St. Louis Public Safety Committee weighs ordinance to clarify St. Louis City sheriff duties; bill held in committee

Alderman Jesse DeBote, sponsor of board bill 33, asked the Public Safety Committee on July 8 to adopt an ordinance that would codify the sheriff's powers and duties under Missouri law and explicitly clarify the office’s responsibility to transport detainees requiring medical attention from the City Justice Center (CJC).

The ordinance, DeBote said, has four main elements: restating that the sheriff has powers granted by the Missouri Constitution, statutes and city law; prohibiting the sheriff from undertaking certain duties normally performed by other law enforcement agencies; clarifying the sheriff’s duty to transport detainees requiring medical attention; and requiring the sheriff to provide the comptroller a written justification showing that submitted expenditures and contracts are necessary for performance of the office.

Why it matters: The sponsor framed the measure as a response to recent budget hearings and a May 27 letter from the sheriff indicating he would cease some transports. DeBote cited what he described as a pattern of refusals and a court filing saying the sheriff’s office had declined at least 59 transport requests since Jan. 1. He said the ordinance is intended to prevent future disputes over whether transporting detainees for medical care is a sheriff responsibility.

Committee debate focused on authority and fiscal consequences. Several committee members, including Vice Chair Michael Aldridge and Alderman Aldrich, said they support the bill’s intent but questioned whether the City has the legal authority to add duties to a county office that the state regulates. Aldridge asked whether the City could be exposing itself to litigation if a court later finds the duty is not enforceable. DeBote replied that ‘‘his answer was a simple yes’’ when he asked the sheriff whether legislation specifying duties would help perform the office, and said the ordinance contains a severability clause so that any court rulings could be addressed without invalidating the whole measure.

Budget concerns were raised repeatedly. Committee members pressed on whether the sheriff could quantify the number of deputies assigned to transports and whether a fiscal note is required. Alderman Sonnier and others said the sheriff previously told the budget committee he may need additional deputies to resume or expand transport duties; the sheriff did not provide a number during those budget hearings, according to members.

Comptroller office staff explained Amendment 2, which would have required the sheriff to submit a written explanation to the comptroller explaining how expenditures or contracts are necessary to perform the office’s duties. Deputy Comptroller Ryan Coleman told the committee that "all contracts, end up at ENA," and that the proposed submission to the comptroller would not bypass existing ENA review.

Several amendments were proposed and voted on in committee: - Amendment 1 (striking a phrase in Section 2): Adopted (sustained by committee vote; recorded as 5 ayes). The sponsor said Amendment 1 followed a meeting with the sheriff and clarified language about duties the sheriff does not perform. - Amendment 2 (added comptroller reporting requirement as described above): Motion to adopt failed (committee vote did not sustain the motion). - Amendment 3 (struck language in Section 1 defining transport of detainees to the Department of Corrections): Motion to adopt failed. - Amendment 4 (clarifying that certain training/licensing matters mirror state statute and do not make deputy sheriffs "peace officers" for POST purposes): Motion to adopt failed.

Public testimony included one speaker, Brother Todd Hill, who urged the committee to reject the bill and described it as attempting to impose additional responsibilities on a county office without funding or evidence of refusals. Hill said he was not aware of any specific resident who had been refused transport.

Outcome: After debate and the amendment votes, Alderman DeBote asked that board bill 33 be held in committee. The committee recorded the sponsor’s request and held the bill in committee for further work.

What’s next: The sponsor indicated he will revise and return the bill for further consideration; the committee did not advance the ordinance to a full board vote.