Up for Debate: DCSO ICE agreement

Friday, June 15, 2012 at 2:13am

What's your opinion regarding the lawsuit involving the Davidson County Sheriff's Office agreement with ICE? The sheriff's office argues that while the Metro Charter prevents them from enforcing state and local laws, it doesn’t address or prohibit enforcement of federal law. Do you agree with that argument? Or do you agree with the plaintiffs that the DCSO is over stepping its bounds?


Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

8 Comments on this post:

By: budlight on 6/15/12 at 5:28

I agree with anything Sheriff Hall says or does.

By: govskeptic on 6/15/12 at 5:59

In this situation the program is exactly where it should be and actually
has the right approval to be there. The Plaintiff's would like for it to be moved
to the Police Dept so they and this Mayor can enforce or not enforce as they
see fit! Atty Ozment is what kin to a former Tn Gov.? Much of his resemblance
to said Gov is striking to this reader? We can only hope our Tn Supreme
Court rules on the law versus politics!

By: yogiman on 6/15/12 at 6:19

In the counties that haven't gone into Metro government, the sheriff's department has authority over the county and in most counties they normally make the city's officers backup deputies when needed under certain circumstances.

By: Rasputin72 on 6/15/12 at 7:34

It would be appropriate if the lawsuit dragged on for two more decades.

By: bfra on 6/15/12 at 8:18

Of the ones protesting, wonder how many are legal and how many have jobs & not living off of free social services. Those figures would be interesting to know.

By: pswindle on 6/15/12 at 1:19

If there is not a State Law, Federal Laws kick in.

By: yogiman on 6/15/12 at 4:09

On what legality does the federal government have to "kick in" a federal law in a state if the state doesn't have a law on a particular issue?

If that can happen, why do we need state laws? Why do we even need state legislatures?

There are laws at all levels of government.

By: JayBee56 on 6/15/12 at 7:15

Throughout English law, the sheriff has been authorized to enforce the law. The office of county sheriff is usually established by a state constitution. In most all counties of the U.S., he or she is duly elected to enforce the law. The Metro Charter needs to be revised to once again make the sheriff the chief law enforcement officer of Davidson County with authority over both his office and the police department. The 1963 charter was a compromise document and it's been 50 years - the time to have separate law agencies is past. Why have a chief who is appointed by and answerable to a mayor when we already have a sheriff who is directly elected by the people? In this current budget season, why do we need both a police chief and a sheriff? I'd rather have a sheriff.