Supporting the litigation challenging New York’s sanctuary legislation

The Office of Sheriff is one of the oldest and most important constitutional offices in our system of government. An elected sheriff is directly accountable to the people of his or her county, and that responsibility should not be diminished by unnecessary restrictions imposed by the State.

I believe an elected sheriff should have the ability to determine how best to protect the people who elected him or her. When appropriate and lawful, that includes the ability to work cooperatively with federal law-enforcement agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Sheriffs are elected by the people. We take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this state and nation. We should be trusted to make informed decisions about public safety based upon the circumstances, needs, and challenges facing our individual communities.

While I currently believe I do not have the legal standing to be a party to the lawsuit recently filed against the state, I stand firmly in support of the elected sheriffs who do. They have every right to ask the courts to determine whether New York State has gone too far in restricting the lawful authority of locally elected sheriffs.

The state has characterized these matters primarily as issues involving civil immigration enforcement. However, federal immigration law also establishes criminal offenses related to improper entry and unlawful re-entry into the United States. Title 8 of the United States Code, Sections 1325 and 1326, address those offenses. While local sheriffs do not have primary responsibility for enforcing federal immigration law, they should not be prohibited from lawfully cooperating with the federal agencies that do.

Cooperation among law-enforcement agencies is not new, nor should it be controversial. Federal, state, county, and local agencies have a long history of working together to protect the public. Criminal activity does not stop at jurisdictional boundaries, and reasonable cooperation among law-enforcement agencies should not be artificially restricted by them.

If an elected sheriff determines that entering into a lawful agreement with a federal agency would improve public safety, enhance communication, provide additional resources, or better protect the people of that county, the state should not be able to simply take that authority away through a blanket prohibition without a legitimate legal basis.

Reasonable people can and will disagree about immigration policy. That debate will continue. But this lawsuit raises a more fundamental question about the constitutional role and independence of the Office of Sheriff:

Who should have the authority to make lawful law enforcement decisions on behalf of a county—the elected sheriff who is directly accountable to the people, or the state imposing a one-size-fits-all restriction on every county?

There is also a serious question about whether a State law that broadly prohibits locally elected Sheriffs from cooperating with federal law enforcement agencies improperly interferes with the lawful exercise of local law-enforcement authority. That is precisely the type of question that should be determined through the judicial process.

Unfortunately, the current direction of New York State government has repeatedly placed restrictions on law enforcement that, in my view, have made it more difficult to protect our communities. Bail Reform, the HALT Act, and now Local Crimes, Local Cops each have significant consequences for law enforcement and the people we are sworn to protect.

We must never lose sight of the innocent victims and law-abiding citizens who are affected by these policies. Public policy should never lose sight of public safety.

I recently submitted a resolution to the Greene County Legislature supporting the litigation challenging New York’s sanctuary legislation. I am proud that the resolution received unanimous support from our legislators, from both sides of the aisle. That bipartisan support demonstrates that this issue is not simply about political party—it is about the fundamental responsibility of government to protect its citizens and respect the authority of locally elected officials.

I will continue to respect the judicial process and whatever determination the courts ultimately make. But until that determination is made, I believe it is important for sheriffs across this state to speak clearly and consistently: The Office of Sheriff must remain accountable to the people, independent in the execution of its lawful duties, and free to work cooperatively with other law-enforcement agencies when doing so serves the public interest and enhances public safety.

I stand with my fellow elected Sheriffs who have brought this challenge forward, and I firmly believe in the principle they are defending: the people elect their sheriffs, and the constitutional authority of those sheriffs should not be diminished without lawful and compelling justification.

‍

Sheriff Peter Kusminsky

Greene County, NY

‍