Talk:Sheriff/Archives/2024/March

Fatality handling, coroner, SAR

At least in California, USA, the Sheriff has the responsibility to recover any deceased persons within their county. That is why often the full title is Deputy Sheriff Coroner, and that is one of the main reasons Search & Rescue teams fall under the Sheriff’s department instead of Fire/Rescue branch or local Police Departments. If there is a deceased person, legally (not minding and local agreements between agencies) the Sheriff has sole duty to recover the body. Does anyone know more about this, especially for other states in the USA? To me it is one of the crucial differences between Sheriff & Police departments, as well as the reasoning behind "Sheriff Rescue" squads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.182.24 (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2004 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, but not in all 58 California counties;San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod ordered the coroner's office merged nito the Sheriff's Department a few years back as a cost-saving measure, and a similar thing exists in both Riverside and Inyo Counties...here in L.A. County, it will be a VERY long time before a merger will happen between the LASD and the Department of the Medical Examiner(our official name for "Coroner's Office")...Michaela92399 02:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the "Search and Rescue squad" evolved from, and is more likely a modern term for, the "posse" of old who would have been called out just as often if not more so to look for lost people, as to track down a rampant fugitive. As to unifying the offices of Sheriff and Coroner, this is mostly an organizational option; while that is the arrangement in Orange County I think the two offices are still separate agencies in Los Angeles County, and moving a body from a crime scene in San Francisco could (I am not sure) be a function of Public Health. - knoodelhed 08:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Law enforcement function in US

I think the concept of the sheriff as the county's principal police authority might have more accurately evolved from the Anglo-Welsh High Sheriff, as that is clearly an executive function while the Scottish sheriff is a judiciary role. - knoodelhed 08:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The judicial role of the Scottish sheriff and the quasi-executive function of the High Sheriff in fact derive from the same source - the shire reeves who were charged with maintaining the King's peace. The Anglo-Welsh High Sheriff lost its direct judicial power whilst the Scottish office lost its executive functions. Davidkinnen 09:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does this belong

This was located on the sharif article, however, I took it out because it adds nothing to that article. However, I searched this article and there was no mention of "shire reeve." Perhaps someone can find a place to insert this into this article.

The English term sheriff is not related to the Arabic term; it is a contraction for the Anglo-Saxon office of "shire reeve."

Pepsidrinka 05:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Having checked dictionary.com, all the references agree with this origination of the word (Shire Reeve). However, I remember this question appearing in a trivia quizz, and it was stated that this is a popular misconception and the origination is actually a contraction of the equally plausible "shire bailiff". I don't have access to the full OED, which I'd consider to be the definitive reference source on the subject, so I'm not comfortable saying so either way. Perhaps if someone could check the OED for the first-usage examples, could discount this conclusively. Ace42 01:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

See here; Reeve (England) - and try saying 'Shire Reeve' quickly and you'll see why it later became pronounced as 'Sheriff'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Minority sheriffs?

Is there a record of sheriffs who came from a minority background, like African-American, Native American or female? --149.226.255.200 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"High Sheriff"

The Governor of Texas is not the “High Sheriff” of the state. That term is not used anywhere in the Texas statutes or Texas Constitution. Moreover, the governor does not have any general authority over a sheriff.

Additionally, the Governor of Texas is not the “Chief Texas Ranger”. That term is also not used anywhere in the Texas statutes or Texas Constitution, and the governor is not designated as a Texas Ranger or any other type of peace officer for that matter.

The Texas Rangers normally answer to the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety (Texas Government Code §411.021). However, the governor can assume command of the TX DPS for various reasons (TCG §411.012), but this is not the same as being the “Chief Texas Ranger”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.17.229 (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

sheriff, a mini dynasty

Some Muslim people in india have a family name of sheriff followed by their first name.
The term "sheriff" is added next to their first name of all members of their family. People with this name are wide spread all over india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrahumansheriff (talk • contribs) 11:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is usually written in English as Sharif, such as Omar Sharif. Bearian 19:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Deputizing

