Government Approval of Everybody . . .

[Ross]

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 tumors I have heard. I'm not sure why someone would make that story up.

Thank you. I always try to go to the source of a story before believing it.

[Wake-up!]

From my way of thinking, 'reasonable suspicion' is both reprehensible and contrary to the Constitution. I'm sure there is a litany of legal cases, interpretations, and challenges to the concept. And I have no doubt the legal framework has found it highly useful and therefore calls it legal. For all I know the Supreme Court has ruled in its favor. None of that makes it constitutional. I have not seen in any of the Framer's writings where they believed legal behavior (see your quote) merited detention by civil or military authorities. Nor is it written so in the Constitution.

My constitutional opinion aside, I ask again, what is reasonable? I ask because I don't believe it cannot be reasonably answered. What is reasonable to a white man may not be to a black man. I know what is reasonable to a man rarely is to a woman! What is reasonable to a 17-year old may not be to a 60-year old. What may be reasonable to a college graduate may not be to a high school drop out. What may be reasonable to a civilian may not be to a career military person. Ad nauseum. It is not possible to apply a single concept of reasonable to myriad circumstances and life situations, IMO.

Mike, you cited a 'classic' scenario, maybe even a textbook one, "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". Would suspicion be greater if the person wore a hoodie? If the person were black? Does refusal to talk to an officer make suspicion more reasonable? Is it further reason if the person is carrying a hand gun, completely legal in this State?

And what about the officer who is assessing the situation. What if he/she had a bad day at home, the wife/husband left him/her, a kid was truant or pregnant, etc. Maybe the officer is taking steroids while pumping iron. His/her decision making can have as many emotional variables as the situation he/she encounters, variables that may cloud his/her judgment, or make him/her rush to judgment. When does 'reasonable suspicion' just become the new-speak for profiling? How can so many potential variables possibly draw a concensus of reason among police officers? Are you handed a cookbook, a recipe, told to memorize and react, regardless of what you think?

I'm sure you've heard all this before. As you see, the use of 'reasonable suspicion' bothers me. Backhandedly, I'm also saying you have one helluva tough job to perform well.

Last, are you and the incumbent doing any sort of Q&A together before the election? I would like your opponents response to this blog.

[Mcordell]

It can be a very complex and sometimes difficult job which is exactly why voters should select the candidate they believe most capable of navigating the legal complexities of the position while always ensuring they do their very best to protect the civil liberties of the community.

As for having a public forum, there will possibly be a forum however that is not decided yet. There has already been one forum to which Sheriff Hanks was specifically invited to come answer community questions however he chose not to attend. As it was, I was the only candidate who took the time to come answer questions and discuss community concerns. I cannot say one way or another if he would choose to attend the next one but if there is a forum I will be there.

[Mcordell]

In regards to your statement that reasonable suspicion is reprehensible and contrary to the constitution, let me ask you to objectively consider this. If you owned the store in my scenario, would you want an officer to observe that individual and simply leave because probable cause didn't exist? Would you later, upon discovery of those facts and coupled with the loss and aftermath associated with a burglary feel like the officer should have done more to stop the crime?

Let's take that a step further. You mentioned a gun, which is also inherently legal. If I were patrolling and came upon your residence, not knowing you or who lived there, and observed someone holding a gun and climbing into an open window on the side of the house, would you want me to stop and investigate, which would require the detention of the involved individual, or would you rather I think perhaps the gun toting homeowner locked himself out of the house and had to use the window, and then go about my business?  If I did so, and that person harmed a family member of yours, would you blame me for not doing something about it when I saw the behavior or would you simply say you inderstand because I didn't have probable cause?

If you would want me to stop and investigate in instances when you are the hypothetical victim, then that same belief should apply across the board. The fact is, we would be highly ineffective in proactive crime prevention without the use of reasonable suspicion, which was upheld in terry v ohio. The key is finding law enforcement competent enough to be effective without violating people's rights.

Just a point of view for your consideration.

[redcliffsw]

Mcordell-

You seem to be stuck on using the word "community" as it appears to some kind of higher power or influence upon you.   

The terms individual, individual rights or individual liberty; all seem so distant to you.

[Mcordell]

We live in a community which is comprised of individuals. I've already determined there's no point in trying to engage is any sort of discussion with you about anything because no matter what I say, I'm wrong.

[Wake-up!]

