Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Would Someone Let Him Know


I ran into a friend yesterday and he told me that he attended a Melina Kennedy fundraiser last week where Frank Anderson made an appearance. Would someone get on the phone and let that guy know that he can't campaign for himself or anyone else in his uniform. That means not going to political events in uniform, not going to political events in uniform, and most importantly, not going to political events in uniform.

Every time he does show up to one of Kennedy's events in uniform, he is committing a misdemeanor.

Not good to have a candidate for prosecutor harboring a criminal Sheriff.

22 Comments:

At 12:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

code citation please??

 
At 12:21 PM, Anonymous morgan kaela said...

wasn't that at a bar? i don't think they are supposed to wear their uniforms in a bar too...

 
At 12:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If that is the case, why doesn't Prosecutor Brizzi charge him? The reason is, there is absolutely no prohibition against an elected Sheriff wearing his uniform at political events

 
At 1:05 PM, Blogger Brody said...

Another example of how ridiculous people are. To quote the smartest comment ever, "There is absolutely no prohibition against an elected Sheriff wearing his uniform at political events."

IC 3-14-1-6
Solicitation, challenge, or performance of election function by state police department employee, police officer, or firefighter
Sec. 6. (a) A state police department employee or a police officer or firefighter (including a special duty, auxiliary, or volunteer police officer or firefighter) of a political subdivision who recklessly:
(1) solicits votes or campaign funds;
(2) challenges voters; or
(3) performs any other election related function;
while wearing any identifying insignia or article of clothing that is part of an official uniform or while on duty commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) This section does not prohibit any of the following:
(1) A state police department civilian employee from voting while on duty.
(2) A police officer or firefighter from voting while wearing any
part of an official uniform or while on duty.
(3) An individual described in subsection (a) from consenting to a photograph (or other visual depiction) of the individual wearing any part of the individual's official uniform appearing in an advertisement in support of a candidate or political party.
(4) An individual from serving as a pollbook holder under IC 3-6-6-36.
(5) A police officer wearing any identifying insignia or article of clothing that is part of an official uniform or while on duty from serving as an absentee ballot courier appointed under IC 3-11.5-4-22.

If you need me to do any more legal research for Frank or Melina, let me know.

 
At 1:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sheriff Anderson should turn himself in and pay the price for breaking the rules. Melina Kennedy's website has the evidence of Anderson breaking the law on her front page. Another BRILLIANT move by the Kennedy/Anderson camp.

 
At 1:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight. The Sheriff is breaking the law and it is happening at events for the lady running for prosecutor??? Who are these people??? Why aren't they getting in trouble???

 
At 2:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am challenging ANY Republican to make this charge in public?

Cry, cry, cry. Lose, lose, lose. Cry some more.

One party county.

 
At 2:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brody, I appreciate you listing the section of the Indiana Code that appears to deal with this issue. However, I do not believe that this applies to an elected Sheriff. If, as you contend, this does apply, then why has Prosecutor Brizzi not brought charges against the Sheriff?

 
At 5:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the comment challenging one republican to make this charge in public. What do you think the story just did. It charged in public that Anderson is breaking the law. The arrogance on behalf of every democratic office holder, or candidate is insulting to the voters in this county.

 
At 5:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry. One credible Republican.

Yeah, they're not going to.

That's what I thought.

 
At 5:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, when you say every "democratic" office holder, with a small "d," you therein refering to EVERY officeholder.

Ignorant.

 
At 10:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

any lawyer would tell you that this statute clearly does not apply to anderson. come on matt, you can do better than this...by the way, were you upset that brizzi used cops in his ads in 2002 or were you still wetting the bed then?? grow some and come back to the debate...

 
At 10:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

brody: go to law school. you will learn there that the sheriff is a constitutional office not an officer under this statute. then come back and start talking about the facts... like carl brizzi's record.

 
At 1:48 PM, Blogger Brody said...

First off, Matt, who works for the Brizzi camp has nothing to do with this blog. Nice try though.

Second, I think it is great that all of these supposed Democratic Party people are so evil, and immoral in their comments. Just goes to show you what the party is made up of.

I am just posting on things I hear. This story had nothing to do with Carl Brizzi, yet almost every comment on the post tries to make fun of, or criticize him.

The post has to do with what appears to be a criminal act by a person that is supposed to enforce the law.

