Hurricanes

Florida's Joe Arpaio Threatens to Imprison Irma Refugees If They Have Warrants

Polk County's hurricane shelters will not be open to all.

|

Grady Judd
Chris Urso/ZUMA Press/Newscom

As Texas recovers from Hurricane Harvey, Florida is battening down for Hurricane Irma. The storm made landfall in the Caribbean today with 185-miles-per-hour winds.

Polk County is smack in the middle of Florida, and the sheriff's department there is sending an unusual message to anyone seeking safety: If there's a warrant for your arrest, don't bother. Go off somewhere and drown.

It's hard to interpret this tweet otherwise:

Sam Stein at The Daily Beast quickly contacted the law enforcement agency, and a spokesperson seemed to be playing dumb about the whole thing. She said they'd be checking for sex offenders, but the tweet suggested a much broader enforcement, and eventually she confirmed that was the plan:

"While we are checking, if we see someone with an active warrant we have to place them under arrest," she added. She didn't seem persuaded by the criticism that this would discourage people from showing up in the first place. "That is a risk a person would run," Horstman said. "I think it is much safer to be in our jail than to expose yourself to a Category 5 storm. You are using the phrase, 'people who are scared to go to jail.' If you have a warrant, legally you should be in jail. You should turn yourself in and be safe in our jail rather than risk your life waiting out a storm."

In other words, yes, they're telling people with warrants that they cannot seek shelter from the hurricane safely.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd is a nasty blowhard of the Joe Arpaio variety (listen to him talk about Arapio's pardon here), and we probably should not be surprised to see his department respond to a crisis by threatening people with jail. Here are some other "highlights" of Judd's career:

  • He brought felony charges against two teen girls, aged 12 and 14 at the time, blaming them for the suicide of another teen girl as a result of cyberbullying. Prosecutors eventually dropped charges due to lack of evidence, but Judd got plenty of publicityand refused to acknowledge doing anything wrong.
  • Following a big sex work sting, he publicly posted and mocked the appearances of the people they arrested for engaging in purely consensual (but criminalized) sexual activity.
  • He publicly threatened to arrest Apple CEO Tim Cook if Apple refused to unlock iPhones connected to a murder case.

And there's the smaller stuff, too. The sheriff's department drew my attention last October because it arrested and imprisoned a guy for having a milk crate attached to his bicycle. (Milk crates actually owned and used by dairies are often protected by special theft laws, and it can be technically illegal to have them. I explained more here.)

If Judd and his department get more media attention for their attitudes toward people seeking refuge, he'll probably see that as a victory.

UPDATE: Florida's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union responds:

Advertisement

NEXT: Lawyer: Warrantless Blood Draw Stopped by Utah Nurse Was Legal in Another Reality

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Shackford is fucking insane about this.

    If there’s a warrant for your arrest, don’t bother. Go off somewhere and drown.

    That is pretty much a complete lie. NO ONE is turning anyone away. And what happened to the libertarian philosophy about government shelters? You want to go to a government shelter? They will be more than happy to take you there. And while I would hope that for things like drugs and prostitution, they would ignore warrants, what if a person shows up and has a warrant out for robbery? Shouldn’t the police arrest him and take him to the alternate shelter (also called County Jail)?

    1. Shackford never made the claim that the shelters were turning people away. The most charitable reading of your comment is that your are a malicious liar.

      1. At least he read it apparently unlike yourself.

        “As Texas recovers from Hurricane Harvey, Florida is battening down for Hurricane Irma. The storm made landfall in the Caribbean today with 185-miles-per-hour winds.
        Polk County is smack in the middle of Florida, and the sheriff’s department there is sending an unusual message to anyone seeking safety: If there’s a warrant for your arrest, don’t bother. Go off somewhere and drown.
        It’s hard to interpret this tweet otherwise:”
        #peskyfacts

    2. You think the government should put people in the position of deciding whether to risk their lives in a hurricane or risk their freedom at the hands of local cops?

      1. That’s a question the people in question should have asked themselves before they broke the law and had a warrant issued in the first place. There’s probably going to be more people showing up at the shelters than can be safely kept there – this seems like a pretty efficient way of getting the ones who would probably create the most problems to self-select out.

