Erie County towns and villages facing extra charges for sheriff's patrol services argue that the practice already has been ruled out by the state comptroller's office.
"There is no statutory authority for a county to charge back the cost of a sheriff's road patrol to particular municipalities within that county," states a 1993 opinion of the state comptroller.
Nineteen towns and villages and the Seneca Nation of Indians have been reacting to a May 25 letter from County Executive Joel A. Giambra asking them to pay a third of the cost of providing patrol services to their communities next year. The full charges would be phased in over three years.
Grand Island Town Supervisor Peter A. McMahon said that in addition to the comptroller's opinion that counties may not charge towns for the service, there is another constitutional issue. The sheriff acts as the "conservator of the peace within the county," according to the state constitution. McMahon believes that means the county must provide the resources for the Sheriff's Department to answer 911 calls.
"It's impossible or inconceivable for me how a sheriff could conserve the peace if he doesn't have anyone to do it," McMahon said.
The communities were asked to respond to the county by Saturday. Most are expected to decline to sign a contract with the county to pay for the service. Springville already has a contract with the Sheriff's Department for 20 hours of dedicated service, and has been told that it was sent a letter by mistake.
Giambra notes that charging the towns and villages for the patrol service was included in the four-year plan approved by him and the County Legislature.
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial...30/1074048.asp
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
Am I the only one that considers this absurd? Why do towns that use the sheriff as a PD get a free subsidy on the backs of people that pay for local police? What is the justification?Originally Posted by steven
If I call 911, I'm not getting the sheriff. I get the local PD my village taxes pay for.
Why should people in Amherst, Buffalo, and so forth subsidize Elma, Clarence, and Marilla?
Jeezzzzz where were you last time we had this discussion, I coulda used the help.
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
Because all the munies utilize the sheriff's department.
Some towns need the patrols because they don't have their own police, and all towns use the sheriff's lockup for their convicted miscreants, even the City of Buffalo.
BTW, at one time, ALL the towns in the County, including the city of Buffalo, used the sheriff's department for patrol duties. As some founded their own police departments, it was understood that they would continue to pay for the sheriff to cover the other (non-patrol) services that they use.
Now Joel has decided that some towns should pay twice.
He's a jerk.
Think you can trust the government?
Ask an Indian!
All the municipalities? Explain. I don't see any sheriff doing work in Lancaster. I don't see them answering or getting dispatched when I call 911. I don't see myself getting a reduction in my county taxes when they set up RADAR in Elma either.
Prisons? Valid point. That said, how do the county prisons justify my paying for patrol cars based in Elma or Clarence? It doesn't. My taxes being used to pay for county incarceration, that's one thing. But cops/cars/infrastructure that I am unable to use? Please.
If you live in a town that doesn't require- note the wording- sheriff's patrols, the county taxes should be reduced to eliminate the redudant policing that we neither need nor want. And the towns that do need them should pay for all of the patrol coverage.
Beeeppppppppppppppppppppppp
Buzzer
Some towns are older than the county, your wrong on that account.
The sheriff in most county's in the country patrols between town and village lines not in them OR they police the whole county not just some towns and villages and not others.
Think your complaining now? If the towns win their lawsuit and the courts decide it is the counties responsibility to police the entire county wait till someone in Buffalo, Amherst and Cheektowaga figure out how much money they are paying for their police and decide the county must now police those areas.
Your county taxes would skyrocket.
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
New to these boards. Life-long Niagara County resident.
I have read extensively on this and other boards, and in the news media, about this issue. Nowhere do I see addressed what I consider a very critical aspect of the municipalities' protests over the prospect of being charged for road patrol, nor do I see the county stating their real reason for wanting to charge for patrols.
This is not about the county saying, "hey, we provide patrols and we want to be paid for it," and the towns and villages saying, "you are obligated to provide patrols." It's more complicated than that.
