Sheriff Indicted For Selling Marijuana On Duty Won't Lose Job Unless Convicted

Source: Huffington Post

ST. LOUIS — A southern Illinois sheriff charged with trafficking marijuana, including while on duty, will not lose his job unless he's convicted or resigns, county officials said Wednesday.

Federal agents arrested Gallatin County Sheriff Raymond Martin, 46, last month at his office on three counts of marijuana distribution and two counts of carrying a firearm _ his service weapon _ while trafficking drugs. A grand jury in Benton, Ill., indicted Martin on the charges Tuesday.

County Board Chairman Randy Drone said that, as an elected official, Martin was legally entitled to keep his job and collect his $40,440-a-year salary "until he resigns or is convicted." Martin, whose seat is up for election next year, also got his $6,500 annual stipend from the state last month.

snip

But federal prosecutors claim he supplied a drug dealer and then threatened to kill him when the man said he wanted out, and allegedly pledged to use his authority to shut down rival drug traffickers.



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/03/sheriff-indicted-for-sell_n_211100.html

Law officials who break the law, caught red handed get to keep their jobs. But the average American will get fired for looking the wrong way, or getting sick.....

This man should be on unpaid leave until it is settled.

This is absolutely insane....this

Innocent until proven guilty.

to threaten someone...I would say I agree with you. Those are serious allegations, he is wearing a police uniform and he at the minimum should be sitting behind a desk or on leave.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean there is evidence and testimony to back up that allegation. I'm talking about intimidating the competition. Either way, there is some abuse of power going on here.

He should be on leave until the matter is resolved.

To illustrate: if a day-care provider is creditably charged with child molestation, would you support keeping that person on the job until the trial was over? Would you continue sending your child to that day-care center while the matter made its way through court?

For example, if President Clinton were caught selling drugs or assaulting and injuring a subordinate, then time to step aside. If he resisted, it would be accomplished by bringing strong political pressure to bear, from within the Democratic Party - and I have little doubt that would happen, even if for nakedly selfish reasons.

If, though, he was accused of (for example) lying under oath, then no. In that and other cases of political transgressions, the political resolution as established by the Constitution is the proper course, and that provides that the President remain in power until found guilty of a "high crime or misdemeanor."

One must presume your hypothetical also extends to the actual criminal activities of Nixon. So I'll ask your own question back to you: should Nixon have left office before he had a trial? As you know, he did.

I'd be interested in your answer to the day-care hypothetical I posed in my previous post, too.

He would have been within his rights to remain in office until the charges were actually made and prosecuted. His act was arguably noble, but not required.

As for the daycare scenario- it's really not the same. While accusations against daycare providers can be (and have been in the past) politically motivated, the effect of those charges is not to deprive the people of their elected representative or official. Take the case of Joe Arpaio. There are a number of individual or well organized people who would like to get him out of office, who have been unable to do so at the polls thus far. If all they have to do to get their way is to make "credible allegations (according to whom?)" then they can disenfranchise the voters of Maricopa County. By the same token, the KKK in Forsythe County Georgia could do the same thing to any black official who won an election.

They told him he could go quietly or he could go ugly, because he was going to lose his impeachment trial.

As for being without an elected official sheriff - it's not a big deal. The deputy steps up until the storm has passed. The governor can also make a temporary appointment.

Minnesota seems to have gotten by with one less senator for the past half year without noticeable evidence of disaster. Same with Massachusetts. Same with West Virginia.

Same with Illinois, New York, Arizona, and Alaska last year, for that matter.

Not trying to be flip here, but elected officials aren't as big a deal to most people as they are to politicos like you and me who hang out on political forums.

You still didn't answer whether you'd continue sending your child to a daycare center where one of the providers had been creditably accused of molestation. I know I wouldn't.

You still didn't answer whether you'd continue sending your child to a daycare center where one of the providers had been creditably accused of molestation. I know I wouldn't.

Prior to the McMartin case and the one in Ohio, I would have simply agreed with you. I'm also not completely objective because I despise the very notion of daycare, even though some kids seem to enjoy it. I understand that there are practical realities in conflict with my objection, but in my family we managed to do without daycare by everyone pitching in. It helps when your parents are retired or the child's grandmothers are homemakers.

Having lived through the McMartin case and followed it closely, I would probably come to the defense of the daycare provider absent a video or medical support for the allegation. Even then, I watch enough Law And Order to first suspect a parent or family member of the act being projected onto the daycare provider. But as I said, I can't be completely objective because the kindergarten my family sent our kids to was owned by people well known to us, was very open with near constant parental involvement, and I would have quit work and gone and lived in the woods before I sent one of our kids to a stranger situation or the local public school. My first fear would not be of the providers though, it has always been the other children.

:sarcasm:

.... then democracy would be in the toilet.

the feds are lying and made up the story, and it's proven in a court of law?

Just because "the average American" gets screwed, doesn't mean it is "right" to abrogate our system of justice.

Presumption of innocence isn't a convenience, it's a right.

If he's found guilty (and he may well be, but that's for a jury, not me or anyone on the sidelines) then he'll have much more to worry about than unemployment.

and not a whole hell of a lot has changed. during the mid 80`s the sheriff was a convicted felon who served time in prison. the economy down there pretty much consists of hunting and prostitution,and now it seems drugs.

The fact that he has been charged should be sufficient. I mean how much confidence can the citizens he is supposed to serve going to have in him.

SMDH

she had some flyers done up for her and her husbands real estate business. The county DA did not prosecute on some kind of small misdeameanor - mal-feasance in office - or something like that. After she resigned from office, he gave a press release saying that her losing her job was penalty enough so he would not trouble the grand jury over the matter. Texas sux, I'm telling you.

He probably had the flyers loaded in her car after telling her what time his office was going to cart them out to the dumpster - if she wanted them, since he had no use for them as evidence.

He got 350 years. Most of that came from the gun charges for his service weapon.

I have a name for it:
Scooter and Cooch
In this Cpp Dramedy, Scooter and Cooch are the same person. Just different names for different jobs.

40k per year? Does this strike anyone else as a rather low price to be putting ones life on the line for? Even with an extra 6.5k per year from the state.

I suspect that if you want clean offical's, you have to pay them.

I would disagree. Criminality and a lack of character causes crime and corruption.

However, in this case his salary is not low. His salary is well above the demographics for the county he serves and lives in. There are only 6500 residents in Gallatin County and the median household income is $26K. The MOST expensive house currently on the market in Shawneetown is $75,000. The most expensive nearby house is a 5br 2 ba on 10 acres for $400K, with the next highest priced home at $199K. So assuming that the sheriff's spouse doesn't work, he would qualify to buy one of the most expensive houses in the area.