I was listening to the Jared Morris Show on WGMD today, he was talking about the Sussex County Council and the law suit against the council based on the practice of the council to hold an organized Christian prayer during the regular meetings.

   Out of the blue Eric Bodenweiser called in and attempted to tie the prayer issue into the ongoing issue of the battle between the county council and the Sussex County Sheriff, Jeff Christopher. Mr. Bodenweiser has been very out spoken in his support for the sheriff.

  He did this by pointing out, in his words, that a Sussex deputy had been put on administrative leave for attending a prayer meeting at a local church. In the way that he put this forth, the show’s host and at least myself felt that Mr. Bodenweiser was inferring that the deputy had been punished for his faith.

  To Jared’s credit he asked some questions about what had led to the punishment. Mr. Bodenweiser then said that the county had seen fit to play “Big Brother” and had placed GPS devices on the vehicles of the deputies to track their movements. Mr. Bodenweiser then continued to state that the deputy had simply gone home had dinner and a shower, and then returned to the church for the prayer meeting. Mr. Bodenweiser then repeated his view that this was somehow “Big Brother” watching our every move, he made a statement along the lines of , “this is how the county government is using our tax dollars”.

  Now any thinking person would never think that the deputy had been punished for attending a prayer meeting, clearly if this is the case that a deputy was put on administration leave after being tracked by a GPS on a county vehicle, then he was punished for improper use of an official vehicle. The GPS is not “Big Brother” watching our every move, but is actually an attempt by the county government to protect the tax payers from being abused.

  Now before someone says that the GPS is another attack by the council on the office of the sheriff due to the ongoing riff between the two, let me tell you that I have been told that almost every county vehicle has a GPS device. Obviously with good cause.

   Now if this is true that a deputy did abuse the privilege of having a vehicle to ride back and forth to work in, then we must ask, how long has this been happening? How broad was the abuse among other deputies? Who knew this was happening? And who didn’t know it and why didn’t they?

   Did the sheriff know this type of abuse was occurring? If he didn’t why? Is he too focused on law suits and other peripheral issues? And what has been his response since having it brought to his attention.

  One has to think that since Mr. Bodenweiser has been one of the most, if not the most vocal supporter of Sheriff Christopher, that he may have some inside information about what has been going on within the hallowed halls of the sheriff’s office. Was this Mr. Bodenweiser’s “Joe Biden” moment? Was he a “little out over his skis”?

 If this turns out to be true, and a deputy was put on administrative leave as a punishment for abuse of county resources, one has to ask, is this merely the tip of the iceberg. Is there a sense of entitlement among the office of the sheriff, a sense of autonomy that has filtered down from the very top of the sheriff’s department. A sense that the office is above reproach.

  Maybe we need a complete audit of the sheriff’s office so that we know that the citizen’s tax dollars are well spent on the current status of the office, especially since the sheriff is asking to expand the office which would also expand the cost to the tax payers.

   A Federal judge has issued an injunction in the case of the Sussex County Council case over the issue of prayers during the official meetings of the council that prohibits the council from holding an organized prayer during the regular meetings.

    Now many of you know that I have argued that when the council is called to order they become a body of government and as such they are no longer afforded the rights of individuals. Also as a body of government the use of a prayer that is a Christian prayer borders on the establishment of a state religion. At the very least it is a government endorsement of a single religion by government.

   The original case was brought by citizens who were offended by the prayer, however there is no case for being offended. But I do believe that there is a case against government sanctioned religion.

   When the original case was brought the council’s practice was to call the meeting to order and then the council president would lead the chamber in the Lord’s Prayer, technically a Jewish prayer given to us by Jesus Christ. Again, in my opinion this is not a matter of and individual being denied the free exercise of their religion, nor is it a case of them being denied their right to freedom of speech, since those rights are guaranteed to individuals, not bodies of government, they are actually intended to protect us from the body government.