The road patrols are a cash cow for the municipalities. The sheriff's dept. and the State Police provide road patrols. They write tickets, and the supposed offenders appear in local traffic courts. The offenses are almost always for speeding, and are almost always reduced by either the DA or assistant DA to local ordinances - muffler charges (noise ordinance) or overnight parking, or some other parking-type offense - whatever, just so long as it's a local ordinance. The offender either goes to traffic school or the charge is just reduced in court, at the discretion of the DA or judge, and then reappears in court, or sends the fine (usually $75-$100, for a parking conviction - sound familiar yet?) by mail. The municipality pockets 100% of the money, because it's a local ordinance, while providing nothing more than a few minutes of court time and handling the paperwork. Sweet, huh?
The county or state law enforcement entity gets stiffed and stuck with the expense of providing the road patrol. That's why they want to get paid - they know what the patrols are worth, and we're not talking about the worth of the law enforcement presence - we're talking dollars. In my little town of Lewiston, in 2001, the traffic court brought in over $240,000. In Amherst, in that same year, the traffic court brought in over $5 million. Now, some of those tickets were written by local town PDs, but many of them were by county mounties and NYS Troopers.
The law enforcement entity that prosecutes the stop and writes the ticket gets nothing unless the motorist is convicted of a moving violation - and that almost never happens in local traffic courts, if they can help it. Ever wonder why the court clerks and DAs rush to offer traffic school in return for a reduced/no points conviction? They will admit that they don't want cases going to trial, because it costs them money to put on a trial and clogs up their dockets, but what they won't admit is that if a speeding case goes to trial and the person is found guilty, the $$ then goes to that state, not the local court. Then they're out the court costs and the bucks from the fine, too. PDs don't want cases to go to trial, either - they have to pay OT and endure staffing tie-ups for officers to appear to present evidence.
This general situation is the reason that several years ago, the State Police began to object to paying the OT required to have Troopers show up in traffic court to present evidence - because that represents another expenditure for the Troopers, in addition to providing the basic mechanism for towns and villages to make money by pocketing 100% of the fines in the first place. It's also the reason that two years ago, the state tried to change the law that lets municipal traffic courts reduce these moving violations and keep the fine monies (they did change the law briefly, as a matter of fact, and then changed it back again due to muni's outcry).
Now, why are we not hearing this from either of the parties involved - the towns/villages or the PDs - if one of them has a legitimate axe to grind? Because the towns obviously don't want to admit that maybe being asked to pay for something that makes them a very good buck in return is not that far out of line, and the PDs don't want to admit that this speeding nickel-and-diming of the driving public IS in fact largely about revenue generation, not about safety. Those messages don't serve either party, so there is somewhat of a gentlemen's agreement about not airing this aspect in public.
As always, follow the money.
the money is absolutely the reason behind this. I believe Joel is trying to extort munincipalities to get that, or at least some of that money. I would expect that a compromised number $$$ is arrived at , and in the end the towns will end up paying something. The cost to the County is 5.9 million to fund the road patrols. Joel claims the County is on firm ground financially. (I don't believe him) With the recent increase in sales and property taxes the County SHOULD have the money to fund these Patrols. Joel just wants more.
Fordson got it absoutely correct.
This is what happens when the primary motivation to conduct law enforcement is revenue generation. It invariably corrupts the process.
It's really a shame. I don't think a lot of young people considering a career in law enforcement aspire to sitting in a cop car all day waiting to pounce on unsuspecting out-of-towners who don't know about the speed trap. I'd like to think people who want to be cops want to help people, and not steal from them. Perhaps we can save on police training and send these folks to Mexican Federale Police Academy, where they can learn how to be truly corrupt....
The best thing is to not let any police agency or court profit off of the proceeds of law enforcement fines. Let all that revenue go directly to the black hole known as the NYS general fund.
Fines are meant to deter people from illegal behavior, not to pay people to fine ever more people. Here is an example of Law Enforcement for Profit taken to the extreme.
Last edited by Curmudgeon; July 3rd, 2006 at 11:55 AM.
