"Sheriff First" bill effects officers
Here is the entire wording for the “Sheriff First” bill that has passed both the Senate and House. Please read with due diligence, it is very short.
“An Act stating that Federal Law Enforcement Officers should Communicate with Local Sheriffs before taking official action in a County; and providing an immediate effective date. Be in Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Montana: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose is to: (1) enhance cooperation between federal law enforcement officers and law enforcement officers of this state; (2) encourage federal law enforcement officers to use the knowledge and expertise of local law enforcement officers in the performance of the federal officers duties; and (3) encourage federal law enforcement officers to communicate with local law enforcement officers when performing the federal officers official duties in a local jurisdiction. Section 2. Communicate with local Sheriff. (1) Before taking any official law enforcement action in a county in this state, a federal law enforcement officer should communicate with the sheriff of the county in which the action is to be taken unless the communication would impede the federal officer’s official duties. (2) If a federal law enforcement officer does not inform the sheriff before taking official action, the officer should do so as soon as practical after the fact. Section (3) Codification instruction. Sections 1 and 2 are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 44, and the provisions of Title 44 apply to Sections 1 and 2. Section 4. Effective date. The act is effective on passage and approval.”
Very few have actually read the bill and the media has done a good job of misrepresenting it. One case in point is a poll that was posted by NBC Beartooth News (KTVH-TV) here in Helena which asked the following question; “Senate Bill 114 would give local sheriffs in Montana authority over the federal government in terror investigations. Do you think this bill should be passed into law?” Any thinking person who has read the bill would understand the question is inappropriate to the issue. I emailed NBC News pointing out the misrepresentation and this is the response I received from the News Director; “Senator Hinkle, you are correct. The question improperly cast the intent of the bill. I apologize. I am normally far more careful in how we pose questions. I dropped the ball.” He had the decency to admit the wrong, but the general public never knew that. The poll results? Well, 146 said “yes” and 117 said “no”. Based on the many hundreds of positive emails I received on this bill, the people of Montana want the bill passed into statute.
I know many of you saw the FoxNews report on national television and the interview with me about Sheriff First. They did the same thing that Beartooth News did in misrepresenting the bill. When William Cohen made his comments that the bill violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, two things became quickly apparent. One, he never read the bill and two; he does not understand the Supremacy Clause. The FoxNews reporter tried to make an issue out of the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents. He also tried to get me to say that law enforcement was “out of control even more the federal spending”. Those were his words, not mine. I explained to them that the bill, as far as I was concerned, had nothing to do with that. My issue is with USFWS introduction and mismanagement of the wolf. They should not be doing anything in any county without the knowledge of the local sheriff. Since that is not a sensational issue across the nation, FoxNews put a spin on it to suit their desires. They also misquoted me several times. There were witnesses to that interview who were astounded at how the reporter tried to manipulate that interview. So much for being “fair and balanced”.
This brings me to the article in the March 31 issue of the Sanders County Ledger. The article parroted the same rhetoric from FoxNews, and I was never contacted by the Ledger to verify the issues about the bill or what might be my response to the interview. Go back and read the bill again. Anyone can see the media raises issues that the bill does not address. All this reminds me of a quote by Edward R. Murrow, “To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.”
I might add that I am disappointed that the bill was amended extensively but that is the realty of the way things are done in the legislature. Sometimes we do not get a full glass but a half empty one. The bill has passed both the Senate and the House. I am grateful for that.