  However since the law suit was filed, the council has changed their practice in that they now say the invocation and then call the meeting to order. Now of course this is merely a technicality, but when we are talking about laws, a technicality is all there is sometimes to decide the issue. In my opinion the council has found a legitimate way to satisfy both those who wish to pray, without technically acting as a body of government while doing it. Until the meeting is called to order those members are simply citizens and are not acting as representatives of the rest of the citizens.

  That is why I now feel that the court has made an incorrect judgement in blocking these prayers. Now it could be that the court made their decision based on the fact that the council was previously calling to order prior to saying the invocation, since that was the practice at the time the suit was filed.

  However to prohibit prayer by citizens prior to the meeting being called to order is a clear violation of the free exercise of religion. I have no problem with a prayer being said by citizens, including the council members prior to the meeting. To prohibit members of the council saying a prayer before the meeting would be like saying that once a person is elected to an office, they can no longer say a public prayer, this would seem to include even in their church of choice. Of course that is ridiculous.

   I would encourage the council to appeal based on the fact that the prayers are no longer technically a part of the meetings. I have to believe that they should prevail based on this fact.

The President is in big trouble in North Carolina, where he went from even to down big and is now in the margin of error in national polls including down in Rasmussen and CBS. He is losing swing states. All of the bondage to gay bundlers may be taking a toll with GOD fearing voters. It would be fitting to see the house of cards called the Democrat party fall due to failed attacks on the core values of America.

I want to thank everyone who volunteered, donated, or voted for me last April.  It has been a year since I was honored by the people to be elected.  What a year it has been!

I have been part of a great team of leaders who have taken seriously the challenges that we face. The economy has been a big challenge. Unemployment hit 10.6% at its peak. Property values have fallen almost 3% in the city. We have 300 vacant buildings. Our city is safe, but last year challenged us to do better. Complaints were up, murders were a record number, and the number of police were down. We have changed that calculus over the last 5 months. Crime is declining and we have reinstated community policing with the addition of new officers.

Now we are moving. Plans which have been on the drawing board or in a desk drawer have been put into reality and new initiatives have been started. Unemployment is down to 7.4% and we have several new expansions and businesses ready to come on line with a potential of 1000 new jobs due in part to our new pro-business incentives. Downtown is on the verge of renewal, moving as fast as the bureaucratic process (my next target is simplifying the process on Loockerman Street.) We need fewer regulations and ones that are more consistent and easier to understand. That is why I advocated zoning simplification with more to come. I am also pushing to simplify sign regulations. We have a hodgepodge of regulations which very from zoning district to overlay zone to combinations of the two. It is almost incomprehensible and outdated regarding electric signs. It even regulates where businesses park their trucks that have signs on them. We need simple rules. This will encourage offices and more stand alone small businesses.

We are going to cut electric rates for individuals and businesses to take advantage of falling natural gas prices. We were locked into some long term price contracts, but as we replace them, we will give the savings back to the people.

Sadly, half of the electric savings for the average resident will be eaten up by rising trash fees. Gas prices have doubled in the last couple of years, the tipping fees have increased, and additional mandates for yard waste and recycling have ballooned our costs. The trash fund could lose as much as 700K next year if we do not adjust the fees to cover the cost. At least we have the blessing of the electricity going down to more than cover the difference.

Crime, I have been pleased to support Chief Hosfelt in restoring community policing. to the Capital city. The approach to dealing with crime is a comprehensive one. Dover is not a dangerous place, but the trends were disturbing and undeniable. You cannot have economic growth in an atmosphere of lawlessness. We had to act early. The trends are encouraging. We not only staffed our community policing unit, but have taken a community approach to policing surveying residents and business owners to find out where the problems are. The strategy is then developed from the community.

Spending has been a tough issue. The city spends more than it can afford. I have been called a fiscal hawk by the News Journal with some justification. I want to ensure the people get their money’s worth. I am supporting consolidation of positions and departments in many incidents. We are going to have to look at healthcare costs for the city for both current employees and future retirees. We cannot continue to pay 100% for life. We cannot pay so much for spouses. It is unsustainable. We recently downgraded in pay some positions that were above market and raised a couple that were below market. Pay should be objective according to the market place not union lobbying. We have reduced a 3.4 million dollar deficit to 800,000. Now we are down to the tough choices. We will make some without raising taxes. If taxes are raised, it will be over my strongest objections.

