Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents allege weak sheriff response to generator, trespass and public-safety concerns
Summary
Two Whitehall residents told the council they repeatedly complained about a noisy generator and alleged deputies told them such matters were "civil" and not enforceable, urging clearer enforcement and better sheriff-department responsiveness.
Whitehall — During public comment at the Whitehall Town Council meeting on Oct. 24, two residents described repeated problems near Division Street and said they have not received satisfactory law-enforcement responses.
Stan Olson, who identified himself as a Whitehall resident, made a lengthy statement alleging inadequate sheriff's-department response and training. Olson said deputies told him certain complaints were "civic matters" and that the sheriff's department had declined to act on repeated calls. "Come and get me if you want because I'm tired of you," Olson told the council, adding that he had been warned by a deputy that he could be arrested for disorderly conduct during an earlier confrontation. Olson said he plans to escalate the issue to the state attorney general if local enforcement does not improve.
Lakota Tonopoli, who said she lives at 103 South Division Street next to the property at issue, told the council she has filed multiple complaints about a generator that runs through the night and about trespass and property damage involving an uninsured off-road vehicle. "I listen to it at 10:30 at night. I listen to it at 2:30 in the morning. I listen to it at 5 A.M.," Tonopoli said, describing disrupted sleep for her family. She said deputies have repeatedly characterized noise and other complaints as civil matters and urged clearer definition of deputies' enforcement responsibilities.
Both residents asked the council for help and clearer lines of responsibility between town enforcement and the contracted sheriff's office. The transcript records no response from sheriff's office personnel at the meeting; no deputy or sheriff official responded to or disputed the residents' accounts in the record.
The council did not take formal action on the complaints at the meeting. Council members noted limits on the town's operating hours and staffing when discussing other agenda items, but the transcript does not show a formal referral or directive to staff or the sheriff's office regarding the specific complaints recorded during public comment. Residents said they will continue to pursue the issue with county and state officials if local enforcement does not change.
