Archive for the ‘Community Interaction’ Category
April 26th, 2010 | 
Author: The following is the letter returned to the Montana Shooting Sports Association in response to their 2010 Questions to the Sheriff letter. As this letter addresses many issues of interest to the public, I’m posting it here on-line as well.
Sheriff Castle
Montana Shooting Sports Association April 7, 2010
P.O. Box 4924
Missoula, M.T. 59806
Ref: Questions to Sheriff
Attn: Tom Martin
Dear Tom,
I received your questions form and follow up information per our recent phone conversation. While this format is an improvement to questions I have answered before, I believe limiting my answers to a simple agree or disagree would still lead to a misrepresentation of the issues and my position on them. These are complicated matters and I continue to believe a questionnaire oversimplifies them. I recall a previous question from this organization that asked in general if a weapon could be displayed harmlessly. I agreed, but then the same wording was then applied to someone holding a gun or displaying it in confrontation, which of course I believe you and I would agree, it was not harmless at that point.
As you are aware, I am not one to evade issues, but just the opposite. I appreciate every opportunity to speak about the importance of the only elected office of law enforcement, your elected Sheriff of Cascade County. In Cascade County, it is also a merged office of elected Coroner. I will take this opportunity to answer your following 10 questions.
1. Sheriff top law enforcement in county. We believe that the elected county sheriff is the top law enforcement official in the county, including that the sheriff has more authority than state and federal law enforcement?
Sheriff Castle’s response: Certainly our constitution recognizes the special trust and confidence granted by the citizens of the United States through the “Right to Vote” and electing their Sheriff. I believe that right to vote is the essence of America’s republican form of government making that Sheriff accountable to the electorate. With that being said, in the years I have been your Sheriff, in Cascade County, I have never seen “the feds” or “State Police” knock on anyone’s door to seize property without there being a full legal process and/or a court order. I am also confident that as long as I am your Sheriff, the chance of that happening here in the future is zero.
2. Suit in federal courts. A Wyoming Sheriff and the Wyoming Sheriffs Association recently prevailed in a lawsuit in federal court asserting that federal law enforcement officials could not act in, or even enter, the county without the permission of the county Sheriff. The federal court ruled in agreement with that assertion. Would you support a lawsuit in Montana asserting the same point?
Sheriff Castle’s response: There are different laws in every state in regard to the authority of law enforcement. There is substantial common law and similarities that legal decisions in any state will inevitably affect persuasive legal precedence. However, it would be speculative and inappropriate for me to commit to a law suit without reason or cause in this state. My answer to the next question will elaborate more.
3. Law Enforcement Cooperation. Many Montanans, both citizens and people in public office, are concerned about the lack of accountability of federal officers conducting law enforcement operations in Montana. In Montana, we know the county Sheriff and he/she is elected and accountable locally. We believe the Sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in the county and ought to have the tools to implement that status. MSSA will offer a bill to require federal officers to obtain the written permission of the local Sheriff before conducting an arrest, search, or seizure in the Sheriff’s county. There are exceptions for federal reservations, Border Patrol, Immigration and Naturalization Service, close pursuit, when a federal officer witnesses a crime that requires an immediate response, if the Sheriff or his personnel are under investigation, and other necessary exceptions. This bill was passed by the legislature in 1995, but vetoed by the Governor.
Sheriff Castle’s response; I applaud your interest and patriotism in upholding the Constitution. You state there are exceptions, such as in Montana another form of government granted legislatively is the “self governing” which is granted to our larger cities such as Great Falls. Although Great Falls is in the county, I believe under that form of elected government by the people, the Chief of Police should reserve authority in determining his/her relationship within that jurisdiction. Keeping the power with the people at the local level is foremost in our constitution and also adopted in our American Creed. It is clear on government being by the people and for the people, which includes setting locally the constitutional form of government they want. I take a firm stand on the local voice of the people having a say with their Sheriff and if they choose a self governing process in a city, their Chief of police. Of course I will always uphold law and especially any law that would preserve that authority with a Sheriff or in the form of self government by the people within a city, their Chief. This sets us apart from other countries. This is a country that will govern its rulers instead of rulers governing the people. I want to thank you and every other citizen who are vigilant in forming our national and local government policies. I will support and help you or any citizen, do so with a foundation of good information, not fear, at-least not the sort of fear that can cause you to focus only on some possibilities and overlook the probabilities.
