FL Sheriff Felony Arrested/Suspended 4 Protecting Citizens’ 2A Rights

[RobertNashville]

"In a developing story, Sheriff Nick Finch was arrested, charged with a felony and and suspended without pay for supporting a citizen’s 2nd Amendment rights. It’s not a story you hear every day. It’s certainly not a story you’d expect out of a county named Liberty.

 

The events began when Floyd Eugene Parrish, a Florida resident, was arrested and detained by one of Finch’s deputies for carrying a firearm without a permit on March 8th, 2013. In the state of Florida, this lands you a 3rd degree felony charge. Finch released Parrish because, in his assessment, Parrish was not a violent criminal and was acting innocuously. Finch called the clerk and told her not to draw up arrest documents until he was there to assess the situation. Note, Parrish had not been officially booked into jail- only detained."

 

Entire Article Here: http://benswann.com/exclusive-fl-sheriff-arrested-charged-with-felony-suspended-for-protecting-citizens-2nd-amendment-rights/

 

[RobertNashville]

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. First of all, this is the first I heard of it and have no idea if this story is 100% accurate.

 

Second...while it's good to hear that a Sheriff is standing up for citizen's constitutional rights. On the other, it seems to me that he went much too far...this wasn't some unconstitutional federal law but the law of the state (that I suspect he swore an oath to uphold).

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Gov. Scott had a lot to do sticking his nose in the Zimmerman trial, also. He is gaining a lot of non-conservative creds,

lately. He is becoming a big disappointment.

 

I hope to see that Sheriff win this. Ridiculous!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If the President of the United States can usurp power to not enact laws he wanted, in the first place, I would think a sheriff

could do this. If charges weren't filed and he knew of the circumstances that this person wasn't being or acting as a criminal,

why should he be charged? Do you know every law you could be charged with?

 

In a perverted way, I could be viewed as siding with Obama, but don't try to go that way. The idea that there is almost a law

against everything you or I do, this seems a stretch to charge this guy with. He was pulled over for crossing a white line.

That is silly enough, especially considering the road conditions the sheriff spoke of. It would be completely different if this

driver was creating a hazard or acting in a criminal manner.

 

Charge forward with the police-state and see how long any of us last. there are literally thousands of laws that shouldn't even

be there. I applaud the sheriff.

 

We have become a nation of men who make up a bunch of crappy laws.

Edited August 19, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Dennis1209]

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. First of all, this is the first I heard of it and have no idea if this story is 100% accurate.

 

Second...while it's good to hear that a Sheriff is standing up for citizen's constitutional rights. On the other, it seems to me that he went much too far...this wasn't some unconstitutional federal law but the law of the state (that I suspect he swore an oath to uphold).

 

In my thirty plus years of military and civilian government service, every oath I took was to defend and support the Constitution of the United States, not the constitution of a state, county, city or municipality. I do believe the U.S. Constitution supersedes state Constitutions and infringements imposed by lesser governments?

Edited August 19, 2013 by Dennis1209

[tnguy]

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. First of all, this is the first I heard of it and have no idea if this story is 100% accurate.

 

Second...while it's good to hear that a Sheriff is standing up for citizen's constitutional rights. On the other, it seems to me that he went much too far...this wasn't some unconstitutional federal law but the law of the state (that I suspect he swore an oath to uphold).

 

Florida's constitution:

 

 

(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

 

 

 

 

 

Is requiring a permit regulating the manner of bearing arms? I would argue not. Feel free to disagree.

 

Then again, it's a pretty terribly written clause. They could require that you have to carry it in a 50lb lead holster.

Edited August 19, 2013 by tnguy

[RobertNashville]

I'm really less concerned here with this particular law and this particular person who was carrying than I am with the concept of a single LEO deciding that a law that was properly passed by the state legislature is "unconstitutional". I suspect that this law in FL has been on the books for a while (maybe a long while) and has held up to scrutiny; probably in one or more state courts -

 

I'm no expert on what a Sheriff can or can't do in FL but if one man can decide not to enforce a law, passed by the state's legislature that he swore to uphold when he took office, to me, seems like a bad precedent and outside of his authority. 

Edited August 19, 2013 by RobertNashville

[c.a.willard]

From the way i read the article it appears more, that he did not throw out the charge based on the laws constitutionality, but rather a history of misdeeds by the detaining officer led the sheriff to believe that the officer had little or no reason for the stop in the first place.  This coupled with parrish's innocuous behavior id say it was the right call.  If the officer had no reason for stop then the entire thing would have been thrown out in court either way.