      2. I know the current narrative is that we should overlook law-breaking by DACAsses, but now it is to be to overlook other offenses, too?
        The underlying desire for anarchy just keeps poking its nose into what “libertarians” want for our society.
        It does go along with the, as usual, misnamed “sentencing reform” whereby an entire segment of society is considered to be so racist that they ignore the elements of the crimes and just incarcerate based on the skin color of the accused.
        Some people are just so stupid with their SJW impulses that the proper response is for them to be, simply laughed at.

    3. What is specifically being said is that if you are a criminal who has so-far escaped the law, if you choose to go to one of these open shelters and are discovered as being a criminal you will be escorted to an even more safe shelter than the public option. Not that you’re going to be left out in the cold to die.

      Or are we saying that people with warrants out for their arrest should be given a free pass for, as merely one somewhat hyperbolic example, murder just because there’s an emergency going on?

      That said, let us not forget the shittiest of all shitty options that we saw during Hurricane Katrina and the prisoners who were literally left to die in at least one facility. If the state is going to lock you in a cage, decency demands that the state at least treat you humanely and not leave you in a cage to literally drown.

      1. What is specifically being said is that if you are a criminal who has so-far escaped the law, if you choose to go to one of these open shelters and are discovered as being a criminal you will be escorted to an even more safe shelter than the public option. Not that you’re going to be left out in the cold to die.

        Unless you are afraid of getting arrested. Then you are going to be left out in the cold to die.

        1. No, what’s being said in that circumstance is that someone chose death over a longer-term shelter situation that would save their lives.

          And, no offense, but I’ve actually broken plenty of minor laws and shown up to court for them and magically once I paid my fines for those minor offenses I walked out without being arrested even once.

          Weird, huh? Not that I was happy about it, and not that I don’t advocate for those laws to be changed, but it is what it is.

          If you want to argue for a niche exemption for fines over, say, $500 or something make those arguments.

          Advocating for the complete removal of the rule of law for issued warrants is to advocate for anarchy, so if you want to make those arguments make them. To claim that being arrested for a warrant that was issued in blanket terms marks you and others as loud and proud retards. So at least thanks for being obvious about it.

          1. “in that circumstance is that someone chose death over a longer-term shelter situation that would save their lives.”

            That’s just what I told that nice lady who refused to get in my van!

          2. I am in general agreement, however the jail must have an emergency plan in place and be able to execute that plan in a timely manner to avoid death and injury of inmates. If they don’t then it’s not really a safer alternative to the storm.

            1. If they don’t then it’s not really a safer alternative to the storm.

              Agreed. New Orleans jails during Katrina should be a lesson learned but I suppose we’ll see. Leaving those in prison to die is an unacceptable outcome.

            2. Oh, yes.
              Because the offer was to provide safety to the criminal, over and above what would have been provided, if they were admitted to the shelter.
              Please tell me you weren’t serious about what you said.

          3. So here we go all you nutjobs: Background checks to enter a shelter! Is there a waiting period? And bully for the asshole who able to pay his fines and walk away, not everybody has that luxury. And a warrant is for what? Where does the show-off sheriff draw the line.
            Anyone with a warrant will be arrested eventually but this man sounds as though he would set his county on fire to smoke out the “bad guys”, damn the cost. Police are supposed to stop crime anyway so why do we still have crime? I guess they are all just bad at their jobs.
            There is term for police supporters we use, we call you “copsuckers”.
            BYOBD, you are the village idiot…ever think of a career in law enforcement?

            1. OK, anarchy it is.
              How far will that position go in today’s society?
              And you call the ones who abide by the law, “nutjobs”?
              Sheese!

      2. Or how about a limited-time amnesty while the world’s fucking biggest shitstorm destroys everything around you? Do we not sentence enough people to die (or be gang raped) for minor crimes in this country?

        1. I think I just agreed with Tony.

          *pulls out pistol, shoots self in head*

          1. If you needed a clue that you’re on the stupid side of the fence, that was it.

            And yeah, I figured someone would make this argument. You know what they call a temporary halt to the rule of law because of disasters? Martial Law. Derp de derp.

