Board bill would codify St. Louis sheriff's transport duties; committee holds bill after amendments fail

Alderman Dion DeVote on Thursday introduced Board Bill 33 to the St. Louis City Public Safety Committee, proposing language that would clarify the constitutional, statutory and local duties of the City of St. Louis Sheriff's Office and specifically state that the sheriff must transport detainees who require medical or psychological treatment.

The bill's sponsor, Alderman DeVote, said the measure responds to recent budget hearings and a May 27 letter from Sheriff Montgomery indicating a suspension of some transports. DeVote cited a court filing that, he said, shows "at least 59 instances" since Jan. 1 in which the sheriff's office refused to transport detainees needing medical attention. He told the committee the ordinance would "clarify the sheriff's duties to transport detainees requiring medical attention" and require the sheriff to provide written explanations to the comptroller for certain expenditures when submitting requisitions or contracts.

DeVote said the bill is intended to accomplish four things: affirm the sheriff's powers and duties under the Missouri Constitution and statutes and city law; prohibit the sheriff from undertaking certain non-sheriff functions; clarify the transport duty so the city has no future dispute; and (by way of Amendment 2) require the sheriff to supply the comptroller a written statement that expenses are necessary to the office.

Why it matters: committee members said the issue affects a vulnerable population held in correctional custody and overlaps with state law and ongoing litigation. Vice Chair Aldridge and other members repeatedly warned that the sheriff's office is a county office under Missouri law and that some duties could be governed at the state level. DeVote maintained the language clarifies, rather than adds, duties and pointed to state statutes he cited in committee as the legal basis for transport responsibilities.

Committee debate and amendments: the committee considered four formal amendments to Board Bill 33.

- Amendment 1 (adopted): Sponsor DeVote offered an amendment that struck a phrase in section 2 (removing the phrase "and secure" from a list clarifying what the sheriff does not perform). The committee adopted Amendment 1 by roll call. Ayes were recorded from Aldermen Oldenburg, Clark Hubbard, Velasquez, Sonier and Aldrich (5 ayes).

- Amendment 2 (failed): DeVote described Amendment 2 as a compromise with the mayor's office and the comptroller to require the sheriff to submit to the comptroller a written explanation of how expenses are necessary to the conduct of the sheriff's duties when making requisitions or entering contracts. The committee voted on adopting that amendment and the motion failed (recorded as 3 ayes, 2 noes, 1 present in the roll call).

- Amendment 3 (failed): Proposed by Alderman Aldridge, this amendment would have removed the sentence in section 1 that explicitly stated the sheriff must transport detainees and protect detainees in custody of the Department of Corrections. The motion to adopt failed on roll call (2 ayes, 3 noes, 1 present).

- Amendment 4 (failed): Offered by Alderwoman Sonnier, this amendment would have restated language from state statute clarifying that deputies are not required to obtain POST (peace officer standards and training) licensure and that receipt of certain training does not convert a deputy to a city law enforcement officer. The committee voted and the motion failed to adopt (2 ayes, 3 noes, 1 present).

Public comment and concerns: one speaker, Brother Todd Hill, testified in opposition. He said the bill "is in direct contradiction to the sheriff's responsibility as a county office" and argued the sponsor did not produce specific evidence of individuals denied transport. Hill urged caution about adding responsibilities without funding.

Multiple committee members pressed the sponsor about fiscal impacts. Several members and the comptroller's deputy (Ryan Coleman) emphasized they could not produce a fiscal note without the sheriff's office documenting how many deputies are already assigned to transports or how many additional deputies would be required. Alderman Aldridge and others said the sheriff had not provided the staffing numbers requested during the budget process, making cost estimates impossible.

Legal and jurisdictional context: DeVote cited historical local ordinances from the early 1970s and a reported state case from 1977 he referenced as Roe v. Jones (as discussed in the meeting) to show a longstanding practice. He said the office's transport duty is rooted in Missouri statutes (he cited statutes in committee, including references to general applicability of sheriff laws to the City of St. Louis and to provisions about sheriffs receiving persons apprehended by other officers). Several members noted that the matter is also presently the subject of litigation between the Missouri attorney general and the sheriff.

Outcome: after failing to secure adoption of Amendment 2, DeVote asked that Board Bill 33 be held in committee for further work; the clerk recorded the sponsor's request and the item was held in committee. No final vote on the ordinance as a whole was taken.

Ending: the committee's discussion left the principal policy questions unresolved: whether local clarifying language is an appropriate and enforceable way to address transports that the sponsor says have been refused, and how the city would finance any additional staffing or operations needed to implement the duty if the sheriff asserts it requires more deputies. The sponsor asked the committee to hold the bill so those details can be worked out.