[East_TN_Patriot]

This is a fairly old story.  This happened near my old neck of the woods in Florida and I still have several friends down in that area including a good friend who is connected to law enforcement in Liberty County.  I've been told that there was no policy telling officers not to enforce the concealed weapon statute, that the Sheriff was good friends with the brother of the arrested individual, the guy arrested was a convicted felon, and the sheriff tried to fire the deputy for cooperating with the FDLE investigation.  Sheriff Finch arrived at the jail with Parrish's brother, told the booking officer to release Parrish, took the booking file, and struck Parrish's name from the booking log.  This claim that Parrish was not booked in is an important point due to the way the law is written and it sounds to me as if Parrish had been booked in.  The arresting officer submitted a charging document, a booking sheet had been filled out, his name was added to the booking log, his property had been collected, and he had been placed in a cell.  That is the booking process.

I am actually in contact with a local newspaper reporter whom I've asked for more info, but at this point, I am convinced this is nothing more than a case of "good ol' boy" corruption and the sheriff is hiding behind the Second Amendment claim to shed heat.  

I just can't help but wonder how many folks who see no problem with an elected sheriff choosing to ignore a law dealing with the Second Amendment are the same ones who will raise hell if an elected official chooses to ignore immigration or drug laws on similar ethical/constitutional grounds.

Edited August 20, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[DaveTN]

Interesting…. Rick Scott having an elected Official arrested. I would think he would want to get out in front of this.

 

They are saying he altered or removed arrest records and ordered corrections Officers to release the guy after he was in jail.

[Guest PapaB]

In my thirty plus years of military and civilian government service, every oath I took was to defend and support the Constitution of the United States, not the constitution of a state, county, city or municipality. I do believe the U.S. Constitution supersedes state Constitutions and infringements imposed by lesser governments?

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you. The States created the Federal Government to perform specific functions outlined in the US Constitution. This was for dealings among the States, not within them, where the Constitutions of the individual States would be in effect. States rights still exist even if the Feds try to ignore it and usurp it.

 

To suggest oaths are only given to defend the US Constitution and not the State is ridiculous. In Tennessee, Sheriffs and Deputies take an oath which mentions upholding the Constitution of the State of Tennessee before mentioning upholding the US Constitution. This is for Sheriffs and the one for Deputies is similar.

I do solemnly swear that I will perform with fidelity the duties of the office
to which I have been elected, and which I am about to assume. I do
solemnly swear to support the constitutions of Tennessee and the United
States and to faithfully perform the duties of the office of sheriff
for County, Tennessee. I further swear that I have not
promised or given, nor will I give any fee, gift, gratuity, or reward for this
office or for aid in procuring this office; that I will not take any fee, gift, or
bribe, or gratuity for returning any person as a juror or for making any false
return of any process and that I will faithfully execute the office of sheriff to
the best of my knowledge and ability, agreeably to law.

Even Property Assessors and Constables without arrest powers in TN take an oath that includes upholding the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, as do most elected officials in the state. Here's the oath for the TN House and Senate; From the Tennessee General Assembly website http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/about/

(bold accent is mine)

When the Legislature initially convenes, the first order of business is the swearing in of the members-elect. The two bodies meet in their respective chambers and the members take an oath of office swearing to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Tennessee and to perform their official duties impartially without favor or prejudice and to always to protect the rights of the people.

 

Edited August 20, 2013 by PapaB

[RobertNashville]

This is a fairly old story.  This happened near my old neck of the woods in Florida and I still have several friends down in that area including a good friend who is connected to law enforcement in Liberty County.  I've been told that there was no policy telling officers not to enforce the concealed weapon statute, that the Sheriff was good friends with the brother of the arrested individual, the guy arrested was a convicted felon, and the sheriff tried to fire the deputy for cooperating with the FDLE investigation.  Sheriff Finch arrived at the jail with Parrish's brother, told the booking officer to release Parrish, took the booking file, and struck Parrish's name from the booking log.  This claim that Parrish was not booked in is an important point due to the way the law is written and it sounds to me as if Parrish had been booked in.  The arresting officer submitted a charging document, a booking sheet had been filled out, his name was added to the booking log, his property had been collected, and he had been placed in a cell.  That is the booking process.

I am actually in contact with a local newspaper reporter whom I've asked for more info, but at this point, I am convinced this is nothing more than a case of "good ol' boy" corruption and the sheriff is hiding behind the Second Amendment claim to shed heat.  

I just can't help but wonder how many folks who see no problem with an elected sheriff choosing to ignore a law dealing with the Second Amendment are the same ones who will raise hell if an elected official chooses to ignore immigration or drug laws on similar ethical/constitutional grounds.