I personally agree as a nation, we sometimes lose sight of the foundation our founding fathers put forth. We are taxed at a national level, then our own money comes back to us with strings attached, eroding the liberty and independence that is critical to the balance of power. I believe that our rights will be lost through poorly conceived taxation and loss of control from bad information far sooner than the “feds” will ever gain through force. Again, I wish more people would be involved as you are in the future of our government and as the elected Sheriff I will stand ready to respond on the citizens’ behalf. Should some State or Fed try to seize your wealth or liberty without just cause, then yes! I will protect you!
4. Firearms. Some law enforcement professionals believe that guns outside the hands of law enforcement personnel constitute a hazard for law enforcement officers. Others believe that the more citizens who are prepared to provide for their own personal protection the safer everyone is, including law enforcement personnel. Do you agree with the first attitude or the second?
Sheriff Castle’s response: I support the Second Amendment and the right for law-abiding citizens to lawfully purchase and possess firearms. I would oppose any action by any entity that would infringe upon those rights.
5. Shooting Ranges. Some people claim that established shooting ranges provide citizens with safe and suitable places to shoot and thereby incidents of questionable or irresponsible shooting. Do you agree, and will you actively support retention and development of shooting ranges?
Sheriff Castle’s response: A safe and legally established shooting range is a good thing for many different reasons. As I am sure you understand, I could not sacrifice other Sheriff’s duties to solely and actively pursue one above the other, but I will pledge on record in support of shooting ranges.
6. Law Enforcement Training. Law enforcement training sometimes instructs officers to treat every armed person as a felony suspect for officer safety. Other training acknowledges that many law abiding citizens possess and carry firearms, and that these citizens are not likely to be a threat to law enforcement officers. Do you lean towards the former standard, or the latter?
Sheriff Castle’s response: This is a very broad question, but I will try to answer in a concise manner. Law enforcements response is to crime. With this country experiencing attacks including foreign and domestic we would do our citizens an injustice if we did not use caution. In using caution, anything less than being professional should not be tolerated.
I can tell you that no law enforcement officer ever wants to be put in a position of shooting anyone or injuring an innocent citizen. But the fact of the matter is; we are the ones expected to respond and placed in all kinds of situations inherently dangerous in the line of duty. I know our training is much better today than it was years ago and we are always looking at positive ways we can improve. A good way to ensure professionalism is preserving the local law enforcement authority, which is what you are advocating, but it needs to start locally. Not allowing our elected Sheriff’s to be governed by the dictates of another locally elected official, office or department within government. Thus, in my Office of Sheriff/Coroner, make me accountable to the people.
7. Concealed weapon permit holders exempt from prohibited places. There will be a bill before the next session of the legislature to exempt people who have applied for and obtained concealed weapon permits [Sheriff-certified good guys and gals] from the prohibition on exercising their permits in the “prohibited places” currently in Montana law, bars, banks and public building.
Sheriff Castle’s response: This as you have stated is a legislative issue and I will always support the will of the people. Without seeing the Bill in written form it would be tough to comment on and lends me to ask more questions, than to give answers. I can say your assessment of “Sheriff-certified etc..” oversimplifies the process and could be perceived as a fool proof safety net, which would be like saying guns are capable of pulling their own trigger. I personally believe that when government creates the paper or plastic permit for a constitutional right, we are then lead into many other questions. Will we then exempt a holder of this permit to possibly violate a property owner’s right if they so choose not to let someone armed in their home or business?
8. Harmonizing concealed weapon permit [CWP] requirements. Since 1991, a CWP has not been required for a law abiding person to carry a concealed weapon in 99.4% of Montana – outside the limits of cities or towns. With over a decade of experience that not requiring CWPs, for nearly all of Montana has not created any problems, we propose legislation to harmonize the law so a permit will not longer be required for a law abiding person to carry a concealed weapon in the remaining small part of Montana, inside cities and towns. We intend to leave the permitting process in place, so citizens who desire them may still obtain CWPs for travel to other states that recognize Montana CWPs and for firearm purchases at gun stores under the federal Brady law.
Sheriff Castle’s response: In your previous question #3, I stated that under our republican form of government, citizens are entitled various U.S. and State Constitutional rights and vote in determining the form of government that serves them. Cities and towns are self governing by the people who are in them. I will reiterate again, I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I don’t believe, CWP’s, offer or should offer more authority than what is allowed through our constitution. I would say as Sheriff of this county, if legislation was to conflict permit holders with the constitution, I could not support any CWP permit. I will always support the citizen’s right to bear arms.