Have we covered how a sheriff can deputize people? Jeff503 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but I added material for Undersheriff before I logged in (under 71.245.156.223), and added the "verify tag". Bearian 19:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean to include information indicating that Sheriffs (generally) have a power to deputise then that information may be relevant to this article. It would then be relevant to indicate that the titles used by those deputies are varied depending upon the jurisdiction in which the Sheriff operates and the various roles they are deputised to perform and include Deputy Sheriff, Under Sheriff, Assistant Sheriff, Sheriff's Officer, Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Assistant Bailiff,.... (Can anyone else add to this list?) I would suggest however that the article refrains from describing "how" the Sheriff makes those appointments because it will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction for example from mere oral or written deputisation through to appointment processes requiring variously approval of the court judges, by other court officials and/or by the the government in the jurisdiction.Lanyon 01:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Sheriff

In the article it states: " many counties' agreement with the sheriff's department allows the elected sheriff to keep the remaining funds allocated.[5][1] " I went to the referenced page and found this under allocation of funding for feeding prisoners:

(A) The county fiscal body shall make an appropriation in the usual manner from the county general fund to the sheriff for feeding prisoners. The sheriff or the sheriff's officers, deputies, or employees may not make a profit from the appropriation. The sheriff shall deposit all meal allowances received under IC 36-8-10-7 in the county general fund for use for any general fund purpose.
(B) The sheriff shall pay for feeding prisoners from meal allowances received under IC 36-8-10-7. The sheriff or the sheriff's officers, deputies, or employees may not make a profit from the meal allowances. After the expenses of feeding prisoners are paid, the sheriff shall deposit any unspent meal allowance money in the county general fund for use for any general fund purpose.

It looks as though the Sheriff is responsible for feeding prisoners, but any balance remaining is to go to the "general fund for use for any general fund purpose". It is possible that in practice there is a way for the Sheriff to get moneys remaining from this use, but in the quoted state code, I don't see how that would be legal. Any attorneys want to take this on?Crocadillion 17:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for Upstate New York only, Sheriff have great latitude to shift money around within their budgets. They often bring in net revenue by commissions from collections and sales of forfeited property. The net moneys go to the coutny's general funds. I don't have a cite at my fingertips, but look at: [2], CNT, article 17. Bearian 00:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm Crocadillion 16:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Orleans Parish sheriffs' offices in 2010...

This is just as bad as when we Californians were ordered(in 2000) to vote the 58 counties' municipal courts into oblivion, along w/ the court police services[marshals]...Michaela92399 02:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 9, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Needs major cleanup per the Manual of Style. The intro is of insufficient length and breadth per the guidelines of WP:LEAD. An introduction should not simply be a dictionary definition. Several sections are in odd places. Why is early modern usage not placed - no pun intended - earlier? On a larger level, the article reads like a laundry list of the status of sheriff's offices in U.S. states, rather than an encyclopedic treatment of the office in general. The section on famous U.S. sheriffs is useful (though it too needs to be expanded to a worldwide POV), but it could definitely be integrated prosaically into the body of the article. The section on fictional American sheriffs is patently trivial.

2. Factually accurate?: Needs major citation improvements per present tags/banners. Remember to cite all facts likely to be challenged, especially assertions about living persons, quotations and attributed opinion.

3. Broad in coverage?: Fails to provide a comprehensive encyclopedic presentation of the history of the office. Focuses far too much on U.S. information. Needs to have its context within the larger legal and law enforcement system expanded (i.e. relation to other offices).

4. Neutral point of view?: Seems to be fairly neutral, but the dire need for accuracy and style improvements do have an effect on the overall neutrality of the article.

5. Article stability? Is not currently the subject of any edit wars.

6. Images?: Sufficient, if not inspiring.

As is readily apparent, I did not apply the customary hold period to this article. This is because the article violates at least one the of quick-fail criteria, namely that there are numerous cleanup notices present, in this case of the {{refimprove}} and {{fact}} variety.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky ^(talk) 00:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to work on these suggestions. Anybody else can join in on the fun! Bearian 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

U.S.

• Despite casual use of the term "officer" by some federal agencies to refer to their personnel authorized to make arrests and carry firearms,<refBureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, July 2006.</ref they are only special agents, not law enforcement officers. They have no command authority over civilians or local law enforcment officers, such as sheriffs, constables, and state officers. This has come out in several cases where there has been a jurisdictional dispute between a county sheriff and a federal special agent.<refCastaneda v. USA, Case No: 2:1996cv00099, Wyoming District Court, Casper, decided 29th April 1997. Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis: "If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave or retain them in custody."</ref><refPrintz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997),</ref Only U.S. marshals can be said to be law enforcement officers.