            1. Or discretionary enforcement.

              1. Discretionary enforcement is literally the opposite of the rule of law you chump.

                1. No it isn’t, it’s a practically necessary part of any system of laws.

                  1. I like how even on statements where you think it’s absolute, you’ve learned to leave yourself wiggle room because of how often you’re completely and utterly wrong.

                    Discretionary enforcement is the rule of man over the rule of law by definition, so no it’s not ‘practically necessary’ it is the antithesis.

            2. And yeah, I figured someone would make this argument. You know what they call a temporary halt to the rule of law because of disasters? Martial Law.

              Hey, you do get it!

              1. My fianc? works in Disaster Relief Operations so I’ve picked up some of it by osmosis.

                As for Tony, he remains as hopeless as ever.

                1. Oh, and military law hasn’t been called or even implied in either hurricanes case so it’s non-applicable. Right now it’s just a State of Emergency which has it’s own implications that you might be curious to read up on. I know I’ll do so.

      3. Florida jail cells: prized for their safety.

        Especially during a state of emergency. I’m sure things will run quite smoothly there.

        Or are we saying that people with warrants out for their arrest should be given a free pass for, as merely one somewhat hyperbolic example, murder just because there’s an emergency going on?

        Yes, actually. That’s typical of emergencies.

        1. So in your view, if an emergency is going on and a murderer is somehow discovered who has a warrant out for their arrest the police won’t arrest them.

          I’ll patiently await that citation, but I doubt it will appear.

          1. By bringing murderers into this you’re deliberately straw-manning the argument. The vast majority of people affected will be harmless. Especially so once they drown in their houses for fear of being sent to the rape cages.

            1. It’s adorable when you try to use a logical fallacy as an argument. It’s called hyperbole you chump, and I prefaced the argument with that fact.

              You and your sudden friends here who are arguing that all of these people are just minor victims of a misunderstanding is a straight up fabrication, which makes my hyperbole look saintly by comparison.

              For the record, THAT is a strawman argument. Chump.

              1. God damn it, you DID make that argument so that’s not a strawman either. I’ll say one thing for you Tony, you’re basically impossible to parody.

                1. I only have new friends here because we happen to agree on the very very libertarian position that people shouldn’t be thrown in rape cages for the crime of seeking shelter from the world’s biggest shitstorm.

                  And if you think the majority of people with warrants are murderers and kid diddlers and such then you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

                  1. Well, you’re still a disingenuous twat at least. They aren’t being thrown in jail for seeking shelter, they’re being thrown in jail for another offense that they remain at-large for.

                    1. Or they’re drowning in their houses because they were made too afraid to seek shelter by a douchenozzle sheriff with extremely warped priorities.

                    2. I’d say if someone chooses to drown in the their home, a definite and immediate threat to their very life, over some possible threat of spending two-to-five days in county lock up for a minor offense, than Darwin has had the last laugh you unabashed fool.

                      What is the difference between an emergency shelter for five days and county for five days? In one scenario there’s nowhere to go, and in the other you can’t go nowhere.

                    3. Be comforted in the fact, that if Tony had a warrant out for him, he would risk death rather than seek shelter.
                      I’ll take that risk for the possibility of not hearing his ridiculous takes on America.

              2. arguing that all of these people are just minor victims of a misunderstanding is a straight up fabrication

                What?

          2. No. You’re dumb.

            In emergencies, normal priorities are shifted, just as they do in wartime, on a lifeboat, etc., to account for the exigent circumstances. Working through the list of active warrants should be one of those priorities that get shifted lower, with obvious exceptions for serious crimes or anything that could threaten the higher priorities, which is what I indicated below.

            The priority of the police stationed at an emergency shelter should be to keep the peace and ensure people’s safety. Picking out, say, a dad and removing him from his family over an unpaid parking ticket is likely to worsen things, not improve them.

            1. No – the law is the law, law-breaking motherfucker.

            2. There’s the undersell yet again, that people are going to be rounded up for unpaid parking tickets.

              You continually make these arguments, but I believe this stems from your view that the police should never arrest anyone for unpaid parking tickets in any circumstances so it’s understandable you would continue to believe that during an emergency.

              Of course, do you think that law is more or less unlikely to change if it remains unenforced except when the police need something to throw at you?

              Once again, the rule of law: How does it fucking work?

