Sheriff Tom Knight's courthouse security policy: Legal gunbattle brewing

[pissed off]

Sheriff Knight is right on this one and you idiots that hate him can't see he is protecting you. You should bE loyal to the man that signs your check, right 873?

Oh puh-leeze! You’re talking like the money belongs to Knight – like it’s his own personal cash stash – and out of the kindness of his heart, he pays us. Rubbish! The budget does not belong to Knight. He is not the owner of it. He is just the steward. We are all stewards and it’s up to each of us to act responsibly with the budget, equipment and trust that is given to us by taxpayers. In this case, Knight is now fighting the ruling of the CHIEF JUDGE of the entire 12th Judicial District. The judge tried to work things out with Knight – and Knight cancelled the meeting with him and didn’t bother to reschedule it. That shows that Knight can even be condescending to a chief judge. Nuts. Knight has been able to s-h-i-t on employees, but he can’t shit on the chief judge. Unbelievable!

[Unregistered]

Oh puh-leeze! You’re talking like the money belongs to Knight – like it’s his own personal cash stash – and out of the kindness of his heart, he pays us. Rubbish! The budget does not belong to Knight. He is not the owner of it. He is just the steward. We are all stewards and it’s up to each of us to act responsibly with the budget, equipment and trust that is given to us by taxpayers. In this case, Knight is now fighting the ruling of the CHIEF JUDGE of the entire 12th Judicial District. The judge tried to work things out with Knight – and Knight cancelled the meeting with him and didn’t bother to reschedule it. That shows that Knight can even be condescending to a chief judge. Nuts. Knight has been able to s-h-i-t on employees, but he can’t shit on the chief judge. Unbelievable!

Knight is going to try to legally crap all over the judge. Read this:
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...7-4-2-Ltr.html
(also scroll down and read Hoffman's response to it, right below Knight's letter)

The memos look like they are "writing up" an employee, but let's see if their "write up" works against a judge. It's madness. It's wicked evil.

[Unregistered]

knight is going to try to legally crap all over the judge. Read this:
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...7-4-2-ltr.html
(also scroll down and read hoffman's response to it, right below knight's letter)

the memos look like they are "writing up" an employee, but let's see if their "write up" works against a judge. It's madness. It's wicked evil.

it would make my day, wait life, to see knight escorted to jail for contempt !!!!!

[Unregistered]

Even better, put him the cell with Frankie!!!

[Unregistered]

Ok here the dilemma for all you idiots focusing on titles Sheriffs judges and politics....

If the statute considers that not a courthouse. Then Knight has not abandoned his post. The building in question are not courthouses or are they?? Im to understand there is no court trials etc being held in them.. Then if this is the case a Gun toting person with a permit should be allowed to carry without detention from law enforcement.

Maybe the Clerk should move in the Court House...Hmmm easy fix or the Clerk can hire a guard to stand the corner of their office like a bank.... I think the Sheriff did the right thing. Wait and let the Courts decide. Problem solved and problem is on someone else shoulders.

[Unregistered]

Follow-up article:

Author: Lee Williams

Snip: Chief Judge Charles Williams asked Florida's Second District Court of Appeal to rule on whether Sarasota Sheriff Tom Knight is legally required to reinstate security checkpoints in the Sarasota Clerk of Court building, along with other checkpoints in other judicial facilities that do not have courtrooms in them.

Knight responded by asking the appeals court to quash the judge's orders.

The case centers around:
- what legally constitutes a courthouse (and court facilities)
- the exemptions section (4) in Florida law 790.33
- the Sarasota sheriff’s legal role in screening for guns in court facilities (that don't have courtrooms in them)

The impact of the pending appeals court decision will affect courts and sheriffs statewide.

Chief Deputy Col. Kurt Hoffman, who heads Knight’s legal team...

Sarasota Sheriff Tom Knight explanation for refusing to obey the chief judge's orders:
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ertiorari.html

Chief judges response to Knight's refusal:
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-Petition.html

[Unregistered]

Florida Sen. Greg Steube, R-Sarasota, started this mess when he tried to enter the “Sarasota Historic Courthouse” on Main Street with a concealed weapon. When he was denied entry, he complained to Knight in an email one hour after the bizarre encounter.

What kind of a dumb azz tries to go into a court house with a gun -- with or without a ccw? Guns don't belong in courthouses.

This concern's a freshman senator's individual opinion of a law, which he also proposed to the Florida legislature, but the proposal does not make it through the committee... hence, Steube's proposal to allow guns into court facilities will not be voted on, by neither the senate nor house.

• And .... at what point does Sarasota Sheriff Tom Knight start feeling sheepish that he over-reacted to a freshman senator who was strutting his theorized proposal?

• Florida has not allowed CCW guns into court facilities for many many decades (from the beginning). And now genius Knight "suddenly discovers" that Florida has been doing it all wrong all along? That's asinine.

Thank goodness this is in the media for all the world to clearly see the crazy and incompetent decisions that are coming from the "Tom Knight and Kurt Hoffman dancing duo". Knight proposes to allow guns in Sarasota's court buildings? It's ridiculous and it's a yuge (huge) waste of taxpayers money.

[Unregistered]

There's no shortage of misinformation and assumptions in this thread. It looks like most of it is knee-jerk reactions from people that don't like Sheriff Knight and/or hate guns.