Thanks for the pertinent facts, ETP. They are disturbing, however.

 

Disturbing because this is a FB story going around referencing this story as some "great blow for 2A rights" when it obviously (now) has nothing to do with this sheriff supporting 2A rights.

Edited August 20, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

I'm all for a Sheriff not enforcing a law because it is stupid.  However, destroying records and releasing someone who has already been booked on account of the good ol' boy system is very different.  That is corruption.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Whether selective law enforcement is good or bad, seems a fact so long as the books are full of obsolete laws universally ignored?

When women are not arrested for driving an auto in the city limits without a flag-waving man walking out in front-- Or whatever obsolete law-- That is selective enforcement just as much as deciding not to prosecute "dumb" drug or gun laws.

[RobertNashville]

A Sheriff not enforcing a firearm related law he says he believes is unconstitutional I suppose sounds good to many in the firearm community.

 

However, if that same hypothetical Sheriff decided to start "creating" some firearm related laws because he believed it was needed; I have a feeling that those same folks would not be so "okay" with that. ;)

[TMF]

A Sheriff not enforcing a firearm related law he says he believes is unconstitutional I suppose sounds good to many in the firearm community.

However, if that same hypothetical Sheriff decided to start "creating" some firearm related laws because he believed it was needed; I have a feeling that those same folks would not be so "okay" with that. ;)

You don't see the difference between not enforcing a law and enforcing a law that wasn't passed by elected leaders? Really?

If cops weren't allowed to use their discretion on what laws to enforce then prisons and jail houses would have 20 times the number of inmates. It would also mean that you wouldn't get a warning for a moving violation. Every cop that ever was has selectively enforced.

[tnguy]

I'm really less concerned here with this particular law and this particular person who was carrying than I am with the concept of a single LEO deciding that a law that was properly passed by the state legislature is "unconstitutional". I suspect that this law in FL has been on the books for a while (maybe a long while) and has held up to scrutiny; probably in one or more state courts -

 

I'm no expert on what a Sheriff can or can't do in FL but if one man can decide not to enforce a law, passed by the state's legislature that he swore to uphold when he took office, to me, seems like a bad precedent and outside of his authority. 

 

Meh, I think it's incumbent on every man to decide in his own conscience what constitutes a legally constituted law. But on the other hand, I agree that that's mitigated to some degree for law enforcement (Though it still applies in general).

 

Edit: Given other information revealed above, it sounds like this Sheriff was totally in the wrong. It is one thing not to enforce a law (especially if it violates your conscience), totally another to back out something already done. And for "good old boy" reasons? Throw the book at him (they won't).

Edited August 20, 2013 by tnguy

[tnguy]

You don't see the difference between not enforcing a law and enforcing a law that wasn't passed by elected leaders? Really?

If cops weren't allowed to use their discretion on what laws to enforce then prisons and jail houses would have 20 times the number of inmates. It would also mean that you wouldn't get a warning for a moving violation. Every cop that ever was has selectively enforced.

 

Or we might get more sensible laws.

[TMF]

Or we might get more sensible laws.

The sky in my world is blue.

The thing is, there are plenty of things that should be against the law that cops should be able to use their discretion on. It ain't a matter of looking the other way, it's a matter of discretion. A good example would be moving violations. We need traffic laws for order, but does that mean the officer should be left with no choice of discretion? There was a time where cops were respected because they didnt haul every little punk off to jail; they just told them to straighten the hell up or else next time they're going to jail. It isn't a matter of stupid laws 100% of the time, it's about sensible enforcement.

This case has nothing to do with either though. This guy was a felon in possession of a firearm and was only let go because of the relationship with the Sheriff. That is corruption, not selective enforcement.

[RobertNashville]

Meh, I think it's incumbent on every man to decide in his own conscience what constitutes a legally constituted law. But on the other hand, I agree that that's mitigated to some degree for law enforcement (Though it still applies in general)....

Putting aside this particular (and apparently corrupt Sheriff); as long as the citizens of the state have a process for passing and for rescinding laws in that state I see it as exceptionally dangerous and the act of the LEO itself unconstitutional, for any one LEO (even if his heart is in the right place) to take it upon himself to decide a particular law is "unconstitutional" or to decide that an existing law "doesn't go far enough".