              1. I didn’t make that argument, the Polk County Sheriff’s Department did.


                1. I didn’t make that argument, the Polk County Sheriff’s Department did.

                  Working through the list of active warrants should be one of those priorities that get shifted lower, with obvious exceptions for serious crimes or anything that could threaten the higher priorities, which is what I indicated below.

                  Reread the tweet, what makes you think they are going door to door working the warrant lists? Especially when they’re already fully aware that most people aren’t home or at their listed address in the first place, especially when they specifically mention shelters.

                  All I am saying, to be perfectly fucking clear, is that if the police discover you have a warrant for any crime in the line of doing whatever it is they’re doing at the time they will and should arrest you because that is what they are obligated to do as officers of the law.

                  If some people choose literal death over a potential jail stay what did they do that makes that desirable? Make no mistake that person specifically made a terrible decision. That’s not on the cops for ‘scaring’ that person, that’s the person having absolutely no ability to accurately judge relative risk factors, or they judged those factors and choose death.

                  County isn’t death, and if they’re truly parking tickets as you guys keep claiming than that person should win the god damn Darwin Award.

                  1. There can be no rule of law where the king is the sole arbiter of the same.

                    There can be no rule of law where there is one set of rules for the king and his errand boys, factotums, gendarmes, jesters, judges, propagandists, and sycophants, and another set for the mundanes.

                    There can be no rule of law where there are law enforcers instead of peace officers.

                    There can be no rule of law where the protection of the same is monopolized by public employee union sub 100 IQ types.

    4. This is no lie. With the pen of former Florida Governor Bush it was signed into law that no registrant is to be allowed access to a shelter in Florida..yet Florida Gov. Rick Scott said in his speech today that no ones life should be in danger and no one would be turned away from assistance..Gov. Scott, your a liar.

      This is insane! To turn someone away in need is inhumane. Grady Judd puts it across that anyone that wears the S.O label is a chester the molester and that is BS. There are over a thousand minors on the Florida registry for such things as sexting, streaking, consensual sex, etc. should these minors..that the registry says protects..be turned away too..is that protection of children?

      Sheriff Grady Judd has arrested minors that he says the registry protects!

      1. Non sequitur.
        That’s not what this article is about.
        This refers to people with a warrant out for their arrest, not for people on the “registry”.
        I am sure that the order Bush signed was for normal homeless shelters, not emergency ones and, in this case, the person won’t be turned away, but placed where they would have been if they were pulled over, while driving on any road in the state.
        Take your hyperbolic anarchy shilling and shove it.

  2. He brought felony charges against two teen girls, aged 12 and 14 at the time, blaming them for the suicide of another teen girl as a result of cyberbullying.

    So progressives do have reasons to like Arpaio.

      1. Don’t worry. The headline made me think Sheriff Joe was spreading across the nation as well.

    1. Typical BS.
      Sheriff’s don’t bring charges. Prosecutors do.
      Law enforcement only make arrests, and, in cases like that, only when a prosecutor tells them to.
      It’s like blaming the knife, when someone stabs another. The knife is the tool, just like law enforcement officers are.

  3. Sheriffs can be an unholy mix of law enforcement and politician. Self promotion appears to be this guy’s main motivation. Let the firemen and EMT’s coddle the public, he has an election to campaign for.

    1. This. I have little doubt that the vast majority of Florida counties will do the exact same thing. They just aren’t advertising it.

      1. Which is the whole problem, far as I can tell. If you’re going to nab someone with a warrant for a dangerous crime, OK. Some of those cases are probably bullshit (we all know how broadly “sex offender” is defined), but it’s not uniquely awful for the police to do some clean-up work while they’ve got a list of names volunteered to them.

        Advertising this intention, especially the way he phrased it, sends out a message that, if you have a warrant out for anything, you either go to jail or take your chances on your own. Which is dangerous and costly for the people and the state.

        1. Is the implication here that jail is somehow non-preferable over death for petty criminals who, make no mistake, would be arrested in any circumstances?

          Rule of law: how the fuck does it work?

          I get that people have issues with certain laws, and by all means advocate those, but to argue that those who have broken the law as it stands shouldn’t be punished is to advocate for the rule of man over the rule of law. That is not preferable over the alternative.

