Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Public commenter urges Clinton County investigation of District Attorney after alleged office confrontation
Loading...
Summary
At the March 11 Clinton County Legislature meeting, resident Greg Nesbit accused the county District Attorney's office of threatening to remove him for questioning procedural practice tied to the "Van Sickle Doctrine," and urged legislators to investigate or push for removal if integrity concerns persist.
Greg Nesbit, a member of the public, told the Clinton County Legislature on March 11 that he was threatened with removal from the District Attorney's office after he questioned the office's adherence to what he described as the "Van Sickle Doctrine." The comment came during the public comment period of the county's regular session at the Legislative Chambers in Plattsburgh.
Nesbit said he visited the District Attorney's office the prior week and began recording on his phone after a confrontation he described as a "power trip" by a staff member. "When your District Attorney feels it is legal and viable to threaten to remove someone from a public building for simply questioning why he is not following a State Procedural Code of the Van Sickle doctrine," Nesbit told legislators. He said a staff member named Mr. Wylie pressed a panic button and that the interaction escalated despite Nesbit describing himself as calm.
Nesbit urged the Legislature to question the District Attorney at a public meeting and to consider formal steps if they judge the DA's conduct problematic. "If you don't agree with his integrity, to push the State with articles of impeachment, or push the Governor to remove him from office and make a special election," Nesbit said. He also claimed that, because prosecutors did not appear for traffic trials recently, the County lost an estimated "$3,000 to $4,000 in revenue," a figure he characterized as the likely local impact of nonprosecution.
Nesbit framed his concerns around a legal doctrine he called the Van Sickle Doctrine, which he said originated in the 1960s and governs when non-lawyers or witnesses may assist prosecutions in vehicle and traffic cases. He suggested the doctrine's application — and the DA's enforcement choices — could have broader fiscal and procedural consequences for the county. The transcript records Nesbit's description of the doctrine and his interpretation; the Legislature did not debate its legal accuracy at the meeting.
No one from the District Attorney's office responded during the March 11 session, and the transcript does not record a reply or official account from the DA. The Legislature did not take formal action on Nesbit's request during the meeting and moved on to committee reports and agenda items.
The public comment period concluded without further discussion of the matter at that session. The Legislature's agenda proceeded with committee reports and several votes on resolutions.