9. Sheriff Richard Mack; “constitutional sheriff”. There has been a lot of publicity about former Sheriff Richard Mack of Arizona. Mack is an outspoken advocate that a sheriff takes an oath to uphold the state and federal constitutions, and is obligated to protect the people of the county from those who would infringe on the rights the people have reserved for themselves from governmental intrusion in those constitutions.
Sheriff Castle’s response; I take an oath to the U.S. and Montana constitutions. I have heard Sheriff Mack and agree with some of what he says and disagree with some of what he says. Sheriff Mack was elected once and never re-elected. I believe some people get him mixed up with Sheriff Joe Arpio in Arizona. Sheriff Arpio has been re-elected and re-elected by the people. I agree with a lot of Sheriff Arpio’s ideas. By now, Cascade County, it should be clear I did not take on the current county government practices, littered with poorly conceived strategies on public safety, because it was good politics. I could have played it safe, but I am here to serve you and the citizens and not any personal ambitions. A good leader does that and I believe that is the difference between Sheriff Joe and Mr. Mac.
10. Oathkeepers. A national organization called Oathkeepers is intended primarily for the law enforcement and military personnel, but includes anyone who has taken an oath to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution. Oathkeepers has a Website on which is a list of “Orders We Will Not Obey.” Do you agree with this list of “Orders We Will Not Obey?”
Sheriff Castle’s response; The Cascade County Sheriff/Coroner works for the electorate within his county, but the powers of Sheriff/Coroner are all conclusive and not bound by jurisdictional boundaries within that county elected. The philosophy of every Sheriff I know in Montana has been to pledge our Oath to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Montana. We are unified in this pledge and will not pledge to another oath.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to elaborate on your issues with my opinions. I would expand this opportunity to express my support for every person’s right to make personal decisions, including medical, family, business or the exercise of any freedom and liberty provided in our country. However, we all have a duty to be respectful of others and all rights. I do not believe someone should be allowed to recklessly endanger the lives of others in activities that endanger a community or threatens our people’s right to the pursuit to happiness. My duty is to protect you and keep your families safe.
In conclusion, I would encourage you and all citizens to continue striving for improvements and protect and preserve a better way of life in protecting our constitutional rights. I personally, as your elected Sheriff, have spoke across Montana and other States on the importance of preserving our Constitution and the Office of Sheriff. In this state, our representative democracy provides a built in system of checks and balances on the ultimate authority/power/duties by the Office of Sheriff. The public may directly remove an individual Sheriff for misfeasance or malfeasance of duty/authority while serving in Office.
However, statewide and especially, here locally in Cascade County, that very same Office of Sheriff has been eroded and constantly challenged by other elected officials, believing they control hiring and firing along with the day to day operation of this Office and protections it offers people. This undermines the balance and whole accountability of government. I answer to the people and not to the dictates of another elected office. People without the qualifications, knowledge or experience in public safety certainly would not be elected in law enforcement and should not then be able to contract the services or write policy and procedure for a Sheriff. If you believe in this, please contact me. Help me, ensure that people are not mis-lead or lose their voice in the elected Office of their Sheriff. It needs to start locally!
Thank you again for giving me this opportunity to answer your questions.
Your, Sheriff/Coroner
David Castle
Posted in 
I would like to thank the 67 concerned citizens of of Cascade County, as well as the members of my office staff and volunteer organizations, that attended last nights public meeting.
I believe the meeting was a success and having the opportunity to present the identified issues and then answer your questions and listen to your comments is what the Office of Sheriff is all about. Many good questions were asked and many well thought out comments were made and I want you to know that I truly appreciate your taking the time out of your busy schedules to listen and to participate in helping make this a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
As I stated last night, this is the first of many public meetings I will be conducting around Cascade County with the next meeting to be held on December 3rd, 2009 (Actual date will be December 2nd, 2009 – Updated 11/30/2009) . The location has yet to be determined but we will post it here on the website and let the media know as soon as it has been finalized.
I also want to make sure that I am answering your questions and addressing your concerns so I am opening up the comments section on this page to allow for the public to post their questions and concerns. My staff and I will review all of the posted questions and concerns and will attempt to address each at future public meetings and/or here on the website.
The presentation and handouts from last night’s meeting can be viewed below or be located in the Documents section of the website.
11-12-2009 Public Meeting Handout 1
11-12-2009 Public Meeting Handout 2
11-12-2009 Public Meeting Presentation
Sheriff David Castle