, and they won't be
worrying about jurisdiction. Every county now is
subject to violence, to terrorism. It's a way of
life.
I believe all the sheriffs are asking
is, let us come and play in the ball game too so we
can do our part, so that everyone, and I mean
everyone, is protected.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Any other
members?
(No response).
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE:
Representative Sims.
REPRESENTATIVE SIMS: I suppose I just
want to expound on my colleague's question. If we
do vote to allow you, as you said, to come into the
ball game, can you talk to us about the expenses
that allowing you to be in the ball game would
cause on the Philadelphia sheriff's office?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
CHIEF INSPECTOR WASHINGTON: Well, I
think Sheriff Welsh was very clear. All sheriffs'
training is paid for by sheriffs through the fee
attached to writs and other processes. So, in
actuality, there is no addition to any budgets.
I don't think sheriffs want to go out
and create these fiefdoms to become police
departments. I think what we're saying is, we're
out there every day just like anyone else. If I'm
in a neighborhood in a marked vehicle conducting
some type of sheriff business, and a citizen is a
victim of a crime, I should be able to help them.
I should be able to gather crucial evidence to turn
over to the district attorney's office because, as
my colleague said, they determine prosecution; not
the state police, not the Philly police, not the
Philadelphia sheriffs.
We work every day. It doesn't affect my
budget, and believe me, I have to stand in front of
city council and talk about budget with the
Honorable Jewell William. There is no cost.
Extraditions, well, those of you that
know, the district attorney has to fork that over.
If I have to go to another state to recover
someone, the district attorney has to authorize it.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
So again, it doesn't come out of the general
budget.
A deputy sees a crime, deputy should be
able to do what's necessary to protect its
citizens. I remember 33 years ago, do you solemnly
swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the
United States, the Constitution of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, and in Philadelphia's case, the
Home Rule Charter. It didn't say part time; it
didn't say maybe. I took that oath knowing that I
had to serve. It's elementary to me.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE:
Representative Sims, follow-up?
REPRESENTATIVE SIMS: Just a
clarification. Just to be clear, is it your
testimony that there will be no increased cost to
the Philadelphia's Sheriff's Department if H.B. 466
is passed?
CHIEF INSPECTOR WASHINGTON: There will
be no cost. In fact, because the sheriff's office
does its works, it actually brings money in. We
have five sheriff's sales in Philadelphia. It's
been published that the sheriff brought in over
$6 million to put into the coffers of the city.
Under the Department of Transportation,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
I believe, and I can stand corrected, when a
municipal tag is taken for lack of insurance, the
sheriff is one of the entities that recover it, and
there's a fee when you get it back. So the sheriff
actually puts revenue into its local
municipalities.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you.
Representative Bullock.
REPRESENTATIVE BULLOCK: Thank you,
Chairman. Good morning.
If we were to grant this arrest
authority to the sheriff's department, I have some
concerns about review of interactions and activity
of sheriffs that now have policing powers. And
would you -- I guess, would you be supportive of a
civilian review board of those actions should there
be complaints about how that power may be used or
abused?
CHIEF INSPECTOR WASHINGTON: Ma'am, in
Philadelphia we have a review board whether it's
police or sheriffs. That is currently in effect
now.
I think if you look at my submissions,
we're using this word police powers. Remember I
said earlier to you, definition is everything. I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
think if you look at the legal definition of police
powers, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
We use terms very loosely sometimes, and because we
keep saying it, we start to believe it.
What is police powers? I think that's
the first thing this committee has to clearly
define, and the state Attorney General did that.
He did it in '97, and that definition hasn't
changed.
I just got back from Paris. Beautiful
city. Everybody told me, be careful, be careful,
be careful. All the bogeyman stories. I can tell
you, Paris was a pleasant place to be, and they had
police officers. They were patrolling. Police, a
Latin word.
You know, I lost a son because law
enforcement, frankly, didn't understand. They
didn't understand what a young person growing up in
an urban city would go through. They didn't
understand the trials and tribulations. I wish to
God that a sheriff, a policeman, someone had been
there to help him before he took his own life.
