LAWFUEL – The Law Newswire – The re-imprisonment of Paris Hilton has given rise to the possibliity of a significant legal precedent as to the power of an elected sheriff over that of the judiciary.
E-Online reports – The main issue? Whether Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer was correct in overruling Sheriff Lee Baca’s decision to transfer Hilton to house arrest after just three full days in jail for what was originally a 45-day sentence.
“It’s really bizarre that the most frivolous person in the western world in the most frivolous case in which she didn’t know she has a license to drive might end up creating precedent that could affect thousands of prisoners and where they’re housed and how they’re housed for years to come,” said Stan Goldman, professor of criminal law at Loyola University Law School.
Goldman and others agree the showdown creates a legal quandary—i.e., whether the elected sheriff is truly independent of the judiciary and whether Judge Sauer overstepped his bounds.
“The judge attempted to impose control over the sentence,” said Jody Armour, professor of law at the University of Southern California. “The sheriff doesn’t have discretion to do anything willy-nilly, but once the custody of an inmate has been given over to his department, the sheriff is given a lot of latitude. But with one huge exception.”
Armour said that Sauer’s sentencing order explicitly forbade Baca from putting her in home confinement. “The judge was trying to limit the discretion of the sheriff, and the sheriff was saying this is our domain,” Armour said.
“The Sheriff’s Department didn’t know that their discretionary decision would be overridden by the judge. But apparently so far they’re mistaken, and now, unfortunately, Paris is paying the price of that confusion and that misunderstanding.”