I know the special interests are telling me that we have cut all that we can cut. I do not buy it. I think we are to a point where we have to be careful or else we will negatively impact city services. Careful does not mean it cannot or should not be done. It just means that we have to be more diligent. We can cut 1 to 2% more without the city falling apart and address the long term structural spending issues.

Over the next year, I will continue to fight new regulations and infringements on your liberty. I have fought attacks on free speech, free association, curfews, business, and land regulations, and made it easier to get swimming pools. I have also worked to make rules fairer for minority contractors and minority recruitment transparent and consistent in a way that has brought consensus in the communities by looking for real solutions not quotas. I want you to be able to control your own life if you are not hurting others or disrupting the quality of life in the city.

Please contact me at councilmananderson@live.com or go to my facebook page David Anderson for Council. My phone number at city hall is 302-736-7006 and home is 747-1971. I need your input for the next year.

Thank you for allowing me the privilege to serve.

Senate Democrats passed two competing bills to add protection against home invasions on the same day. The Lawson supported bill was passed unanimously due to its widespread public support fueled by 50 home invasions. The Heffernan bill supported by Governor Markell and House Majority leader Schwartzkopf would increase penalties as well. It is sort of the less filling version. The Heffernan bill had in addition to the lower penalties, had another flaw that required prosecutors prove they knew the home was occupied and not just the actions afterward. At least the senate removed that provision and sent both bills to the House. Currently, home invasions are treated like a burglary with a two year sentence.

Senate Democrats admitted in effect the Lawson bill was superior. They should have stuck to their guns and passed only it. It had unanimous support. If the House did not go along, they could have done a conference committee. They claimed that they passed both because they were concerned the House may not pass the tougher bill. Nonsense. They just wanted to go back home saying they voted for Lawson bill while giving the House the ability to avoid voting on it. It is crazy political cynicism at its worse.

I wish the majority party in Delaware would actually work for the people as hard as they work at protecting the appearances and public relations.

[for reference purposes, the bills are Senate bill 167 by Lawson and House bill 277 by Heffernan]

He announces Thursday in the Felton Firehouse at 6 pm.

House Majority Leader Pete Schwartzkropf said that he was dismayed that Dave Lawson did not give up on his bill and compromise the public safety with an inferior compromise because “that is the way we do it in Delaware, Lawson hasn’t figured that out”. I hope he doesn’t. Email and call today supporting theDave Lawson bill making home invasions a class a felony in the senate.

Discounts on Medications, Vision care, $25 eye glasses, hearing aids, diabetic supplies and more are available with a free card regardless of residency. There has never been a health card like the one offered now by the City of Dover. It is available on the city website, at the library, customer service, or city hall. The News Journal covered it here.

I was inspired by the fact that people needed some help affording eye glasses and vision care. Many Employers and Delaware Medicaid dropped this coverage but the need remains. This is why I searched for a program that would be free to participate in which allowed people easy access and affordable access to this vital health need. Vision care is important to the economy. People who cannot get proper vision care cannot advance themselves as easily by studying or be as efficient at work. It impacts the quality of daily life. It is too important to be a side show. Big government may have let you down, but your local representation and the free market hasn’t. This card fills that void as well as prescriptions, hearing aids, and affordable dental care. I encourage everyone to check it out on the city web site. Even your pet can benefit. This available nationwide so the half of our readers not from Delaware are more than welcome to participate. Savings and need knows no boundaries.