Sheriff Knight's memo in response to the court order is online here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...7-4-2-Ltr.html

• Sen. Steube has held office in the House for several terms. Yes, he's a freshman Senator, but he has a lot of experience in the Legislature. He's also an attorney.

• In making his decision, Sheriff Knight sought legal advice from the general counsel of the FL Sheriff's Association, not just in-house counsel.

• The clerk of court building is not in the courthouse, it is not a working courthouse, and it does not contain a courtroom- no cases are heard there.

• The court order exceeds the jurisdiction (a legal term from 790.33) of the judge. As such, it is overreaching. As far as banning the lawful carrying of weapons, the judge only has jurisdiction over a courthouse or courtroom. The judge does not have legal authority to prohibit the lawful carrying of weapons outside a courthouse or courtroom anymore than he can ban guns from another government building.

• Sheriff Knight's actions arose out of concern for the rights of the citizens as well as his deputies being sued and having to personally cover both legal expenses and any judgements. Liability is a huge motivator for people in government. He cites a situation where another Sheriff (Bradshaw of Palm Beach County) was sued over an administrative order regarding firearms in 2014- I looked it up and it was a matter where deputies responded to a mental health check and took a lawfully-possessed firearm. No arrest was made nor was there an involuntary commitment. The refused to return the firearm w/o a court order. The Sheriff there relied upon an administrative order banning the return of firearms.
  
  The first court ruled against the citizen. He appealed in 2016 (DOUGAN v. BRADSHAW 4D-2123):
  http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20...0v.%20BRADSHAW
  The appeal court held the lower court erred and remanded the case. There is no final disposition yet, but if it goes against the deputies they will have to pay out of pocket.

Also the related SB 616 by Sen. Steube is currently (4/26/17) on the Senate special order calendar for 4/27. That means it is just a day away from passing or failing. It's a moot point since there is no House companion bill.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bil.../616/ByVersion

I for one am glad to see a Sheriff standing up for the rights of the citizens as well as the finances of his deputies. I realize the facts won't change the minds of those that hate the Sheriff and/or guns, but they are what they are.

[Unregistered]

I realize the facts won't change the minds of those that hate the Sheriff and/or guns.

This is not about hating Knight or hating guns. It’s about sanity, public safety and a proper interpretation of the law. CCW laws should definitely be reciprocal throughout the United States, just like drivers licenses are reciprocal. However, Knight’s “new” interpretation of allowing CCW guns into court buildings is against precedence – and is against common sense – and is nuts.

The court order exceeds the jurisdiction (a legal term from 790.33) of the judge.

Totally disagree. The chief judge disagreed with Knight too. If the appeals court also disagrees with Knight, then what will you say?

As far as banning the lawful carrying of weapons, the judge only has jurisdiction over a courtroom.

Kurt, that is exactly what you told Pat Duggan to write in the case file that you sent to the appeals court. However, the jurisdiction of the chief judge goes beyond the "four walls of the courtroom."

Knight’s “new” interpretation is that the Clerk of Court building is not a court building – and therefore, Knight says that CCW permit holders may allegedly bring their guns inside. However, for several decades, Florida sheriff’s have barred CCWs from entering court buildings (and not just courtrooms). Knight’s “new” interpretation of the law was rejected by the chief judge. And if the appeals court also rejects it, then will you accept it as lawfully binding for Knight to obey?

The judge does not have legal authority to prohibit the lawful carrying of weapons outside a courtroom.

That’s exactly what Knight wrote in his paperwork (via Pat Duggan). Knight’s “new” interpretation goes against precedence. Let’s wait and see what the appeals court rules. Ok?

Sheriff Knight's actions arose out of concern for the rights of the citizens as well as his deputies being sued and having to personally cover both legal expenses and any judgements. Liability is a huge motivator for people in government. He cites a situation where another Sheriff (Bradshaw of Palm Beach County) was sued over an administrative order regarding firearms in 2014- I looked it up and it was a matter where deputies responded to a mental health check and took a lawfully-possessed firearm.

That’s mixing apples and oranges. Kurt, the appeals court will explain to you why it’s a non sequitur argument.

There's no shortage of misinformation and assumptions in this thread.

The pending ruling of the appeals court should clear things up for you.

[Unregistered]

There's no shortage of misinformation and assumptions in this thread. It looks like most of it is knee-jerk reactions from people that don't like Sheriff Knight and/or hate guns.

That's a gross over simplification and the issue goes much deeper.

The issue is whether or not Sheriff Tom Knight can legally allow CCW guns into court buildings. Knight created a "new" definition of what a "court building" is i.e. courtroom, courthouse, court facility, judicial operations, court system, etc.

Ms. Karen Rushing (the elected Sarasota comptroller) says that her "Clerk of Court building" is a court building.

However, Knight's contrived "new" interpretation of law has no precedence. Knight suddenly claimed that the Clerk of Court building is not a court building (among other court facilities). Knight subsequently removed all deputies from the Clerk of Court building (and other court facilities). Knight abandoned the security posts. His actions are unprecedented in state history.

Chief Judge Charles Williams agreed with Ms. Rushing that judicial facilities are a part of the court system. Williams subsequently ordered Knight to reinstate deputies at the abandoned security checkpoints. However, Knight refused. Charles did not arrest Knight for contempt of court but, instead, he sent the case to the appeals court.

The appeals court should render a final ruling in four months or less.