This is personal to me. I serve not
because of salary. Of course, no one is gonna work
without getting paid, but I serve because I believe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
in the mission of not only my wife, who is a
Philadelphia police officer, but the deputies, the
housing police, the college police; everyone that
agrees that we need to protect and serve. It's
that simple for me.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you,
sir. And thank you for your service and your
wife's service.
We have one more member on the list to
ask a question. Representative DeLissio.
(Chief Inspector Washington started to
leave the witness table).
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Sir, we
have one more question for you, if you don't mind.
Representative DeLissio is the next tes -- final
questioner.
REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I have some data in front of me from
October of 2016 saying that, the total number of
deputies currently employed is a little north of
2,000, and deputies that are Act 120 trained are a
little more than half of that.
Are you saying that all of the deputies
in Philadelphia County are Act 120 trained?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
CHIEF INSPECTOR WASHINGTON: No, ma'am.
We have some deputies that are, and we have some
that are not. The law clearly says, to be a county
deputy and now a sheriff, it must pass the
legislation that was passed by you.
I say again to you, ma'am, Act 120 gives
no authority. It is merely training legislation
required. That's why it's called the Municipal
Police Officers Training Act.
REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: So I think the
legislation does not require everybody to be
trained to the Act 120 level?
CHIEF INSPECTOR WASHINGTON: Being a
trainer, ma'am, and teaching, that's not what the
law -- The law says, if you're a municipal police
officer, you must have Act 120. The law says that
if you're a sheriff in the Commonwealth, you must
have Act 2-1 14. The law says that if you're an
armed security officer in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, you must have Act 235.
So, Pennsylvania's one of the rare
states where the different categories, where
individuals are armed and enforcing the law, must
have the state-mandated training.
REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: Okay. Thank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
you, Mr. Chair. I see the part, the legislation,
and I'll work harder at understanding this. It
says, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs who have
successfully completed the same type of training as
municipal police officers. That's where --
CHIEF INSPECTOR WASHINGTON: And the
Act 2, is that training accepted. So, it didn't
say it had to be the same. It said it had to be
like. And when you look at the Leet decision and
several decisions by the Supreme Court, it is ruled
that if that training is like, then it is good.
REPRESENTATIVE DeLISSIO: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you
very much Chief Inspector Washington. We
appreciate you being here with us from Philly
today. And please, once again, pass my greetings
to the sheriff.
CHIEF INSPECTOR WASHINGTON: I most
certainly will. Thank you very much.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you
for your expertise and sharing that with us today.
Our next and final testifier is Sheriff
Mike Slupe, my sheriff from Butler County. Sheriff
Slupe is the Pennsylvania Sheriffs Association
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
President. And he has a guest with him that he
notified me just before the meeting that he was
bringing today, which we're thankful that the
gentleman next to him was able to travel from way
down south. We'll let Mike introduce the gentleman
next to him.
SHERIFF SLUPE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and honorable members of this committee.
It's my honor to introduce the National
Sheriff's Association President, Greg Champagne,
from Louisiana. I would like to ask for permission
for him to give a brief statement in support of the
Pennsylvania sheriffs.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you.
MR. CHAMPAGNE: Thank you very much,
Sheriff Slupe.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: And welcome
to Pennsylvania.
MR. CHAMPAGNE: Thank you. My first
trip; nice to be here.
I come here to, hopefully, just give you
a little bit of just national broad-brush
perspective on the office of sheriff, which, as you
can tell, not only my brothers and sisters here in
Pennsylvania, but sheriffs nationwide; 3,088 feel
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
the pride toward the office of sheriff.
I understand the difficult decisions you
have to make. I had a brother-in-law who's a state
senator in Louisiana for 24 years, and I served as
his aide for many years, so I understand the
legislative process. I understand that change is
also, sometimes, not easy. People are apprehensive
about change, and what is going to happen if we
make this change. Is the sky gonna fall? Is the
sun not going to come up tomorrow?
Ninety-nine percent of American citizens
go to the polls and vote for a sheriff. And the
only reason it's not a hundred percent is because
we have a couple states, namely, Alaska and Hawaii,
that, who are relatively recently formed, choose
not to have the office of sheriff.