Now that I have read the suit filed by sheriff Christopher, I am even more concerned with what the end game may be. In  it he quotes previous Delaware Constitutions prior to the current one from 1897 to justify his claims. Obviously once new constitutions are passed and ratified the previous ones have no bearing on current law.
 I am again troubled by the confrontational language that is used even in this legal document such as “bring the sheriff to heel”.  The suit also mentions the lack of a county-wide police force to justify the need for the sheriff’s office to have complete arrest powers.
 But one of the more troubling aspects of this document is in the request of judgement portion. Sheriff Christopher is actually asking the courts to state that the office of sheriff should be allowed to operate, ” without direction, restriction, or interference of any kind from any other government official or entity within the state of Delaware”.
  If the court were to actually rule in this way, they, the court, would be forever giving up even their authority to pass future judgements in a case involving the sheriff’s office.

  Also included in the request of judgement portion is the matter of lights and decals on vehicles, so we are back to this again, not just training. The suit also states that the office will be empowered to,

   ” a. maintain the safety of persons and property

     b.  suppressing all acts of violence and enforcing all laws of the state of Delaware

     c.  detaining and arresting on view anyone who breaks the peace

    d. detaining and arresting without warrant anyone who has committed any crime or misdemeanor, and anyone whom there are reasonable grounds of suspicion of  having committed a felony.”

   Now I know that Sheriff Christopher has stated that he is not seeking to create a county police force, but doesn’t what he is asking for in this suit sound a lot like a police force?

   I am actually encouraged by the wording of the suit, since I feel it will demonstrate exactly what Sheriff Christopher’s view of the office is and will allow others to understand that, his vision is for a full-fledged police force. So once again I say, the question is, do the citizens of Sussex County want to pay for another police force? 

  This suit goes far beyond simply asking for training for the safety of his deputies, it seeks complete autonomy of the office of sheriff. It seeks to redefine the office of sheriff outside the legislative process based on one man’s view of the office.

  In my personal opinion Sheriff Christopher has once again over played his hand here. Again, instead of waiting for an actual law to base his suit against, he has chosen to rest these broad request on the vague language within the state constitution.

  I would also like to point out that while Sheriff Christopher and his supporters have repeatedly stated that they do not feel that the legislative branch of state government has the authority to define the office of sheriff, in this suit, Sheriff Christopher is asking the judicial branch to do just that, and also asking, in so doing, to give up any future authority over the office of sheriff. If the court were to rule in favor of Sheriff Christopher, it would be a radical act of an activist court legislating from the bench. This is not my understanding of a conservative form of government. Seeking courts to set down rulings that are not based on actual law and asking courts to interpret laws that do not yet exist, based on vague language in a constitution reminds me of the use of the “general welfare” clause to raise taxes and  is what we have come to expect from progressives.

  We can only anticipate that if this suit is found against Sheriff Christopher, that he and his supporters will claim a liberal conspiracy. This will not be the end, this will not end, I predict, until it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, since there are forces from outside the state of Delaware driving the bus now, forces with their own agendas. That is a shame, since I am a states right believer, I feel that this can and should be handled within the state.

Check out this video questioning the intellectualism of liberals.

Today is Military Spouse Appreciation day. I wanted to take a moment to thank those who serve by supporting our troops in the most personal ways and who make great and unseen sacrifices day in and day out. Thank you.

In a rare move, both the Lawson senate bill and the Heffernan marshmallow house bill on home invasions were released to the Senate floor to be worked at the same time next Tuesday. Lawson’s bill has caught fire. Please support it because we need strong penalties to deter or at least prevent repeat offenders of the crime of home invasion. People are literally dying. We deserve better than a photo op law.

Delaware Democrats are using campaign finance reform to attack freedom of speech by independent groups. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that anonymous flyers are a core form of freedom of speech in the 1995 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. The Supreme Court also ruled in the Citizens United Case that you cannot prevent movies, TV, or other free speech just because the individuals pull their resources together under a corporate umbrella.

Delaware Democrats are deciding to wage a war on those who dare challenge them. They were burned up that they never really knew who ran the When pigs fly campaign for instance or who the voices 4 Delaware are. They have decided to exercise “the tyranny of the majority” as former Justice John Paul Stevens put it and use campaign finance laws to compel it through the backdoor. We have seen in California that such laws were used to harass, bully, boycott, and intimidate donors to the Marriage protection amendment (I believe it was Prop. 8). They took the list and protested outside of donor’s homes, businesses, and churches. Some donors who were not sufficiently intimidated eventually were assaulted or their jobs threatened. This can happen in Delaware if the majority party gets its way. This is one more attempt to solidify their majority not by ideas but by trying to defund and defang any opposition.