Data is not the plural of Anecdote.
That last one is a very good statement. You are trying to deter people, not "encourage" them to re-offend. If you're going to say that speed kills (which is BS), then don't slap somebody for $90 and no points - once a year or so, that's just the cost of doing business for most people.
They all say that it's not about the money, but just try having a $5 (for example) revenue line item on last year's budget, and not having your comptroller pencil that into next year's budget. Once it's on there, it's there for good. That's what the revenue source is expected to provide, and they had better pony it up.
All right, look at it this way.
All the towns (including the City of Buffalo "back when") had sheriff's patrols. When each town (that did) chose to develop their own police forces, it was understood that their tax moneyu would still fund the sheriff's department. If they wanted "tax relief", then they should have stated that from the beginning. This didn't pop up overnight, it's been this way since the beginning.
And, BTW, the County Sheriff has the authority to enter any city or town.
A bunch of years ago, when I lived in the city, our neighborhood had problems with a certain bar. Noise, vandalism and public drunkeness; you get the idea. Numerous times that city police were called and they NEVER showed up. Then we found out that the bar was owned by a City Court Judge (since retired) under a covert holding company. The police were told that the bar was "hands off" and not to interfere with business.
Thing is the judge never told the Sheriff; his deputies staged a couple of real profitable DWI checkpoints (one going each way on a very busy street at 2:00AM)If they wouldn't have come in, the State Police would have been called, they have authority as well.
And when a town DOES interfere with the sheriff's patrols; remember this one?
About ten years ago, a deputy saw a speeding car that was weaving a bit on Route 5 in Amherst (which has a police force that is willing to work with the deputies). He gave chase until he got to Transit (Clarence has repeatedly stated NO to the Sheriffs, we have the State Police). The State Police weren't available to give chase, being on patrol elsewhere in the town, so by the time that the deputy got to Newstead (where he could give chase again) the driver had gotten away.
The result?
This drunk made it into Genesee County and plowed into a Drivers' Ed car, killing four kids that their teacher.
And before anyone says "that was just one time, so what?", let me say this;
what if that was your kid in that car?
One time is one time too damned many.
Keep the sheriff's patrols in place; the public needs them, despite what that lying sack of crap Giambra says.
Think you can trust the government?
Ask an Indian!
Sorry, but your buzzer is out of whack.
True, Clarence was founded in 1807 and Erie County was founded in 1832.
Before that it was part of (I think) Niagara County, before that Tioga (I think) County. The point is that Erie County was formed out of an existing County that grew to be a bit too big to give proper services to the taxpayers. Each preceeding county had a sheriff and deputies, when succeeding counties were formed, sheriffs were elected. Clarence was part of Niagara County under the jurisdiction of the Niagara County Sheriff until Erie County was formed.
Or did you think that God Almighty himself came down and said "Let there be a county here and I'll call it Erie"?
Think you can trust the government?
Ask an Indian!
..and before that the Chief policed the members of his tribe before whitey stole his land.True, Clarence was founded in 1807 and Erie County was founded in 1832.
Who Cares!
Talking about 1807 and what the police did then means absolutely nothing.
We have 2 (or sometimes 3) different agencies patroling here, there, and everywhere. That car full of kids would be alive today if there was a clear definition of who partolled what. This is stupid. Get one agency to patrol a particular municipality and get rid of the duplication of services.
Data is not the plural of Anecdote.
Ergo clarence was a town before erie was a county. Thanks for proving my point
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
Steven cares, that's who! He stated that some towns are older than the county and I was trying to clear up the point as to why the sheriff was responsible for patrols at that time.
If you have nothing positive to add, BUT OUT.
If you're whining about duplication of services, maybe the more recent law enforcement groups should be the one to be disbanded.
And the way that the City Police Union head was talking tonight, that might happen in the city itself.
As he said, "Sayonara, baby!"
Think you can trust the government?
Ask an Indian!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote