Charles Adams: In support of sheriff


I am writing in support of Sheriff Garrett Wiggins. Consider the following hypothetical situation:

What if a New York billionaire sent lobbyists to convince the legislature to allow law enforcement SWAT teams to kick in doors of people anonymously accused of harboring 32-ounce sugary beverages? The accused then could be imprisoned without trial for as long as a year.

Would you want Sheriff Wiggins to simply enforce the law because it was passed? Or would you want him to look at the Constitution and recognize that you are guaranteed to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and guaranteed a right to a speedy trial?

The same applies to the current debate on gun control laws: “... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That’s pretty straightforward, and I applaud Sheriff Wiggins for realizing that.

Charles Adams

Prior Lake, Minn., and Steamboat Springs


Scott Wedel 4 years ago

I would expect that if a competent professional law enforcement officer had legal concerns that he would seek written legal advice from a licensed Colorado attorney.

I would not expect a competent professional sheriff to testify against a bill and after it passed to then say that he won't enforce it.


Cresean Sterne 4 years ago

Its not just the fact of enforcing the law but for me its just plainly the right thing to do. I am sure that there are quite a few families with children who would agree. Our Sherff should be leading by example, (especially in such a family oriented town)...not comeing up with excuses for not doing what the voters have asked of him. That one background or magazine check could be the one that stoppes a tragedy. Shouldnt the Sheriffs Dept. atleast give it a shot instead of shooting it down. Lastly, we are all community members here with great passion for our opinions and love for the community. I try too keep a very open mind twords all topics. There is no bashing, hatered or name callng twords anyone. Just opinons. (Yes Mark your words were heard). If my words were offensive in any way, I appologize. It was not my intention. I was only expressing my opinion.


Scott Wedel 4 years ago

Wiggins ran for Sheriff as a competent professional law enforcement officer. He did not run as a constitutional scholar that would provide a better interpretation of the Constitution that the courts. With his recent comments he has made it clear that he views himself as a constitutional scholar and he is qualified to decide which laws are unconstitutional and thus unenforceable. Thus, the public should consider his performance as a constitutional scholar if he chooses to run for reelection.

Nor is it the common view of Sheriffs that it is their job to interpret the Constitution:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The National Sheriffs’ Association supports the rights conferred by the Second Amendment and further recognizes the ultimate authority of the courts in interpreting the scope of those constitutional rights.


Scott Wedel 4 years ago

As for the specific scenario in the letter - if a blatantly unconstitutional measure as described in the letter was passed then Sheriff Wiggins would have any number of mainstream legal opinions advising him the new law was unconstitutional.

I do not want a right wing sheriff that depends upon the NRA for legal opinions on what laws to enforce. Nor do I want a left wing sheriff that depends upon the ACLU for legal opinions on what to enforce. I want a sheriff that lets the courts decide the constitutionality of laws and relies upon mainstream legal advice, ideally from the County Attorney, to answer questions of what is constitutional.


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.