The companion bill to increase penalties on non-disclosure is so that people who think about standing on their rights will have a club over their head if they do not disclose. The sad side to it is that most low level volunteer campaigns have missed a deadline, but unlike federal law where you can file for an extension, there is none in Delaware. These changes would just make it more difficult to fill the posts of treasurer for people not already connected or able to keep an accountant on retainer.

We know that it will not be enforced evenly. It is just another club for the majority to use against its opposition.

While we are at it, the proposal to require lobbyists to document who they speak to and how often is a direct assault on the right to redress your government for your grievances. It is one thing to disclose gifts above $25. It is far different to make people disclose every phone call. This is an attempt by the majority to control input by outside sources so they can insulate their members from competing voices. It is insidious.

Please contact your representatives and senators and just say no to these bills and yes to freedom of speech.

Every state in which voters have weighed in on the definition of marriage has given the same results. Common sense. Marriage is between a man and a woman. North Carolina is the latest state to join the in voicing its support for traditional values. In the real world, it is not even controversial. Let’s see if the Democrats push President Obama into a suicidal position on this issue.

In a big victory, Matt Lindell wins his battle in the Capital School 498 votes which was more than the other 3 candidates combined. Lindell says he is looking forward to July when he takes office and will be one more person asking questions. He sees the vote as a mandate from the taxpayers to change course in the school district. He also sees the victory by Cheryl Precourt as a consistent message by the taxpayers and families in Kent County.

Pro-family advocate Cheryl Precourt won her race to serve on the Caesar Rodney School Board. The 4 vote victory over the incumbent sends a powerful message for the family and taxpayers. Congratulations Cheryl!

We could see this coming last year, but the conservative movement scored a big victory. Internationalist Richard Lugar lost his primary to the Tea Party supported state Treasurer Richard Mourdock. Liberals want the Tea Party to be dead, but this and the coming defense of Wisconsin’s Governor Walker will prove otherwise. It will be an interesting election year.

Senator Lawson’s home invasion will be heard in committee on Weds, May 9 at 1:00 at Legislative Hall. Senator Lawson needs your support.

Home Invasion:

The Punishment Should Fit the Crime

The unthinkable has now happened!!

During what appears to be another home invasion, two elderly people have been murdered.

The issue of home invasions legislation has been delayed and politicized to the point that the person or persons that committed this crime face a burglary in the 1st degree charge with a mandatory sentence of only TWO YEARS!!! One must ask if this is Justice. Yes, there were other crimes that were committed that could be prosecuted, but this criminal will only have to face ONE charge that would put him away for LIFE.

There are two bills pending. One that calls for 15 years to life as the penalty for the crime of home invasion and one that calls for 6 years and if the victims are 62 years of age or older, 8 years. Which is more appropriate for this crime?

It is a shame and an absolute embarrassment that politics got in the way of common sense. It is amazing that when we have an issue such as “Bath Salts” that emergency legislation can be introduced, passed, and signed in to law in very short order, but legislation for this crime with such vicious proportions has dragged out since January, when I introduced Senate Bill 161.

In this game of political football, again the victims lose, the bad guys win, and the one party rule gets its way. The victims and those of us that will become the next victims must hold those that are soft on crime accountable!

Being a victim of a violent crime is one thing, but being victimized by the game of “Political Football” should, in itself, be criminal.

David Lawson

In addition to Cheryl Precourt of CR and Matt Lindell of Capital, I would like to bring to your attention Andy Cherry of Appoquinimink and Jordan Warfel of Woodbridge.  Andy has been involved helping our guys get elected and is committed to being a solid pro-liberty, pro-family, pro-taxpayer board member.

