Government Approval of Everybody . . .

[redcliffsw]

Mike you should know by now that Redcliffe is ALWAYS RIGHT. We quit reading his BS along time ago, the only reason I read it now was because of your response. EVERYONE IN HOWARD AND ELK COUNTY HAVE A GREAT DAY.

Frawin, you never appear to agree with conservatism unless it's more like neocon.   

 

[Wake-up!]

Since Mr. Cordell has responded to this posting, I have several questions for the Sheriff's candidate, questions for both candidates actually, if they would both weigh in. Are you a member of Oathkeepers? If not, would you make a public statement of support before the election? See https://www.oathkeepers.org/   See their list of ten things they will NOT support.

Are either of you a member of CSPOA? That's Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officers Association. They have a 2014 Resolution that is similar the the Oathkeepers' mission. See http://cspoa.org/2014-resolution/    Would you make a public statement in support of CSPOA before the election?

Some of us in Elk County would 'sleep easier' knowing the next sheriff will be honoring ALL unalienable rights; and will, without fail, place those rights above the dictum of DC or Topeka.

I, for one, will not cast a vote for a candidate who does not support one or both these organizations. And I would encourage other county residents to likewise withhold their support for a candidate, or both candidates, under these circumstances.

[Ross]

Since Mr. Cordell has responded to this posting, I have several questions for the Sheriff's candidate, questions for both candidates actually, if they would both weigh in. Are you a member of Oathkeepers? If not, would you make a public statement of support before the election? See https://www.oathkeepers.org/   See their list of ten things they will NOT support.

Are either of you a member of CSPOA? That's Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officers Association. They have a 2014 Resolution that is similar the the Oathkeepers' mission. See http://cspoa.org/2014-resolution/    Would you make a public statement in support of CSPOA before the election?

Some of us in Elk County would 'sleep easier' knowing the next sheriff will be honoring ALL unalienable rights; and will, without fail, place those rights above the dictum of DC or Topeka.

I, for one, will not cast a vote for a candidate who does not support one or both these organizations. And I would encourage other county residents to likewise withhold their support for a candidate, or both candidates, under these circumstances.

Excellent Post

[Ross]

 

I'd like to expand on the above question!

Who out there would back a Sheriff facing off with the State or Federal Government?

By that I mean physically stand side bye side with the Sheriff !

I would. because I took that oath in 1964 !

Would you?   Post it right here, please!

[Ross]

[Mcordell]

I will happily address your question regarding both organizations.

The oathkeepers organization's list of 10 orders they will not follow is listed below:

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.


2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
.

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal.


4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state.


5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.


6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.


7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.


8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control."


9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.


10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

In regards to this list, I am absolutely in agreement with each item and I would publicly pledge support for these principals.  I am not a member of the organization, nor will I become a member of the organization.  I will not pay an annual due to an organization in order to pledge support for the oath I have already taken as a law enforcement officer and doing so would not further my commitment to these principals.  I also will not pledge blanket support for the organization as a whole.  The reason I cannot do that is because, as with any organization, at some point the board of this organization may make determinations or decisions that are not in line with my core values and I would not choose to be associated with them on that level.  Much like I have sworn to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America, but have not sworn support for the federal government as a whole.  I would publicly support the principals upon which the organization was founded, but not allegiance to the board of the organization.

In regards to the constitutional sheriff's and peace officers association, their 2014 resolution is below:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT, The following abuses will not be allowed or tolerated:

1) Registration of personal firearms under any circumstances.

2) Confiscation of firearms without probable cause, due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.

3) Audits or searches of a citizen's personal affairs or finances without probable cause, and due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.

4) Inspections of person or property without probable cause and constitutionally compliant warrants as required by the 4th Amendment and issued by a local or state jurisdiction.

5) The detainment or search of citizens without probable cause and proper due process compliance, or the informed consent of the citizen.

6) Arrests with continued incarcerations without charges and complete due process, including, but not limited to public and speedy jury trials, in a court of state or local jurisdiction.

7) Domestic utilization of our nation's military or federal agencies operating under power granted under the laws of war against American citizens.

Arrest of citizens or seizure of persons or property without first notifying and obtaining the express consent of the local sheriff.

In reviewing the list published by this organization, I find many similarities, however there are a few points I feel need clarification before I would offer my support. 

In regards to #5, I believe it would be important to specify that temporary detention of a person is not done on the basis of probable cause, but rather reasonable suspicion.  A law enforcement officer must reasonably suspect that a citizen has committed or is about to commit a crime in order to detain them.  Probable cause is the requirement for arrest.  Arrest and detention are not the same thing.  Based upon the wording, I cannot support that particular aspect of that portion.  I would support the remainder, namely that searches of people cannot be conducted without probable cause, and that detention of people cannot be done without due process compliance or informed consent of the citizen. 

Also, in regards to #8, I believe it should be noted that local law enforcement such as city police officers are not required to obtain consent of the sheriff prior to effecting a lawful arrest.  I do believe that federal officers or officers operating in this jurisdiction who do not have overlapping jurisdiction here such as neighboring counties seeking an individual with a lawfully issued warrant should notify the sheriff's office of their intent, however there is no means of forcing them to do so.