The Pennsylvania's sheriffs are not
asking you to step off the cliff here and take a
risk. The model that they're talking about, which
is simply equal authority, which is commonly
expected of a citizen when they come up to an
uniformed law enforcement officer on the streets,
is the model in at least 46 states of the United
States of America. In the vast majority of those
states, sheriffs are actually the chief law
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
enforcement officers in their counties or parish,
as it is in my pred -- They're not asking to be the
chief law enforcement officers, although they may
have an argument under common law that it is.
But, we're elected by the public. We
take that responsibility seriously. In my travels
throughout the country, to various state sheriff's
associations speaking to citizens around the
country; if you go look at election time, sheriffs
usually gain high, high percentages of the vote,
and they don't do that by accident. They do that
because they work. They're dedicated to their
public. Their public takes pride in their local
elected sheriff.
The idea of civilian control some of you
asked about, I think this is the ultimate civilian
control, where the public feels -- they feel it's
high to their elected sheriffs around the country.
It's rich in tradition. As the
inspector said, it's arguably the oldest elected
office in the country, having had its origin
actually in England.
You have a poster outside the committee
meeting, which I noticed today, which I think
speaks a lot to what we're talking about today.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
And the poster out there talks about homeland
security that we all have to be in the game. We're
in the days of potential terrorists' attacks.
We're in the days of mass killings, unfortunately.
We're in days of an opioid/heroin epidemic, that is
not just here in Pennsylvania. It's in Louisiana;
it's all throughout the country I can tell you, and
it is an epidemic.
I have yet to go to a municipality, a
city, a borough, a township where the citizens
there feel like they need -- that they have enough
trained, qualified law enforcement officers
protecting them. I have yet to see that.
What the Pennsylvania sheriffs are
asking for is just the recognition of the authority
that they believe they have had for a long time and
has been, I don't want to say distorted. That
might be a bad word, by the Supreme Court, a couple
of conflicting decisions. But this model works.
Sheriff deputies, literally hundreds of
thousands of them around the country, are doing a
great job of being, really, homeland security
sensors in protecting the people of the counties
that they serve around this country. And there's
no reason to believe, based upon all of that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
history, that the Pennsylvania sheriffs and their
2,600 deputies can't do the same thing.
So, I submit to you that giving sheriff
deputies, uniformed deputies, properly trained,
just commonly-accepted law enforcement authority
that they have in, literally, 46, 47 states in this
country is not gonna cause the sky to fall in
Pennsylvania. It's going to help. They're gonna
be a force multiplier. A typical model of
sheriffs, police chiefs, municipalities around the
country, everybody works together.
Law enforcement is a brotherhood and a
sisterhood. I think the problems that you may be
anticipating are really not gonna occur, because
there are some odd cases where we have people that
go down the wrong path. All political offices do
that. There's no exception for any position.
But, the overwhelming evidence in the
country indicates that police officers, sheriffs'
deputies, constables, state police, state troopers,
as they do in Louisiana and most of the states, if
not all the states that I have been to, are gonna
work together, and what they're gonna do is make
the people in Pennsylvania safer.
So, thank you for allowing me the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
opportunity to come here and speak on behalf of my
brothers and sisters in Pennsylvania. And I yield
to Sheriff Slupe. Thank you.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you,
sir. Sheriff Slupe.
SHERIFF SLUPE: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, and members again.
When I became president in July of 2016,
the members, a lot sitting behind me -- And, by the
way, if you look at the members sitting behind me,
tell me which one of them can and cannot make an
arrest. If we had police officers and state
troopers in here, that's the question. Tell me
which one that you wouldn't, wouldn't go to to help
you. You'd go to anybody in uniform with a badge
and a gun because you think they can help. That's
what our citizens in this Commonwealth think.
Every sheriff here makes arrests. They
make traffic arrests. They make criminal arrests,
and they make drug arrests. What this legislation
will do is permit the investigation of those
arrests.
In our county, we make plenty of drug
arrests. We can't investigate. So to get around
that, 19 of the district attorneys in this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
Commonwealth have started a drug task force and
have invited their sheriffs and deputy sheriffs,
who have Act 120 certification, to be a part of
that. The reason for the Act 120 certification is
because the money they get from the Attorney
General's Office dictates that Act 120 be the
standard. That changes with legislation. It can
only go by what is written.
The sheriffs have never been legislated.
They've always had their common law powers, and
again, powers is such a bad word. Sheriffs have
all kind of powers. You have all kind of powers.