Jordan Warfel is extraordinary in his commitment to the family.  He has been a leader in the life and family movement since he was a college student.  I was pleased to help open a few connections for him.  He has proven to be an amazing strategic thinker who has given a great boast to the conservative movement with the candidates he helped win as a campaign manager and the issues he supported or opposed at legislative hall.   He has been at the center of the pro-life and pro-family movement for years now.   Please support him.

May 8th is your chance to keep turning this state around little by little.

Parents Choice Amendment to H.B. 303

FACTS to know: This bill (H.B.303) was first introduced as SB 135, another bill
altogether, but because of our efforts it was tabled twice and now completely rewritten.
The Parents Choice Amendment is just the first step and we need to be heard on this
issue! To address the bigger parental rights violation in Delaware law, we need to elect
different Representatives.
HB 303 is a bill that deals with non-confidential services that can be billed to third party
insurance. But it leaves parents in the dark completely and does not address the bigger
problem. That would require a whole new bill. But the reality is the Democrat majority in
the HOUSE and the SENATE is not willing to deal with this problem.

If a parent does allow their child to receive “confidential” services, it will not be billed to
their insurance. The state picks up the cost…it means that our tax money pays for it!
We are asking Legislators to acknowledge that parents have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to
know and decide what services their children will receive at school based health centers
(SBHC). The Parents’ Choice Amendment reads in part:
“This amendment requires that consent forms for permission to provide health
services to children at a School Based Health Center must clearly permit a parent or
guardian to exclude any health services that the parent or guardian does not want
his or her child to receive at the SBHC, while permitting that child to receive all other
services offered.”

You can read the entire bill here.

I am grateful for the determination of American leadership and the skill of the Navy Seals and the intelligence of the CIA in making the world just a little safer. The naysayers claimed that this would go wrong or that complication would occur if we dared to challenge Bin Laden and kill him. Some dared say that it would be immoral to target an individual. I believe it is immoral to target the little guys and treat the leadership with kid gloves. The leadership should be the top target.

I give the President in particular a tip of the hat on this one. He deserves it.

One has to wonder though, what if the current administration had not put up so many rules limiting the value of capturing Bin Laden. If we captured him under Bush, we could have smashed and grabbed him and made him disappear for a while like we did some other terrorist leaders. We could have questioned him under rendition and gotten valuable information from him. Would it have been nice to have those options? It is just an interesting point of discussion. Are we worse off because of the silly notion that we can’t get to rough with creeps trying to kill us and our allies? I am glad he wasn’t captured. It would have been embarrassing to see Holder flying to Gitmo to read him his rights.

Today is the National Day of Prayer. I just wanted to take a moment to thank GOD for a nation that is the beacon of human rights and liberty. I pray that this nation will not lose its way, but return to its core principles which resulted in the most free, diverse, and prosperous people in the world. One nation under GOD, respecting the individual’s right to life, liberty, and property with equal protection under the law pretty well sums up our core principles. We need to guard them zealously.

