HOW WE SEE IT: Legislators Get Ready for Session

Arkansas’ General Assembly is a mere two weeks from convening in Little Rock. All those lawmakers elected or re-elected in November now get to go do what it is they pledged to do. For the sake of our state, we hope they’re up to the task.

As with any gathering of legislators, however, there will be some bad ideas tossed about. That’s OK. In a group dynamic, a lot of ideas have to be placed on the table before the deliberative process sifts the good from the bad. Perhaps it’s worth giving lawmakers a benefit of the doubt, accepting that even the bad ideas they put forth are done with the best of intentions.

We’re going to try. It will be challenging.

An example: State Rep. Denny Altes, a Republican from Fort Smith, has prefiled a bill to require federal law enforcement officers to get permission from a county sheriff in Arkansas before making any arrests or before conducting any search and seizure operations within that sheriff’s jurisdiction.

Federal agents who act without county permission would be prosecuted unless they’re enforcing customs and immigrations laws, the bill states. If a sheriff was thought to have a conflict of interest, the bill would require the feds to seek authorization from the state attorney general.

When we learned of Mr. Altes’ proposal, we were curious to understand his motivation, sure that one or two county sheriffs, at least, had asked him to seek such a new law.

Not at all.

Altes, speaking with a reporter, could not name a single sheriff who had talked with him about the proposal. In fact, he couldn’t even remember who asked him to file the legislation in the fi rst place.

Regardless, Altes says it’s a good idea because it requires better communication between federal agencies and local sheriffs.

The bill, however, is far from a good idea.

Foremost, does anyone believe a state has the authority to dictate what federal agents can and cannot do within their jurisdiction, which is the whole of the United States of America? Despite legitimate debates about states rights vs. federal control, this country is not a confederacy of states.

There’s already a lot of communication among federal agencies and local authorities about some of the law enforcement investigations going on within the state. While there’s always a bit of push and pull among state and federal agencies, no local sheriff’s have indicated a need for a law mandating notification.

Demanding such “permission” would also be a security concern. Let’s be honest here: It’s not unheard of for a sheriff or someone in his department to get caught playing both sides. While such corruption is rare, federal agents can ill-afford turning over sensitive information to locals who might compromise federal activities.

The feds often involve local law enforcement in a pending bust anyway when there’s a relationship built that allows it. Why should a state law demand notification for all 75 sheriffs in Arkansas? Let those sheriff’s offices earn the respect of federal agents by their actions. We’re convinced that communication can happen just fine without Altes’ involvement.

So, while we can respect any legislator tossing out an idea, we can likewise feel completely at ease suggesting lawmakers should not waste their limited, valuable time on them. This is one that should die quickly in committee.

But stay tuned. The legislative drama is about to begin. Remember, the laws they pass will impact each of us in some way. It’s worth paying attention.

Upcoming Events