Relates to the completion of training requirements for sheriffs and undersheriffs

• Republican4
• Democratic2

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Pete Harckham says this is needed

Historically, individuals elected to the office of Sheriff were granted police officer powers by virtue of simply holding the office. This was the case since the formal inception of the Office of Sheriff via the New York State Constitution and remained so even after the adoption of more formal training requirements for police officers as our bodies of law evolved and modernized throughout the last century. Without apparent explanation or justification, this consideration for the Office of Sher- iff was stricken from the General Municipal Law as part of the larger Professional Policing Act of 2020. Whether this was the underlying intention of the original legislation or not, the unique nature of the Office of Sheriff warrants a return to the former statutory scheme with regards to inherent police powers that attach to that position. The Office of Sheriff is unique among New York State Law enforcement entities in two respects. First, it is the only elected law enforcement position in New York, and the only one that is established in our state Constitution. A Sheriff rightfully derives their law enforcement author- ity from the people who have chosen to elect them and from the Constitu- tion itself which designates them as conservators of the peace. There is now a distinct electoral disadvantage of candidates for the Office of Sheriff who do not come from a law enforcement background. Those seekers of the Office, however qualified they might otherwise be in government administration, could be depicted by their opponent who may come from a police background as unfit for that role. This will only serve to diminish the pool of aspiring public servants who could bring diversity and new perspectives to the Office of Sheriff. This bill seeks to exclude Sheriffs and Undersheriffs from the training required under section 209-q of the general municipal law.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.