Take it for what you will. I have yet to see anything that says this law does not apply to the Sheriff. As I read it, all officers are included. There are no exceptions and no other Indiana Code sites listed that would make it ok for a Sheriff to do so.

 
At 2:02 PM, Anonymous Loki said...

Brody, you should know by now how Democrats think (and therefore act). When something threatens their "camp", they do what they can to divert attention from the issue at hand. Nice try fellas..

 
At 4:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brody, you seem like a somewhat intelligent person, albeit misguided, but intelligent nonetheless. That being said, I don’t think that everything in the Indiana Code can be interpreted in the cut and dry manner that you seem to believe it can. Now the spirit of that particular section of the IC is clearly to prevent a person from using his/her position as a law enforcement officer as a way to intimidate voters at the polls, or from soliciting campaign contributions from those that she/he supervises. I hope we can agree that IC 3-14-1-6 was not written as a way to prevent public safety officials from supporting the candidate of their choice.

 
At 5:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Denise Moore. Denise Moore. Denise Moore. Denise Moore. Denise Moore.

 
At 6:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

FYI - All Concerned

I have researched this several times and this is summary of my findings.

I attach a copy of the two relevant statutes pertaining to the prohibition about campaigning while in uniform.

1. IC 36-8-10-11(c) states:

A county police officer may not be dismissed, demoted, or temporarily suspended because of political affiliation nor after the officer's probationary period, except as provided in this section. An officer may:
(1) be a candidate for elective office and serve in that office if elected;
(2) be appointed to an office and serve in that office if appointed; and
(3) except when in uniform or on duty, solicit votes or campaign funds for the officer or others.

2. IC 3-14-1-6 dealing with Election Campaign Violations states:

3-14-1-6 Solicitation, challenge, or performance of election function by state police department civilian employee, police officer or firefighter
Sec. 6. (a) A state police department employee or a police officer or firefighter (including a special duty, auxiliary, or volunteer police officer or firefighter) of a political subdivision who recklessly:
(1) solicits votes or campaign funds;
(2) challenges voters; or
(3) performs any other election related function;
while wearing any identifying insignia or article of clothing that is part of an official uniform or while on duty
commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) This section does not prohibit any of the following:
(1) A state police department civilian employee from voting while on duty.
(2) A police officer or firefighter from voting while wearing any part of an official uniform or while on duty.
(3) An individual described in subsection (a) from consenting to a photograph (or other visual
depiction) of the individual wearing any part of the individual's official uniform appearing in an advertisement in support of a candidate or political party.
(4) An individual from serving as a pollbook holder under IC 3-6-6-36.
(5) A police officer wearing any identifying insignia or article of clothing that is part of an official uniform or while on duty from serving as an absentee ballot courier appointed under IC 3-11.5-4-22.

An elected Sheriff is NOT a merit employee subject to the Merit Board statutes under IC 36-8-10-1, et. Therefore it would appear that the prohibition against campaigning while in uniform found in IC 36-8-10-11(c) would NOT apply to the elected Sheriff.

The second statute specifically refers to "employees, police officers and firefighters" employed by the state or governmental sub-divisions. Those individuals are prohibited from campaigning while in uniform. The question then becomes is the Sheriff of a county an "employee, police officer or firefighter"? The Sheriff is an elected constitutional officer of the State of Indiana and therefore is NOT an employee under any definition of that term. The same would apply to the generic term of "police officer or firefighter".

I have searched all of the reported Indiana cases and cannot find any that answers this specific question as to whether any of these statutes would apply to an elected Sheriffs running for re-election.

Statutes are to be construed at to their plain meaning in the absence of case authority to the contrary. It appears on their face that both statutes would apply to non-office holders and would not therefore by their express terms apply to an elected Sheriff.

Respectfully,

Howard Williams
Legal Deputy for the
Indiana Sheriffs

 
At 6:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i just wish you guys would learn how to write in an entertaining way....

 
At 8:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks to Howard for providing some insight into the kneejerk junk on this blog. Maybe the people at the Marion County Republican party should focus on the issues instead of silly stuff like this...or maybe they don't want to focus on Brizzi's actual record!

 
At 1:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or Milena's lack thereof...

 
At 2:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is Milena?

Who is Meisenhelder?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home