To answer your hypotheticals, Mike, I would want first and foremost, for the authorities to be law-abiders. And that means respecting the rights of suspects and victims. If that were my store, I would want the authorities to review the 24/7 cameras before they confronted anyone. I would not want the police to taser or shoot some 12-year old who was running from a siren two blocks away, because he had half a gram in his pocket (or one of a half dozen other reasonable scenarios), not because he was a burglar. But some officer, on a wild hair, decided the kid was reasonably suspicious. If the news can be believed, the reasonable suspicion wild hair is killing people in America's streets every week.

The scene you described at 'my' residence is very unlikely to happen. An owner, needing to break through a window to re-enter, would be foolish to climb through a window with a visible gun and risk discharge or damage to it. Not that foolish doesn't happen. And if someone was intent on burglarizing my home, they would be long dead at my hands in my home before I ever called any authorities for help. I haven't read Terry vs Ohio, I will, l but I find it unlikely that reasonable suspicion allows you to trespass on private property. I'm saddened for our country if it does.

In my life police should not be essential. I'd much rather you deal with corrupt County officials, hiring of relatives, theft of taxpayer monies, and crimes committed in the public sector on roads, at schools, etc. I am the first and foremost line of protection for my property. And when I am away, my neighbors are the second, they watch my property as I watch theirs, and we have granted each other the right to shoot first and ask questions later if there is an intrusion. That is the primary way private property is protected in a free society.

But your point was considered, and your summation is correct, "the key is finding law enforcement competent enough to be effective without violating people's rights". We disagree, but I believe 'reasonable suspicion' does violate people's rights, regardless of a court decision that allows police the use of it as a tool in enforcement.

[Mcordell]

the problem is, it's not possible for us to review security footage before confronting someone who we believe is in the process of or is about to commit a crime.  I'm not sure where you made the leap from stopping someone to investigate their intentions to shooting a 12 year old who is running from a siren two blocks away.  I wouldn't agree with shooting someone as they are running away whether they had drugs or were a burglar.  Neither of those situations would, by itself, justify the use of deadly force.  Reasonable suspicion has nothing to do with the use of deadly force.  That's a connection you seem to have made for yourself but it doesn't apply to the way law enforcement works.  Also, I believe your use of "if the news can be believed" is reasonable considering the news is almost never factually accurate and right now the mainstream media seems intent on demonizing law enforcement.  Sure there are officers who have done wrong and who have committed crimes.  That is most definitely not the case with the vast majority of law enforcement officers who go to work every day simply to do the right thing and to protect citizens from harm. 

My scenario regarding someone climbing into a window wasn't intended to be realistic, but rather an extreme example of something that would definitely rise to the level of reasonable suspicion but the behavior alone is not illegal absent other known factors.  My point was, if you would want law enforcement to check out that individual, where do you draw the line?  Under what circumstances do you think law enforcement should be authorized to investigate suspicious activity? 

Also, I don't understand how you drew the conclusion anything I said had to do with trespassing on private property.  Walking into someone's yard is not trespassing.  The fact is, if you don't believe in allowing law enforcement to stop someone and question them when they suspect they have committed or are about to commit a crime then you disagree with law enforcement being able to do anything other than take reports after a crime has been committed and to that end we will disagree.  Law enforcement should be able to proactively protect people and property and the ability to stop and question someone is important to accomplish that goal.  The constitution requires probable cause for arrest.  Nowhere does it say you cannot be stopped and questioned temporarily, nor does it set the standard upon which to base those actions.  That was left up to the courts who followed English common law upon which the majority of our legal system, including the constitution was based.

I know we disagree on this and likely other aspects of law enforcement, however I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss it and share your views with me.  Regardless of your interpretation and how it differs from mine, I can assure you if I'm elected I will respect the rights of each individual.  I've never promised that everyone will always agree with me but I have promised I always work in accordance with the laws of the state of Kansas.  I'm not beholden to federal law enforcement and I do not and will not enforce federal laws or executive orders.  That's what I can promise you.  I'd be happy to have your support but it is entirely within your rights to vote however you please.

[redcliffsw]

We live in a community which is comprised of individuals. I've already determined there's no point in trying to engage is any sort of discussion with you about anything because no matter what I say, I'm wrong.

Sheriff's officers ought to be talking about liberty, individual liberty and standing for it. 

Community is a term more in line with socialism, not liberty.  We're not here for the community, we're here for liberty.  Does that make any sense?

[redcliffsw]

I will happily address your question regarding both organizations.

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

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:

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.

So you're not interested in joining the Oath Keepers or the Constitutional Sheriffs. 

What organizations or associations are you a member or will you join if you become the Sheriff?