          I’m probably reading too much into it, but c’mon. If you have a warrant out for your arrest, you know it and if anything you guys should be celebrating that the cops are advertising that they’re doing it instead of doing it on the sly and catching more wrong-thinkers. Right?

          1. If you have a warrant out for your arrest, you know it…

            Not necessarily. People get FTAs all the time for court dates they never knew about or forgot.

            1. So because a few people legitimately didn’t know they had a warrant out for their arrest, probably for very minor offenses in the first place that would be a fine at most, it’s a reason to not honor any warrants at all. Seems legit, right?

              1. Don’t know about that area, but around here such a warrant gets “cleaned up” by paying a fine, once you get to the station, without there being any jail time involved.

          2. The implication is that a rational response for someone who fears they have an outstanding warrant is to avoid shelters and hope for the best.

            This is not difficult to understand for anyone who’s not needlessly contrarian.

            1. It’s not difficult to understand, but what is difficult to understand is why you think that a certain category of crime that remains unspecified should remain unpunished at the discretion of law enforcement.

        2. I don’t see how it’s useful to say “to avoid arrest, avoid the shelters.” Why not just arrest people with warrants who they see in the shelters – without advertising it in advance and scaring them off?

          1. Why not just arrest people with warrants who they see in the shelters – without advertising it in advance and scaring them off?

            Then he couldn’t be Sheriff Buford T. Tough On Crime Badass.

          2. Why not just arrest people with warrants who they see in the shelters – without advertising it in advance and scaring them off?

            Because the sheriff wants them to die in the storm. Sadists are sadistic.

            1. Why would they want that when literally the more people in their jails, the more money they get? Ah, I see now, you think he’s a sadist. I’ll admit, it’s possible that you’re correct but if enforcing the law as written is sadistic than you should look to the state or federal Congress for the sadists.

  4. Seems like a pretty standard police viewpoint to me: if you’re suspected of any crime, then you deserve the full brunt of every possible calamity.

    1. Also “Grady Judd” is the perfect name for a southern authoritarian dickhead sheriff, so good job, Sheriff’s parents.

      1. More like “good choice Florida voters,” which I assume are all methbilly pythons.

        1. And all have a warrant out for one thing or another.

        2. Some of them, I assume, are good people.

      2. I’m still waiting for Boss Hogg to enter the scenario.

        1. +1 Confederate flag, and the circle is complete

  5. Its a Sheriff job to find people with outstanding warrants

    “”””In other words, yes, they’re telling people with warrants that they cannot seek shelter from the hurricane safely.”””

    He did not say that, he said that people with warrants will get a special shelter

    “””””(Milk crates actually owned and used by dairies are often protected by special theft laws, and it can be technically illegal to have them”””

    So we should be in favor of theft? Can i come to Reason headquarters and help myself to some pens or a chair?

    1. Its a Sheriff job to find people with outstanding warrants

      Clearly he and his employees have failed in this particular, DJF.

      If citizens choose to rely upon rare weather events to assist their law enforcement agents to conduct one of law enforcement’s primary responsibilities (“find people with outstanding warrants”), then it seems to me that the citizens’ trust in said law enforcement agents is greatly misplaced.

    2. Can i come to Reason headquarters and help myself to some pens or a chair?

      Are you in the middle of a hurricane/tornado/flood/earthquake, asshole?

  6. More disdain for the rule of law from Reason. You break the law, you should suffer the consequences, even if it’s a warrant for unpaid parking tickets or failure to pay some bullshit fine. The LAW is the LAW. And if a criminal wants to take their chances at home in the face of a category 5 hurricane, that’s their choice. Guess we don’t believe in personal responsibility either.

    1. Think of Reason as a couple of good ol’ boys who never meant no harm, driving around in their Rebel Flag Charger, problematically called the General Lee.

      1. Talk about shows that couldn’t be made today…

        1. Just thinking about Daisy Duke makes me feel like a sex trafficker

        2. The Dukes of Berkeley, two genderfluid persyns driving around in a smart car with a rainbow flag on the roof.

          And Daisy is a transsexual.

    2. Can I get a Poe’s Law ruling on this one?

      1. Crusty was taking too long, and I just drank a whole lot of chai.

        1. First…chai? My goodness.

          Second, you can’t compete with Mikey, but then again who can?

