Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 4012 AMERICAN POLICE BEAT: MARCH 2016 iffs hold political office, the deputies do not enjoy the same protections as county government workers when it comes to political activity or free speech violations. Three deputies and a jail counselor took former Meck- lenburg County Sheriff Dan- iel Bailey to court. In their lawsuit they said they were all fired because they declined a request to contribute to Bailey’s politi- cal campaign. The state’s high court said that county sheriffs hold an elected office established by the state Constitution, and they’re recognized in state law as having sole authority over how their offices are run. While they get county funds, the sheriff’s office is apparently not part of the county. “In addition, the sheriff has singular authority over his or her deputies and employees and is responsible for their actions,” the Supreme Court opinion said, adding “a deputy sheriff or employee of a sheriff’s office is not a county employee.” Seasoned observers and the lawyer for the depu- ties and counselor that sued Sheriff Bailey said this ruling will be significant as North Carolina sheriffs have now been given the green light to fire personnel for a variety of reasons. Harvey Kennedy, a Win- ston-Salem lawyer for the plaintiffs, released a state- ment saying the ruling could allow other sheriffs to fire deputies over political affili- ations or contributions. “My clients never expected their careers to end because they refused to make political contributions to the Sheriff’s campaign,” Kennedy said. But the sheriffs obviously love the ruling. Eddie Caldwell, executive vice president and general counsel for the North Caro- lina Sheriffs’ Association said this would make it easier to weed out undesirables and malcontents. “These court decisions ensure that when the people of a county elect a sheriff, the sheriff has a right to employ deputies who will be loyal to that sheriff and will carry out the mandate of the citizens,” he said. Continued from page one You will give me your money or you’re fired A court ruling has Pittsburgh police officers reeling. The court ruled that Pittsburgh cops must be city residents if they want to work for the city’s police department. The Commonwealth Court decided in the case of the City of Pittsburgh v. Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, that an arbitration panel exceeded its authority by allowing the Fraternal Order of Police to bargain over a residency requirement. The court rules the arbitrator was in viola- tion of both the Civil Ser- vice Act and the Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter. “The arbitrator’s award in this case would require the city to commit an illegal act by violating its home rule charter,” Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter wrote for the 4-3 majority. “In other words, absent statewide legislation pro- hibiting a municipality from imposing a residency re- quirement for its employees, the adoption of an amend- ment to a home rule charter requiring such residency by the electorate removes an arbitration panel’s author- ity to issue an award that contravenes such a charter provision.” It really comes down to one word. In 2012, an amendment to the Civil Ser- vice Act changed its wording to say a Pennsylvania city “may” require a police offi- cer to be a resident instead of the previous wording which was “shall be a resident.” But Pittsburgh voters ap- proved an amendment to the city’s home rule charter requiring residency for po- lice officers. The long and short of it is pretty simple. With- out a state law that undoes residency requirements for police officers, voters get the final say on the issue as the result of “home-rule” charters. Essentially, if the F.O.P. and other police associations want to challenge residency requirements, they will have to do it at the state house rather than city by city. Percentage of Minneapolis police officers that lived outside the city in 2014: 94 percent Gains reversed on residency  (DVWZRRG'ULYH‡6WHUOLQJ,/  3KRQH ‡)D[   &UDIWHG:LWK3ULGH ,QWKH86$ -$1 /$69(*$6 %227+  )LQH/HDWKHU%HOWVDQG$FFHVVRULHV &KHPLFDO +ROGHUV %DWRQ +ROGHUV +DQGFXII &DVHV %DGJH ,' +ROGHUV 5DGLR +ROGHUV &HOO3KRQH +ROGHUV 'XW\%HOWV ‡)XOO\OLQHGRXQFH ‡ 'UXPG\HGIXOOJUDLQ(QJOLVK%ULGOHOHDWKHU ‡6ROLGEUDVVVQDSV 6DP%URZQH6WUDS ‡µZLGHVKRXOGHUVWUDS ‡ 7ZRORRSVZLWK'ULQJVWRVHFXUHWRµEHOW ‡%26721/($7+(56(//672'($/(5621/