As a taxpayer in Sussex County and a Law Enforcement Officer with over 17 years experience, I would like to take the time to provide you with the basis for my brief testimony before you on March 27, 2012. While I realize that there have been a couple different Attorneys General and several county attorneys review the Office of Sheriff and its duties under Delaware Code. I feel compelled to put on paper, and out to you, why I think that there are huge misconceptions on the authority of the office.
The first area I will address is the idea the Sheriff is a police officer. While the argument could be made that because a Sheriff is a Fish and Wildlife Agent (7 Del Code § 1313; 10 Del Code § 2114) and a Fish and Wildlife Agent, a law-enforcement officer of DNREC, is a police officer (11 Del Code § 1911) then the Sheriff is a police officer. Some of you may recall the transitive property from Algebra I where if, A=B and B=C then A=C. This is not Algebra and the Sheriff is not a police officer. Clearly, the Delaware Legislature has created and defined what a police officer is and does not include the Sheriff in that definition. However, he is a Conservator of the Peace.
It has been suggested that there is not a definition of conservator of the peace anywhere in Delaware Code or the Constitution. While there is not a specific definition found, the term appears in numerous places in Delaware Code, and many Town Charters, in defining the duties of their police officers. In fact, in the statutory duties of the Delaware State Police, University Police, and Capitol Police (11 Del Code § 8302; 14 Del Code § 6503; 14 Del Code § 5104; 11 Del Code § 8202) all use the term conservator of the peace. Usually it is in the context of suppressing acts of violence and enforcing laws relating to the safety of persons and property. In fact, there is at least one Delaware Supreme Court opinion that relates the duties of the Sheriff to the modern day state police. In an advisory opinion to then Gov. Carper regarding the ability of Sgt Doug Salter of the Delaware State Police to serve as a legislator should he be elected in 1998. Although the duties of the officer were not the intent of the opinion, the court, in laying out those duties as a baseline to determine if there was a conflict stated “While there was no such entity as the Delaware State Police in 1897, there were Sheriffs and other conservators of the peace.” I realize that also absent in 1897 was the COPT and standardized training, but I point this out to further illustrate what a conservator of the peace is. Now, I know that the positions I mentioned are all police officers and as such have the power to arrest under 11 Del Code § 1911, and we have established that the Sheriff isn’t a police officer. However, you do not have to be a police officer to have the authority to arrest people as a conservator of the peace. I give you an excerpt from Delaware Code.

“9 Del Code § 747…… The members of the board and all officers appointed by them shall be conservators of the peace within and upon such parks, boulevards, driveways, and property controlled by such park district, and may make arrests on view of the offense, or upon warrants for violation of any of the penal ordinances of such park districts, or for any breach of the peace, in the same manner as the police in cities organized and existing under the general laws of the State.”

Now, at least when that law was enacted, there was the concept that a conservator of the peace could make arrests for breaches of the peace even if they were only a county park board member, they could arrest the same as a police officer. The concept that the Sheriff has authority as it would be related to a breach of the peace is further confirmed in 10 Del Code § 2103. This section simply states that the County is responsible for reimbursing the Sheriff for expenses incurred by hiring extra deputies in the case of an emergency, “for the preservation of peace and good order”. Now, if the Sheriff has no arrest power as the recent AG opinion states, then why would he have the authority to hire extra deputies in an emergency?

Now, let’s examine the idea that the Sheriff has arrest power. Delaware Code states in section 1901 of Title 11 that arrests, for the Criminal Code, can be made by Peace Officers. Now the Attorney General, by way of the State Solicitor, has admitted that the term peace officer does include “the Sheriff and a host of other public officials.” However, it appears that this is based on two lines in Chapter 84 of Title 11. The first, being specifically excluded from the definition of a police officer. 11 Del Code § 8401 defines what a police officer is and lists several exemptions. In order to understand this definition, one must first understand what this chapter is for. It is to establish training standards for police officers and outline who is required to attend the training. The line that excludes the Sheriff from training also excludes constables. So if the Sheriff cannot arrest, neither can a constable. Yet constables have a duty to protect life and property and preserve peace and good order as well as report any arrests they do make to the law enforcement agency with primary jurisdiction. (10 Del Code § 2705). This particular section of Delaware Code was amended in 1990, well after the establishment of the COPT standards. If the intent of the legislature was to grant arrest power solely to police in 1985, wouldn’t they have amended this section when it came up in 1990? In addition, in 1995 an opinion by the Attorney General’s office (95-IB27) specifically states that “We note that the powers and duties of a Sheriff are similar to that of a constable” in that opinion, the DAG also quoted from Soper v. Montgomery County

“Ordinarily Sheriffs retain the powers they possessed at common law including conserving public peace, preserving public order, preventing and detecting crime, enforcing criminal laws by, among other things, raising a posse and arresting persons who commit crimes in their presence, providing security for courts, serving criminal warrants and other writs and summonses, and transporting prisoners.”