          1. What is going on here?

            *Unabashedly displays ignorance of sub-threads yet again*

    3. If the shelters become overcrowded, I suggest passing a few more laws. Ban some more daily activities, and then sit back and reap the benefits, both pre- and post- next natural disaster.

    4. As a person who has actually had a warrant out on them for speeding and parking tickets, I can tell you that you pay the fine and walk away without going to jail if you show up to the court house.

      I note that you believe that the solution is to break the law as opposed to changing it. That’s super smart of you.

      Personally, if I weren’t a total retard, I would go and pay my fucking fine or tickets so I don’t get arrested any day of the week while just minding my own business. I have sympathy for those who can’t afford those fines or tickets, and I fundamentally disagree with a system that lets some law breakers go free because they paid off the cops, but it is what it is.

      Tell me this: if you’re so lazy and retarded that you have ignored warrants for your arrest for years because of a single unpaid fine, do you deserve what you get when a disaster rolls around and you need to go to a shelter to avoid dying?

      Is death preferable to, what, a 5 day stay in county lock up?

      Get some perspective.

      1. Is death preferable to, what, a 5 day stay in county lock up?

        We will find out when the water recedes, and the sheriff starts bragging about how he’s handcuffing dead bodies because the drowned person had a warrant.

        1. Huh, it turns out your ridiculous hyperbole dial goes up to 11. It’s just like 10, only dumber.

      2. What if your ticket is because you didn’t mow the lawn? And you got another one because the screen door on your house was off a hinge? And you got another one because a cop says sitting on a milk crate on your front porch is illegal?

        What if each of those tickets is a hundred dollars *plus* fees and taxes?

        What if you don’t make enough money to keep paying bullshit tickets?

        Its easy to say ‘don’t speed if you can’t afford the fines’ – but they’re are many, many more civil infractions that you can be ticketed for than moving violations.

        1. You do realize counties have budgets they have to pay for. What if they stopped collecting revenue from code violations? They might have to start laying off code enforcement officers.

        2. Not the argument at hand.

          You are arguing that the laws they have broken are inherently unjust. Ok, fine. I’d agree. But that isn’t the argument here. The argument here is that these people who have broken the law to such an extent they have a warrant out for their arrest (Read what it takes to actually have a warrant issued, it might be educational) should have those warrants temporarily ignored because it feels bad man.

          At least some of the more rational people imply that some types of warrants shouldn’t result in an arrest during the emergency because of priority, which is what was always going to happen in the first place and is essentially an argument for the status quo.

          1. I’m not arguing ‘inherently unjust’ – I’m simply arguing that the vast majority of arrest warrants that are sworn out and left hanging over people’s heads are for minor, petty, little bullshit like unpaid tickets.

            And it doesn’t take a whole lot to get a warrant out – all you have to do is fail to obey a court order. Which not showing up to trial or paying a ticket is enough to qualify.

            There are very few murderers running around evading an arrest warrant. Mostly because once a cop has enough evidence to get the warrant he then goes and *serves* it. The warrants that will trip people up are for the sorts of things that are filled out automatically because of failure to obey and that cops don’t prioritize hunting people down for – they just wait until you’re picked up for something else or go through a checkpoint and then you get nabbed.

            So I don’t think bragging that you’re going to be hunting ‘fugitives’ in the refugee shelters is appropriate nor profitable.

  7. So we want due processes, we just don’t want law enforcement to uphold due process .. unless we do and _then_ its ok, but not now ’cause that’s not .. um .. cool – or something.

    1. Yeah, pretty much this. It’s understandable once you realize that a certain subset of Libertarians are also anarchists.

  8. The fugazis of Reason are becoming nuttier by the day.

    An arrest warrant is a court order issued by a judge to all law enforcement in the jurisdiction, basically ordering them to arrest the individual on sight, in most cases because he has failed to obey a summons. The charges and alleged offenses are completely irrelevant.

    Is Reason seriously arguing that a sheriff should simply ignore the judges at his own discretion? Just go ahead and change your name to Junior Jacobin Magazine already.

    1. Today, we’re very very concerned with executing the will of judges.

    2. The fugazis of Reason

      I had no idea you were an Ian MacKaye fan, Mikey.

