LOL Scott,
The state of Alabama has 67 counties...which means there are only 67 Sheriff's who are all member's of a very important and powerful lobbying group called the Al. Sheriffs Association led by a very prominent and powerful lobbyist Bobby Timmons.
Jay is well founded in his concern and fear. The other Sheriffs and the association are undoubtedly closely watching this action to see how it pans out.
In my own opinion, and I am not an attorney, after reading and studying the state's statutes regarding the bond/bail issues, The sheriff in question is violating state law under title 13a, section 15. Nowhere in that section does it address or bestow upon the sheriff's department the authority to act as a bail bond company. It does not have the power to set bonds...those are done by the judges.
So my legal arguement and grounds for my suit, were I in Jay's shoes, would be that the sheriff has crossed the lines from that of public service to private business, and since there isn't any lawful authority granted by the state legislature for the sheriff to engage in commercial retail practices, the sheriff has exceeded his authority.
To me, he has put the proverbial cart before the horse. There has to be a legislative action authorizing a county sheriff to engage in commerical bail bonds before a sheriff can actually do it...that authority is currently absent under our current statutes.
The question here for Jay, is suing that particular sheriff worth it when measured against the costs, time, energy, and political ramifications such a suit would incur ? What Jay should do, is form a lobbyist group of the local bonding companies in that area and all of the bonding companies file a class action lawsuit against the county...not the sheriff. Remember, the sheriff is elected...if he costs the tax payers money, then he becomes unpopular.
The other thing to understand is that particular county is economically depressed. It is mostly agricultural, poor, uneducated, and extremely remote. The largest employer/cash crop is Methamphetamine and Marijuana. So the sheriff is attempting to be resourceful in trying to find ways to generate new revenues for his county.
What we don't need in this state though, and this is a real possibility as a side effect, is a state wide war between the bonding companies and the sheriffs association. Both groups need each other to exist, and for the most part the current system works ok with some minor issues here and there, but overall nothing really major.
Politically this state is extremely small. After some thought on this matter, I tend to agree with the above suggestion of having an attorney send a formal inquiry to the state's attorney general's office asking for the clarification on the sheriff's authority to engage in this action. Specifically, what state statute authorizes the sheriff to do this ? Upon whatever answer you get, I would then re-assess the situation and consult wth the attorney and go from there.
|