I wish the gentleman in the back were
here. Nothing new about what you're seeing in
front of you is going to occur; nothing new. The
sheriffs already do these functions. They just
can't investigate something they don't see. That
causes a problem.
In Butler County, I'll give you a quick
example. We had a mother who had a nine-year-old
handicapped -- both mentally and physically
handicapped child. There was an incident that
occurred. We get called. Our response is within
seconds, literally. We get up there. All we see
is a disorderly conduct. But what happened before?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
Do we have a reckless endangering of a child? What
do they do?
In our case we call the district
attorney's office. Their detective came up;
basically found out what we could have found out.
The district attorney and I had a little pow wow.
He said, sheriff, go ahead and arrest this lady for
disorderly conduct. That's what we did. There are
district attorneys wouldn't allow that to happen
with other sheriffs.
When I spoke with Richard Long from --
the executive director from the District Attorneys
Association, I said to him, your organization, of
all organizations that we're speaking with, should
want this clarification. I can't tell you how many
sheriffs I've spoken with that said, my D.A. won't
let me do that. Well, mine will. Why do we have
such left and right? As Inspector Washington said,
we should all be on the same ball field playing the
same game that we've had since 1600.
The state police, if you didn't know
this, to get their authority to make an arrest in
any county had to be sworn in by the sheriff. So
what happened to the sheriff's law enforcement
authority to conduct an investigation? I submit to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
you it's the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. And the
Supreme Court, if you read all of the decisions and
the information that I've provided, you do can this
but you can't do this. Well, you're identified to
this, but you didn't do this. Well, you can file
an information received on this, but you can't do
this. Well, you're a common citizen according to
this. It is so out there.
The Supreme Court is basically saying,
legislature, please fix this. I try to be
entertaining, sir. Please fix this before someone
actually gets hurt, because the deputies are out
there trying to decide, oh, wait, is this starting
an investigation or not. They don't want to lose
their case.
I am the president of the Butler County
Chiefs of Police Association. You didn't get a
letter from us because it'd look pretty funny that
the sheriff, also the president of the Chiefs of
Police Association of Butler County, signs off on a
letter that we support House Bill 466.
Now, I will be honest with you. The
majority of the chiefs in my county supports this.
There are some that, hey, I just don't because they
don't know. They just think that we're gonna go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70
out there and expand our authority, expand our
powers.
And again, as explained, the only way
that sheriffs can expand their duties is with two
votes from the Board of County Commissioners. If
two members of the county commissioners say, yes,
sheriff, we're gonna contract with XYZ municipality
so you can go out there and do police services,
that's great. But you know what we're also gonna
need? We're gonna need three votes out of five in
most counties on a salary board. I need more
people.
Ladies and gentlemen, if I need more
people, I need more cars, I need more equipment, I
think the comment to the municipality would be, you
better hire your own police.
The sheriffs, we're out there every day
serving warrants, serving writs, and when we do, we
find illegal activity. As I said in previous
testimony, we have to call the local police or the
state police. In some cases they're like, why are
you calling us? You should do this.
I submit that I sometimes question the
leadership in some of these stakeholders that they
are not speaking for their membership. I will tell
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
you that I believe strongly that I am speaking for
67 county sheriffs. I have submitted to them, if
you do not want me to speak for you, tell me now,
tell me again, because I won't speak for you. So,
we are speaking with one voice today, tomorrow, the
next day on this issue. Nothing changes, ladies
and gentlemen.
Excuse me. What changes is, when we go
serving these writs or we're somewhere where
something happens in front of us, we can start an
investigation. We can cooperate, aid and assist
other local municipalities.
As in Allegheny County, two tragedies
have occurred; three murders of police officers in
Zone 5 of the City of Pittsburgh, they called the
sheriff. Sheriff, while we're attending our
funeral, would you please send your men and women
to patrol our neighborhood. That's what they did.
Sheriff, Officer Cutshall was murdered in Penn
Hills Borough. Would you please come patrol our
borough so our members can go to the funeral?
The Allegheny County Sheriff's office
answered that call and assisted. They did not take
over anything. They assisted and aided a
municipality requesting help.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
The City of Butler, the mayor supports
this. As a matter of fact, they're down six police
officers. The mayor made a statement to our
solicitor, Tom King, who's here in the audience,
Tom, I would have called the sheriffs, but they
don't have an investigatory authority.