Aside from those particular issues, I do believe I can offer my support for this resolution, but again not for the organization as a whole due to the reasons listed above. 

[Wake-up!]

Thank you for your reply!

In response to the Oathkeepers, you said, "I am absolutely in agreement with each item and I would publicly pledge support for these principals." Excellent! I realize this is a public forum, albeit one that appears to have limited viewing. Will you repeat your statement of support in speaking engagements you have before the election (assuming you have some additional political 'rallies' coming up)? Will you also provide your public support in the weekly Prairie Star just as you have here?

Regarding CSPOA Resolution, Item 5; would you speak in more detail on 'reasonable suspicion' versus 'probable cause'? Just what determination separates the two? When does the former become the latter? Who defines 'reasonable'? How would you, as Sheriff, insure that officers under you strive to be consistent in distinguishing between the two, and acting accordingly?

Thanks for your time.

[Mcordell]

Thank you for your reply!

In response to the Oathkeepers, you said, "I am absolutely in agreement with each item and I would publicly pledge support for these principals." Excellent! I realize this is a public forum, albeit one that appears to have limited viewing. Will you repeat your statement of support in speaking engagements you have before the election (assuming you have some additional political 'rallies' coming up)? Will you also provide your public support in the weekly Prairie Star just as you have here?

Regarding CSPOA Resolution, Item 5; would you speak in more detail on 'reasonable suspicion' versus 'probable cause'? Just what determination separates the two? When does the former become the latter? Who defines 'reasonable'? How would you, as Sheriff, insure that officers under you strive to be consistent in distinguishing between the two, and acting accordingly?

Thanks for your time.

I would happily state my support for those principals in any public setting as I do believe them to be reasonable and constitutionally based.  I will not promise to publish said support in the prairie star as publishing ads like that are not inexpensive and I am trying to allocate campaign funding to where it is most important.  I am not saying I'm against the idea altogether, but rather that I cannot promise to do something that I am uncertain I will follow through with at this time. 

In regards to reasonable suspicion and probable cause, the difference between them, plainly put, is essentially how it sounds.  Reasonable suspicion is the burden of proof necessary to temporarily detain and question someone, in other words they are not free to leave but are not under arrest.  This burden is met when a reasonable person would suspect that someone has committed or is about to commit a crime.  The reasonable man standard is applied in court cases all the time and the officer must determine the inherent reasonableness of the suspicion at the time of detention, however in the event someone were to go to trial, that standard of reasonableness would be applied by either a judge or a jury and it is important that the same conclusion be met.  If an officer oversteps their authority and detains someone without reasonable suspicion, as determined by a court or jury, then the detention itself would be nullified and any evidence obtained and used in the case would likely be considered fruit of the poisonous tree and thereby excluded from being used in a trial. 

Reasonable suspicion would be the standard applied if an officer were on patrol and found someone behind a closed business in the middle of the night dressed in all black and carrying a crow bar.  While the behavior itself is not inherently illegal, it would be reasonable for an officer to suspect the person may have committed or is about to commit a crime and would therefore be legally justified in stopping and questioning the person.  The officer would not be legally justified in arresting the individual as they would not have probable cause to believe they had committed a crime.

Probable cause is the burden of proof for an arrest.  Just like reasonable suspicion, it is exactly what it sounds like.  Probable cause means a person in the officers position would probably be caused to believe the individual had committed a crime.  In the case of probable cause, the officer could effect a lawful arrest and present a case to the prosecutor, whose burden of proof at trial is even higher, beyond a reasonable doubt.  In the case of the person behind the business, if the officer stopped and questioned the individual and found a broken window on the back of the business, broken glass and cuts on the suspect, and items from within the business in the person's possession, the officer would have probable cause to effect an arrest for burglary.  If the officer stopped and questioned the individual and found they had no stolen property, the business had not been burglarized, and there were no other indications the person had committed a crime, the officer would not have probable cause and thus would release the individual.

That is the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion.  I wouldn't need to ensure the deputies working for me understood the difference because it is one of the basic principals of law enforcement.  If I found a deputy had effected an unlawful arrest by not establishing probable cause, or was stopping people and forcing them to identify themselves without articulable reasonable suspicion, then they would no longer be employed by the sheriff's office and I would find a qualified individual who was able to make that distinction.  I cannot and will not have an agency that violates people's constitutional rights.

[Ross]

I don;t know if it is true or not but i had a man tell me you stopped him for speeding just outside of Elk Falls.
He stopped he said because of flashing lights.

He said you approached his car and asked for drivers license and insurance.

He told me he asked who you were and stated he did not know you and simply drove off.

As I said I don't  know to believe him !

But just supposing it is true, why would you stop someone in Elk County for speeding?

Also isn't it true that the Sheriff is the most powerful position in the County?

[Mcordell]

No sir that's not true at all. I have never stopped anyone in Elk County for any reason. Also, nobody has ever driven away from one of my traffic stops anywhere because "they didn't know me".  The only time I have ever even utilized my emergency equipment in this county was in responding to an emergency call in Wilson County and on one occasion where I effected a lawful stop in Wilson County and the individual ran, resulting in a pursuit that crossed over into Elk County before returning to Wilson County where I apprehended the individual.

This is one of the more ridiculous rumors I have heard. I'm not sure why someone would make that story up.