Making those kinds of decisions are why we have a representative democracy. Edited August 20, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

This is a fairly old story.  This happened near my old neck of the woods in Florida and I still have several friends down in that area including a good friend who is connected to law enforcement in Liberty County.  I've been told that there was no policy telling officers not to enforce the concealed weapon statute, that the Sheriff was good friends with the brother of the arrested individual, the guy arrested was a convicted felon, and the sheriff tried to fire the deputy for cooperating with the FDLE investigation.  Sheriff Finch arrived at the jail with Parrish's brother, told the booking officer to release Parrish, took the booking file, and struck Parrish's name from the booking log.  This claim that Parrish was not booked in is an important point due to the way the law is written and it sounds to me as if Parrish had been booked in.  The arresting officer submitted a charging document, a booking sheet had been filled out, his name was added to the booking log, his property had been collected, and he had been placed in a cell.  That is the booking process.

I am actually in contact with a local newspaper reporter whom I've asked for more info, but at this point, I am convinced this is nothing more than a case of "good ol' boy" corruption and the sheriff is hiding behind the Second Amendment claim to shed heat.  

I just can't help but wonder how many folks who see no problem with an elected sheriff choosing to ignore a law dealing with the Second Amendment are the same ones who will raise hell if an elected official chooses to ignore immigration or drug laws on similar ethical/constitutional grounds.

You raise good points, ET, but I have more respect for the judgement of a local sheriff than I do most congressmen and the

current president.

 

"The events began when Floyd Eugene Parrish, a Florida resident, was arrested and detained by one of Finch’s deputies for carrying a firearm without a permit on March 8th, 2013. In the state of Florida, this lands you a 3rd degree felony charge. Finch released Parrish because, in his assessment, Parrish was not a violent criminal and was acting innocuously. Finch called the clerk and told her not to draw up arrest documents until he was there to assess the situation. Note, Parrish had not been officially booked into jail- only detained."

 

Not knowing the process like you do, it appears to me he wanted to review this event before any arrest was made, due to the deputy's

history. Whether or not that is the correct action to take may be another matter, altogether. It could very well be a "good ole boy"

situation down there, but until I read that somewhere, I couldn't convict the sheriff.

[tnguy]

The sky in my world is blue.

The thing is, there are plenty of things that should be against the law that cops should be able to use their discretion on. It ain't a matter of looking the other way, it's a matter of discretion. A good example would be moving violations. We need traffic laws for order, but does that mean the officer should be left with no choice of discretion? There was a time where cops were respected because they didnt haul every little punk off to jail; they just told them to straighten the hell up or else next time they're going to jail. It isn't a matter of stupid laws 100% of the time, it's about sensible enforcement.

 

Then you end up with the situation where if you have a nice rack or you're the nephew of Senator Whassname, you pick up significantly less tickets than us regular slobs. If there is any discretion to be applied, it should be written into the law.

[tnguy]

Putting aside this particular (and apparently corrupt Sheriff); as long as the citizens of the state have a process for passing and for rescinding laws in that state I see it as exceptionally dangerous and the act of the LEO itself unconstitutional, for any one LEO (even if his heart is in the right place) to take it upon himself to decide a particular law is "unconstitutional" or to decide that an existing law "doesn't go far enough".

Making those kinds of decisions are why we have a representative democracy.

 

True. And if someone isn't doing their job, they should be held to account by their superiors. I just think we all need to exercise our own minds on matters rather than automatically bow to "authority". Of course, one could still make the pragmatic decision to enforce an unconstitutional law.

 

But that's really outside the scope of this thread given the new information.

Edited August 20, 2013 by tnguy

[TMF]

Then you end up with the situation where if you have a nice rack or you're the nephew of Senator Whassname, you pick up significantly less tickets than us regular slobs. If there is any discretion to be applied, it should be written into the law.

You're confusing corruption with discretion. Can it be abused? Of course. When it can be proven as corruption then by all means we should address it. There are lots of good laws that aren't automatically enforced with citations, arrests and court appearances. A cop simply telling you "don't do that" is good enough sometimes.

[RobertNashville]

True. And if someone isn't doing their job, they should be held to account by their superiors. I just think we all need to exercise our own minds on matters rather than automatically bow to "authority". Of course, one could still make the pragmatic decision to enforce an unconstitutional law.
 
But that's really outside the scope of this thread given the new information.

I don't necessaily think we should bow to authoruty but there is a difference between "joe citizen" and "Joe SHERIFF" making that choice. ;)

What I mean is that there is a difference, I think, anyway, between an average citizen thinking or deciding that a law isn't "Constitutional" and deciding not to obey it (or deciding that a law or "the laws" don't go far enough) and a sworn officer who has arrest powers deciding the same; the latter being pretty dangerous IMHO.

As a private citizen, I have the option of ignoring/not obeying a law that has been passed (if, of course, I am willing to face the possible repercussions of that decision) but in that case, my decision affects no one by myself...I also can take action through my elected state (or fed) legislators or even run for office to effect a change in the laws of the State.