They called the state police for some
assistance. The state police are overwhelmed, and
there are more retirements coming. They're not
getting enough state troopers through the academy.
The State Troopers Association members have told
me, we don't want you taking our jobs. I'll give
you the answer. We don't want your job. We don't
want to take your job.
I spoke with the president of the
Fraternal Order of Police. I'm still a member of
the Fraternal Order of Police. I was a treasurer
of our lodge for over 10 years; involved in all
kinds of labor issues and disputes. But you know
what, that's what the FOP -- that's their Mantra.
It is about labor, and they want all the deputies
to become either under Act 111 or Act 195. That's
not up to me to mandate that you will go under a
certain act for labor negotiations. There are
counties that don't have unions at all for their
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
deputy sheriffs.
I've talked to all the stakeholders;
almost all the stakeholders; the township
supervisors association, the boroughs association.
Again, what puzzles me on the DAs, and we had a
great conversation with Richard Long, is, why don't
you want to be onboard on this? So the DAs don't
have to start questioning what laws we can
investigate, what we can't; if we're all on the
same page, it makes a no-brainer for the district
attorneys.
Again, as Mr. Hill testified in regards
to the county commissioners, he stated thus that in
2011, they support House Bill 466. We met with him
in July, August, materially, there have been no
change in their support of 466.
I could keep talking, sir. I can stop
right there.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: You're
always entertaining when you talk, Mike, so --
SHERIFF SLUPE: I am -- I am --
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: We've done
some of those same events that Representative
Knowles was giving a commercial for early in the
program, concealed-carry firearms. Mike is always
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
a great addition to our county D.A. and is always
very entertaining and informational in sharing his
expertise with the audience, so we appreciate you
coming here today and sharing your expertise.
We do have at least one member that's
already on the list to ask a question, if you don't
mind.
SHERIFF SLUPE: Absolutely.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE:
Representative Daley.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Thanks, Mr.
Chairman.
Sheriff Slupe, thank you for being here
today, and Mr. Champagne--I think I have your name
right--thank you for coming all the way from
Louisiana.
So, I just want to state that I'm not
opposed to the general idea of what you're talking
about, but I'm not really sure that House Bill 466
actually answers all the questions that a lot of us
have, because -- I live in a small town. We have
our own police department. I was on the borough
council. I understood the relationship with the
surrounding township of how we had to coordinate.
So, my own real-life experience is coming from the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
ideas of chain of command and that type of thing.
So, when the county commissioners
provided us a number of bullet points, they
recommended that the counties would have -- Let me
just read it so that I don't misstate: Provide for
ultimate control by the county governing board.
That makes sense to me because the county governing
board also oversees the cost, and I have to state
that everybody has said that this isn't going to
cost anything. But, I just have a level of
skepticism regarding that.
We don't have, um -- testifying PCCD
which did let us know that they're already
operating at a loss from what they bring in from
the sheriff's act, and they do anticipate an
increase in the cost of funding. So, I just -- I'm
not sure how we reconcile those comments from them,
and the concerns of the county commissioners
related to cost, because these are real issues for
the state.
We already know the Pennsylvania State
Police are getting paid a large portion of the
Motor Vehicle Fund, which means that we can't
always fix all the roads and bridges we need to.
So cost is a really big concern.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: If you
could just get to your question, please,
Representative Daley.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: So, is there data
that you have that you could share with us at some
point from your perspective that would indicate why
there would be no increase in cost? I'm just not
-- it doesn't make sense to me from what I'm
hearing.
SHERIFF SLUPE: Thank you.
First of all, the chain of command, the
sheriff is the elected official, much like the
county commissioners. I would be against a citizen
review board. Why? In our office we are operating
under accreditation policies for the chief of
police.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Citizen review
board was not part of my question.
SHERIFF SLUPE: Oh, I'm sorry. I
apologize, ma'am. I'm sorry.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: I'm mostly
interested in cost, if you could let us know how
you've made a determination that there really would
be no additional cost.
SHERIFF SLUPE: I apologize.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
77
We don't have data per se, but what I
can tell you is, we are -- For the most part, most
of the sheriffs are 8 to 4 and 9 to 5 offices.