    3. An arrest warrant is a court order issued by a judge to all law enforcement in the jurisdiction, basically ordering them to arrest the individual on sight, in most cases because he has failed to obey a summons. The charges and alleged offenses are completely irrelevant.

      901.02?Issuance of arrest warrants.? Source
      (1)?A judge, upon examination of the complaint and proofs submitted, if satisfied that probable cause exists for the issuance of an arrest warrant for any crime committed within the judge’s jurisdiction, shall thereupon issue an arrest warrant signed by the judge with the judge’s name of office.
      (2)?The court may issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest when all of the following circumstances apply:
      (a)?A complaint has been filed charging the commission of a misdemeanor only.
      (b)?The summons issued to the defendant has been returned unserved.
      (c)?The conditions of subsection (1) are met.
      (3)?A judge may electronically sign an arrest warrant if the requirements of subsection (1) or subsection (2) are met and the judge, based on an examination of the complaint and proofs submitted, determines that the complaint:
      (a)?Bears the affiant’s signature, or electronic signature if the complaint was submitted electronically.

      Bold mine.

      1. Continued:

        (b)?Is supported by an oath or affirmation administered by the judge or other person authorized by law to administer oaths.
        (c)?If submitted electronically, is submitted by reliable electronic means.
        (4)?An arrest warrant shall be deemed to be issued by a judge at the time the judge affixes the judge’s signature or electronic signature to the warrant. As used in this section, the term “electronic signature” has the same meaning as provided in s. 933.40.
        History.?s. 2, ch. 19554, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 8663(2); s. 5, ch. 70-339; s. 1452, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 99-169; s. 19, ch. 2004-11; s. 1, ch. 2013-247.

  9. Is this adding insult to injury? Adding injury to injury? I can’t tell.

    1. Yes.

    2. It’s a warrant, so it’s adding jury to injury.

  10. How about they send this douchenozzle to the county pokey for directly endangering the lives of his constituents.

    1. Who’s going to do that?
      The judge who issued the warrants?
      The only douchenozzle is in your mirror, when you are in front of it.

  11. Jail or possible death. Florida Roulette. I think the south needs some more sanctuary cities, but of the survival kind.

  12. Just take care of your warrants, dumbasses.

  13. While this sheriff may be kind of a dick (certainly irresponsible for making this announcement), I don’t think law enforcement should be subject to the weather. That said, they should prioritize disaster relief and only arrest those with warrants for things like theft/assault/murder/etc. and not for things like petty traffic violations.

    1. So it should be subject to weather.

      1. So it should be subject to weather.

        You, in a one sentence response, described my attempt at making a similar point earlier today.

    2. That, and not scare off people with warrants making them more likely to hide out in the storm. Open the shelters and if you see anyone there you’re supposed to arrest, grab them if you have time and the arrest of the person seems like a priority (eg, maybe if the warrant is for rape or pickpocketing you might not want them hanging around a shelter).

      1. I can see how a storm shelter can be more of a safe space if they arrest the domestic assault suspects and so on.

    3. That seems logical and there is always a priority to a warrant based on the offense, and I doubt cops of any stripe are specifically looking for people with a warrant out for their arrest until after disaster relief operations. Keep in mind that a lot of people are in those shelters for months.

      And police, in terms of most disaster management, end up not doing a lot of disaster relief themselves is my understanding. They’re mostly there to drive around looking for looters and such, ironically to make sure that at least there is some semblance of the law and order that our resident anarchists want to do away with.

      1. That seems logical and there is always a priority to a warrant based on the offense, and I doubt cops of any stripe are specifically looking for people with a warrant out for their arrest until after disaster relief operations.

        You know who broadcast the opposite message, and is the source of all this discussion we’re having?

        1. You know how stupid it makes you look to take a tweet with 120 character limit and assume that it contains all pertinent information?

          It doesn’t even mention how they’ll know you have a warrant in the first place, so are we assuming clairvoyance here?

      2. Yeah, looking for looters and maintaining a facade of ‘law and order’. Like those cops on the Danziger Bridge.

        1. You know who else collectivized crimes?

          1. No.

            Nor do I know what that has to do with anything under discussion.