The first reference only shows that the term "officer" is used, so we have no reference for the assertion that it is incorrect. Why does that matter anyway? This article isn't about federal agents. The second reference, to a concurring opinion in Printz v. United States, doesn't mention "Castaneda v. USA, Case No: 2:1996cv00099, Wyoming District Court, Casper, decided 29th April 1997". Furthermore, there are sources out there which claim this case and that quote from it are a hoax.[3][4] Until we can find a reliable source that mentions this finding we should leave this out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

There is a disambiguation proposal template on the article. Does it predate the existing Sheriff (disambiguation) page? If not does anyone support it? I'll get rid of it if no one supports it by 3 January. -Rrius (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

History Section

Why is there a blank History Section with a main article link to a non-existent History article? -Rrius (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.220.227 (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is still a problem. The Conservator of the Peace article is not really a history of sheriffs. In fact there is more history in the High Sheriff article. I think we need a small history section here. It could include a link "See also Conservator..." but it does need it's own content.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

the highest, usually elected, law enforcement officer of a county

In most states, that would be the District Attorney... not a sheriff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.33.235.214 (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That depends on how you use the term "law enforcement officer". Using it to apply to prosecutors is not universally accepted. In any event, if both the sheriff and the prosecutor are elected (and by the same political subdivision), they are of essentially equal rank. The prosecutor doesn't order the sheriff around and vice versa. -Rrius (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The rare exception would be in New York State, where the Sheriff of New York City is officially "the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the State of New York, NOT the NY State Police Commissioner"(according to the post-WW2 NY State Constitution), even though the NYC Sheriff serves under command of the NYC Department of Finance...

Also in Connecticut, the voters there were ordered to vote ALL county sheriff's departments into oblivion a few years back...Michaela92399 (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sherrif word origin

I think Sherrif actually comes from "Shire reif" not shire reeve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.118.49 (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you are mistaken it actually is Shire Reeve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.29.80 (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Similarities

Similiarities between Canada, the US and maybe other countries with English-derived justice systems probably ought to be recorded. For example: planning high security trials (a "given" for protection of justices IMO), protection of Judges and Prosecutors (doesn't have to be "crown"), managing detention cells, transport prisoners, manage and provide protection for juries, serve court-related documents, execute court orders and warrants, and assist with coroner's court (I'm guessing on this latter for the US). This was for British Columbia, but applies nearly everywhere mentioned in first sentence if worded a bit more generically. Student7 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

City of London

This section is at least ambiguous or confusing: As far as I'm aware, the Lord Mayor of London is elected and installed to the office by the people by popular vote. The contradicts with the claim that the alderman sheriff becomes the next mayor. Maybe I'm confusing the Greater London Metropolitan area with the borough of City of London? In any case, this should be clarified. 78.152.228.96 (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)15-9-2012

The Lord Mayor of the City of London, and the Mayor of London are two separate offices - the first is the one described in this article, the second is a powerful poitical figure elected by popular vote across all 33 boroughs of london — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.226.190 (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it vandalism?

I see that

"A government department (usually called the Department of Corrections or similar) now runs the prison system and the Coroner’s Office handles coronal matters."

has recently been changed to:

"A private company (usually called the Department of Justice) now runs the prison system and the Coroner’s Office handles coronial matters."

I thought this was vandalism, perhaps by someone trying to protest against the privatization of prisons - but maybe it was a clumsy or poorly-worded attempt to change the article to state that some prisons are now privately managed.

Other parts of the change seem correct, too; a Department of Corrections *is* sometimes called the Department of Justice, and I believe the alteration is correct in changing "coronal" to "coronial".

So I'm not sure whether to regard it as vandalism and revert it, or what.

Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.J.E. (talk • contribs) 16:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Odd. I figured that a private company wouldn't have a bureaucracy-type name and changed (or reverted it). I don't know what the coroner has to do with the sheriff's office. Somebody trying to be funny. I rm it. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sheriff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080701044227/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/edmonton/story/2006/09/01/alberta-sheriffs.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2006/09/01/alberta-sheriffs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"Deputy Sheriff" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Deputy Sheriff and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#Deputy Sheriff until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"County Sheriff" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect County Sheriff and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#County Sheriff until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Newyorktimes

Brandon Tsay at home in San Marino, Calif. He disarmed the gunman at the Lai Lai Ballroom & Studio on Saturday night.Credit...Mark Abramson for The New York Times Moviedefender (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)