When they find some activity and make an arrest,
their hearings are during the daylight time; their
court times are during the daylight time. They
would just be assigned that duty to attend their
hearings as required by the courts.
So, where does the extra money come out?
I don't know. And as you know, it's funded by the
commissioners, and the commissioners have every
right to say, what are you doing with your money?
And we have to answer that.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: I think it still
leaves the question. Um --
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you,
Representative Daley.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Thank you.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE:
Representative McCarter.
REPRESENTATIVE McCARTER: Again, thank
you very much for your testimony as well.
As a follow-up to that, protective
orders and so on that -- one of the functions,
obviously, that are carried out by the deputy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
sheriffs at the present moment are back-logged
tremendously in Pennsylvania and various other
orders as well.
If, as described as you were just
describing, the duties and so forth would take over
in terms of being at hearings, being at all those
things as well, obviously, there will still be a
need to carry out the other functions of the deputy
sheriffs as they currently exist. That wouldn't
impact the job in terms of being able to carry out
those functions as well?
SHERIFF SLUPE: Again, I can speak for
Butler County. We have over 1,200 outstanding
warrants, and we try our best to go after these
people. Just the other day we got 80 new warrants.
Again, we do our best to do that.
What I'm suggesting in regards to the
investigative authority is, that when we are
somewhere doing our job and making a service, that
if we see illegal activity, which we have, in a
case that we were serving a warrant, a guy had
illegal activity, we ended up calling the state
police, the DEA, the game commission, and we got
over $30,000 in actually cold hard cash. Now, that
all went over to state police. The county district
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
attorney said, Sheriff, if you ever do that again,
give it to us so that we can have that money for
asset forfeitures.
So, here again, every county is
different. It's county commissioners, as Mr. Hill
stated what their authority is; the district
attorney and his authority. You know, I don't -- I
guess -- I'm trying to wrap my head around what --
Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE McCARTER: No, I
appreciate your answer. I understand the
complexity in this.
SHERIFF SLUPE: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE McCARTER: And I think
that is the issue between the 67 counties. I think
that's the difficulty that some of us still see and
we're trying to work through as to how this works
in each of our own situations and taking that into
account.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you,
Representative McCarter. Representative Bullock.
REPRESENTATIVE BULLOCK: Thank you,
Chairman.
Good afternoon, or good morning still,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
Sheriff. I did have a question for you, but you
kind of opened it up for me.
When you were talking about extending
powers to the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs and,
particularly, policing powers and arresting powers
with regard to warrants, I am concerned about
citizen review. A sheriff's department is elected,
as you mentioned, and we need to have public
accountability when you're going to have more
arresting authority.
So, can you elaborate on your comment
earlier when you were answering Representative
Daley's question about you not necessarily
supporting a citizen review board?
SHERIFF SLUPE: Thank you very much.
The sheriff, and most sheriffs that I'm aware of,
have an investigatory manner within their
department -- I'm sorry. Not a department, by the
way. It's an office; it's the sheriff's office.
So, if it was a department, then we would have a
council and a mayor and all that.
We are the last word in the sheriff's
office. So it's a sheriff's office. You didn't
bring it up, but I did.
So, bottom line, the citizen review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
board is not necessary, I'll be honest with you.
We have people within our agency that would do
internal affairs investigations. They would
present their investigation to me for discipline.
REPRESENTATIVE BULLOCK: But, sir, there
is a difference between an internal review board
and a citizen review board. Each of those boards
have a different accountability to the public, and
particularly to the public, which is why, when you
have interactions with law enforcement in the
community and you're expanding the powers of that
law enforcement, particularly in times right now
where there's a lot of tension in the communities
in law enforcement, you need to have that public
accountability.
So, what role of the internal function
of your review board and accountability would it
have to the public and not to you?
SHERIFF SLUPE: It would be holding the
deputy accountable and responsible for his actions.
I don't know what the need in most of
the counties for a citizens review board would be.
I believe Inspector Washington said that they do
have that. That might have been because of
incidents that may have occurred or not occurred in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
Philadelphia. I can't speak intelligently on it
because I'm not there.
But, the internal investigation of the
sheriff's office finds wrongdoing in their office,
just like a police department, they would conduct
an investigation and hold the officer accountable
and discipline that officer appropriately. I'm for
accountability, absolutely.