This same opinion states that Sheriffs retain all powers under common law unless expressly abrogated or modified by statute. Now perhaps the above referenced case was not mentioned because the State Solicitor feels that 11 Del Code §8410 was the attempt by the General Assembly to expressly modify the arrest power of the Sheriff. Here is the problem with that interpretation. The State Solicitor states in his opinion that “Anyone who does “not meet the criteria of this chapter…shall not have the authority to enforce the laws of this state” That is not what 11 Del Code § 8410 states.

“Police officers of the State or any county or municipality or the University of Delaware or Delaware State University which do not meet the requirements of this chapter and the criteria as established by the Council shall not have the authority to enforce the laws of the State.”
Continue Reading »

There is a verified cyber security alert. Check out the FBI link. This threat may not be detected by many anti-virus programs. You can check your system here. It is advised that you do it before July 9, 2012 or you may not have connectivity.

The polls show the recall election is neck and neck. Public officials are paying attention all across the nation. Will the public stomach the tough choices needed to bring in run away spending or will special interests gain the day once again? The public will have the government it deserves. I hope they choose wisely.

Friends of David Anderson

presents

A Fundraiser hosted by Maria Cahill* for Councilman David Anderson of Dover  

Location Westminster Retirement Center

Community Bld. West room

State College and McKee Roads Dover, DE

Date: May 22^nd

Time 6:00pm

Enjoy a great menu.

Salmon

Scallops wrapped in Bacon

Veggies and Dip

Chicken Cordon Blue Puffs

Appetizer Pizza

Soft drinks (Tea, coffee, etc.)

Dessert

Cost is a donation: recommended minimum of $35; $25 for volunteers and Westminster residents

Reserve  a space by emailing councilmananderson@live.com calling Jeannie at 741-1971 or or Ailyn at 943-8230.

*Maria Cahill serves as Ms. Delaware, but this event is her personal capacity.  She will be available for greeting and autographed pictures.

Paid for by friends of David Anderson

Pre-order Ghost Recon and get $10 off Next Purchase! Now through May 22nd

GOW 3 – Save $30 – now through May 26th

Xbox Live 3 month card -Save $10 now through June 30th!

For every Kinect Disneyland purchase, $15 will go to Make A Wish now through May 31st!

Now back to regular programming.  Seriously though, please visit Microsoft store either through the links or the side bar whether you buy or not.  It is important to support advertisers that still refuse to discriminate against mainstream viewpoints.  Thank you.

I am pleased to see the quality of candidates in the upcoming school board elections in the Dover area. I am particularly supportive of Cheryl Precourt in the CR district. She was recognized as the DelawarePolitics.net 2010 Citizen activist of the year. She knows the issues like few others. She understands the concerns of families, studied budgets, read curriculum, and has spent time in the schools. She ran last year and many of her fellow citizens gave her support. Sadly she was just 12 votes short of winning in a large field. I know what it feels like to fall just short, but Cheryl has the same dedication to get back up and keep trying that I did because she also knows that it is not about her. She will be a guardian of your tax money and an ear for your concerns. She is by far the best choice you can imagine. I am pleased to endorse my friend, Mrs. Cheryl Precourt.

In the Capital school district, we have two choices that I really like. Mr. Simmons is a great community servant and leader, who is intelligent and capable. He would be a fine addition who has my greatest respect., Yet I actually have found a completely amazing candidate that I could not pass up. Matt Lindell has the exact right formula for Capital this year. He brings a needed balance for a school district that needs a strong taxpayer advocate who knows what is wrong under the hood of our fine school district. Matt has been a teacher in the district and he is passionate about our children and safeguarding the taxpayers. He will help my friend Brian Lewis bring needed reform to the table. It is for this reason that I hope my fellow citizens join with me in voting for Matt Lindell.

   My journey to becoming a liberal began many years ago. Okay, that sounds a bit pretentious, huh?

    I was not born a liberal, I became a liberal. No. That was too dramatic maybe.

   I was once called a right-wing radical and “wing nut”, but now I am labeled a liberal. That’s more like it.

  So how does someone manage to go from being considered ultra right-wing, to being called far left? Continue Reading »