Curry County commissioners adopt plan to implement judge's ruling, direct counsel to obtain sheriff records

Curry County commissioners said on Nov. 5 they will move to implement a recent court ruling that altered the county's prior orders governing coordination with the sheriff, and directed county counsel to begin seeking records the sheriff has withheld.

The discussion followed a declaratory judgment from Judge Stone that upheld most provisions of the county's 2023 board orders but removed a requirement that the sheriff attend public meetings. Commissioners said the updated board order they are preparing will preserve access to county records and county property while allowing the sheriff to identify documents that are legally privileged or exempt from disclosure.

County counsel and commissioners repeatedly framed the change as one of clarification, not new law. A draft of the board order would require the sheriff to "promptly make available all records, information, and supporting documents" upon request "to the extent that such information is not legally privileged or clearly exempt from disclosure," and to identify any documents ineligible for production and discuss those restrictions with county counsel.

Commissioners and counsel debated technical access to criminal‑justice data systems (CJIS) and what constitutes protected CJIS information. Counsel told the board that some internal personnel files cited by the sheriff at trial are not CJIS criminal justice information and therefore should be producible to county legal staff. Commissioner discussion emphasized the county's need to review policies across departments and the practical burden of bringing long‑unreviewed contracts and procedures into compliance with Title VI and grant requirements.

One commissioner characterized the sheriff's lack of cooperation during the dispute: "He failed to even reply. That's not leadership." Commissioners said they would first ask the sheriff to comply with the judge's orders and, if noncompliance continues, could file a motion for contempt and return to court for enforcement.

County counsel said he will begin seeking the requested documents immediately and review the trial transcript, which the county will post online with other court records. The board did not adopt a final replacement order during the Nov. 5 meeting but agreed to a special meeting and to give counsel authority to proceed with implementing the judgment.

What happens next: county counsel will reissue requests for documents and work with the board to finalize the revised order; commissioners said enforcement would rely on subsequent judicial remedies if the sheriff continues to withhold materials.