And, as a matter of fact, on part of
your question is that the sheriffs, since Act 114,
are now more accountable because they have to be
certified through PCCD and the sheriffs training --
the Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Training Act. If
they don't, they can't run for sheriff again. And
there's a certification and decertification within
that whole spectrum of certification.
I'm just not in favor of citizen review
board because I don't see that there's a need for
any pressing issue that requires a citizen review
board.
REPRESENTATIVE BULLOCK: You may see
that need when you have an incident in your
district or in your county.
SHERIFF SLUPE: And let's hope we never
have that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you,
Representative Bullock.
And I would submit that you have the
largest citizen review board because you're
elected.
I would also submit, related to cost,
there's been all this talk about what costs are
taxpayers going to incur that's additional. Right
now our taxpayers are paying additional cost
because they have to have two law enforcement
officers on a scene when they could have just had
one. It's just outrageous that we have law
enforcement officers there and they have to call
other law enforcement officers because the court
has made some very bad decisions, which we need to
correct.
SHERIFF SLUPE: Yes.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE:
Representative Hill will be our last question.
REPRESENTATIVE HILL: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Sheriff Slupe, Sheriff Champagne, thank
you for being here today. I wanted to follow up,
Mr. Hill from the County Commissioners Association
said in his testimony that the County Commissioners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
Association support is predicated, or their
potential support is predicated on a list of
concerns being addressed that they included in
their testimony. I don't know if you are familiar
with the concerns, but if you are, could you tell
me if the Pennsylvania Sheriffs Association would
support making changes to this legislation to
address the county commissioners' concerns?
SHERIFF SLUPE: Thank you.
I have not seen what he has written yet.
As he said, I believe also that the Pennsylvania
Sheriffs Association is open to dialogue,
especially with the County Commissioners
Association and any other entity.
And if I may, in regards to every other
entity, over the many years the chiefs of police,
the DAs, FOP, we want you to have this. We want
this. We want that. We want you to do this. We
want you to do this. We've addressed a lot of
these issues.
My concern is, when are these issues
going to stop? When is the drug problem gonna be
addressed? There are between 2,300 and 2,500
certified sheriffs and deputy sheriffs that have
this training; DUI training. The PA DUI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
Association supports us. They want us out on the
streets to continue to get people who are
intoxicated off the streets.
We're absolutely -- Mr. Hill, I hope you
know, we're open to dialogue. Unfortunately, I
can't answer the question because I didn't see the
testimony and I didn't have a copy of the bullet
points that he had laid out.
REPRESENTATIVE HILL: Well, thank you,
and I appreciate your willingness to work through
concerns and issues.
SHERIFF SLUPE: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE HILL: Thank you.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: Thank you,
Representative Hill. And thank you, Sheriff Slupe,
and thank you to your guest coming from Louisiana.
We appreciate you making the trip up, Sheriff, and
for you sharing the national-type perspective with
us.
We look forward to future conversations
on the legislation. I expect that I'll have an
informational meeting so that the members can
actually have some open discussion and debate and
the public on this bill, and we'll look forward to
working with everyone; all the interested parties
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
moving forward with trying to resolve this issue
that I think puts Pennsylvanians at risk because we
don't have law enforcement officers that are
actually able to do what the majority of the
population believes they're already doing.
So, thank you to the members for your
time. We will be adjourning this meeting, and the
State Government Committee will be having a voting
meeting back in this room -- Right, Pam?
MS. NEUGARD: Um-hm.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN METCALFE: -- at noon
to consider the real ID legislation that was sent
to us by the Senate. So, for the time being,
Representative Knowles moves that we adjourn,
seconded by Representative Wheeland. This meeting
is adjourned. Everyone have a great day, and thank
you for coming.
(At 11:35 a.m., the meeting adjourned).
* * * *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Karen J. Meister, Reporter, Notary
Public, duly commissioned and qualified in and for
the County of York, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
accurate transcript, to the best of my ability, of
a public hearing taken from a videotape recording
and reduced to computer printout under my
supervision.
This certification does not apply to any
reproduction of the same by any means unless under
my direct control and/or supervision.
Karen J. MeisterReporter, Notary Public