    4. You know they prioritize for things like drug possession and petty traffic violations because those guys are both easier to find and they consider them less likely to shoot back.

  14. How are they going to know if they have a warrant out for their arrest? Is someone demanding ID at the shelters? If so, why, and wouldn’t that be racist?

    1. I know, give no name or a fake name. They gonna kick you out in the storm?

      1. Just hope it’s a law-abiding name.

      2. I believe they check ids for sex offenders and the like to keep the people safe.

        1. To keep people ‘safe’ – except for the guys who are on the registry because they got caught pissing against a wall.

          1. And there it is, the admission that it doesn’t matter what the crime is the warrant shouldn’t be enforced because all law is invalid. At last, honesty.

            1. I don’t know where you’re reading that in that comment.

              All law is just a group of people telling everyone else what to do or else. Let’s not pretend its anything other. Sometimes what you’re told to do – or else – is a good idea. Sometimes its simply the whim of those in power. So yeah, I think the laws that are the latter should be ignored and not enforced.

              And yeah, I think I’m smart enough to know which are which. That’s sort of part of libertarianism – that the crowd knows better than the ‘Top Men’.

  15. NFL’s Michael Bennett randomly arrested and threatened with lethal force for no reason in Vegas. Also that cop on camera saying they only kill black people. I think cops have a hidden agenda to ethnically cleanse this country. It sounds ridiculous except for all the circumstantial evidence.

    1. Hidden? Why do you think they have patrol cars that turn into giant man-killing robots with “To Punish and Enslave” stenciled on the side?

    2. You know what ‘circumstantial evidence’ actually means?

      1. Keep defending cops dude.

  16. Can’t cost that much for a bus ticket to Georgia.

  17. So, let me get this straight.

    If I have a warrant for something *in another jurisdiction* you’ll enforce that – even if its for something that’s not illegal in Polk County?

    1. It sure is fun to assume facts not in evidence.

      Did you know they also intend on arresting people for violation of Martian Law. True story.

      1. Polk County is in the middle of Florida. A long way away from the Hurricane. Its not even on the coast so if there are any refugees they’re coming from a different county too. So he’s still going to enforce warrants for stuff that might be illegal in one county but not illegal in Polk.

  18. When did the commentariat here go from a libertarian, “fuck off slavers,” to a bootlicking, “take care of your warrants?”

    Fuck off slavers

    1. When did people stop believing in the rule of man over the rule of law around here might be a better question, but that would assume that anarchy isn’t part of the liberty movement.

      Argue against unjust laws. Without enforcing unjust laws, where will the impetus for changing said laws come from?

      1. haha, wow. Strike that, reverse it. It’s 5pm somewhere, I’m out of here.

        1. You misapprehend the meaning of the rule of law.

      2. Rule of man is what we have. Rule of man is what you’re championing. Do what you’re told, be a good boy, and take care of your warrants – because all laws should be obeyed and supported no matter what they are, right?

    2. libertarian =! anarchist, so I’d say ~1970~1980’ish, give or take a generation.

      1. Lol you obviously weren’t here in the 90s or early aughts.

    3. If they’ve been validly charged with something which actually ought to be a crime, then by all means arrest them.

      It’s not inherently slave-y to arrest people for assault and the like…unless they turn out to be making false arrests.

      But all this is independent of where the arrest takes place.

      1. If someone has a warrant for assault then sure but as the article stated most warrants are for bullshit.

        1. And, of course, what REASON writers say is always correct, amirite?

    4. These same bootlickers are Trump cock suckers and they’ve been around for awhile.

  19. Polk Country Sheriff Grady Judd can suck a dick.

    1. If you mean that in a pejorative way, doesn’t that make you a homophobe?

  20. Do they force people to show their papers to stay in these shelters? That’s harassment and fucked up. This asshole should arrest himself if someone dies because they were concerned about leaving the grandpaw with an outstanding warrant behind to fend for himself.

  21. Off the top of my head I think there is something like 150,000 open warrants in East Baton Rouge Parish at any given time. It’s mostly traffic, misdemeanor and failure to appear. It would be scandalous if the “public safety’ officials used shelters and a natural disaster to round up these people. The cops around here have more sense then that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.