NEWS

Sussex sheriff, lawmakers react to court decision limiting sheriffs’ powers

By Sean O’Sullivan
The News Journal

WILMINGTON

A day after the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that sheriffs in Delaware do not have the authority to make arrests, Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher said the unanimous decision is not the last word on the issue.

On Tuesday, Christopher said his suit against the state of Delaware and the Sussex County Council was structured so it has “a direct link to the federal system.”

Christopher, however, added that he could not immediately say if he would appeal to the federal courts because he has not yet had a chance to fully review the opinion and discuss it with his attorneys.

But he said he has been receiving strong public support in Sussex County for his position, and people have been telling him, “You don’t give on something that is right. You don’t give up something that would lead to further erosion of the Constitution.”

Sussex County Council President Michael H. Vincent said in a written statement issued shortly after the decision was handed down late Monday, “Now that the Supreme Court has settled the matter, we are hopeful Sheriff Christopher will accept the rule of law and return his focus to the office he was elected to serve in.”

Sussex County spokesman Chip Guy said Tuesday that the County Council believes Monday’s ruling should be the last word on the issue.

“It is a matter that has passed through numerous venues, and as far as the county government is concerned, it is settled. We are ready to move on,” said Guy.

The Delaware Attorney General’s Office agreed.

“The Court’s ruling is consistent with longstanding state law and multiple opinions issued by the Delaware Department of Justice and reflects the position that this office has taken throughout this case,” said Jason Miller, a spokesman for Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden.

On Monday, a unanimous Delaware Supreme Court decision dismissed Christopher’s claim that the state Constitution gave his office arrest powers and that efforts to curb that authority are a violation of the state Constitution.

The state Supreme Court ruling upheld a similar ruling by Sussex County Superior Court Judge T. Henley Graves.

Justice Randy J. Holland, writing for the full court in a 26-page opinion, stated that the Delaware General Assembly may not infringe on or take away core duties of a constitutional officer without a constitutional amendment. But, Holland concluded, while the office of sheriff is mentioned in the state Constitution, the power of arrest is not a fundamental or core part of the sheriff’s mission as “conservator of the peace” and, therefore, “the arrest power can be modified or even eliminated by statute.”

Holland, who has written a book on the Delaware Constitution, then offers a detailed history of the sheriff’s office in Delaware that concludes the office has always been constructed to assist the courts. And while the office did have authority to make arrests at various times in the past, prior to 1897, that power was always very limited and “primarily related to the sheriff’s performance of court-related duties,” according to the court.

After 1897, Holland wrote, sheriffs were defined as ministerial officers – not police officers with general law enforcement duties – who execute and carry into effect orders and judgments of the court.

Holland dismissed Christopher’s claim – that the sheriff’s designation as a “conservator of the peace” means he must have arrest powers in order to enforce that peace – as “without merit.”

Holland notes that a number of state officials have been described in various versions of the state Constitution as being conservators of the peace, including judges, the treasurer, court clerks, registers, recorders and coroners. He said in its original usage, the term “conservators of the peace” meant officials who have a variety of duties that help maintain “the normal state of society.”

The court also noted that the office of sheriff and many others have been structured to allow for the state Legislature to change their responsibilities and duties as long as those changes do not affect the substance of the office itself.

Since arrest powers were never central to the sheriff’s duties as assistants to the court, Holland wrote, the state Legislature’s clarification of the sheriff’s role in HB 365 that explicitly bars sheriffs in all three counties from making arrests is constitutional and within the General Assembly’s authority.

Contact Sean O’Sullivan at 324-2777 or sosullivan@delawareonline.com or on Twitter @SeanGOSullivan