2024 Election Questionnaire for Scott County Sheriff

Candidates on the Ballot: November 5, 2024

Tim Lane, Republican – Incumbent

Thomas Gibbs, Democrat – Challenger

Topic 1: Asset Forfeitures

Candidate Gibbs stated at the September 21, 2024 People's Forum that if elected Sheriff he would implement “adequate training for constitutional policing.” Listen to the audio recording of the entire forum at the Reader podcast page here: RCReader.blubrry.net/2024/09/23/scott-county-iowa-sheriff-candidate-peoples-forum-september-21-2024/.

In a follow up e-mail, Gibbs was asked to elaborate and cite sources of such training and what training is currently inadequate and why. Gibbs responded by e-mail with “Constitutional Training through Blue to Gold (BlueToGold.com). Iowa Law Enforcement Academy provides instruction on constitutional training, but during academy training, there is information overload and it’s easy to forget while trying to absorb so much information.” The Blue to Gold's Web site's branding at the home page states, “WE ARE Search & Seizure.”

This constitutional training resource Gibbs would implement if elected, prompts us to recall the questions we asked prior to the 2016 primary candidates for Scott County Sheriff (when Gibbs ran as a Republican) which, along with each candidate's 2016 responses, are re-printed below, along with our follow up question for the 2024 General Election.

2016 Primary Question 1: Do you support current asset-forfeiture policies and procedures? If so, why? If not, what will you do as sheriff to change or reform these policies and procedures?

May, 2016 Response from Thomas Gibbs: Currently the only way to seize assets used in crimes is through the civil-forfeiture laws. I am not opposed to changing the way assets are forfeited and would agree with joining asset forfeiture to the criminal-trial proceedings.

May, 2016 Response from Tim Lane: I do support current policies and procedures for asset forfeiture. I believe the Scott County sheriff’s office has shown that we are not seeking the dollar when it comes to our enforcement efforts. As the lieutenant over a drug-enforcement unit, we seek to identify the drug dealer and to make our criminal case with the confiscation of that drug. Therefore we move forward with our case when we know the dealer is in possession of the illegal drug, and we never wait for it to be distributed into our community so that we can confiscate money instead. If there is any doubt as to the legality of the item to be forfeited, it is returned without the need for a hearing. This will be my philosophy as sheriff.

2024 General Election Question 1: Any modifications or additions to your 2016 response regarding asset-forfeiture policies and procedures?

Thomas Gibbs: Civil Asset Forfeiture and the process is controlled by the State Legislature and court proceedings. If property is sought to be forfeited by law enforcement, it must go through a court process to ensure due process and individuals rights to property are protected through judicial proceedings. I support the asset forfeiture program.

Tim Lane: I find that my answer from 2016 is still very true of the Sheriff’s Office. We attempt to take the drugs off the streets and we do not attempt to locate money, however, it is not unusual to find a car with drugs in it, along with a large amount of cash, where the driver does not know who owns the drugs, money, or even the car. In those cases, they do not even contest the forfeiture.

Topic 2: Cell Phone and Digital Device Ban and Exceptions for the County Courthouse 

Continuing to revisit the 2016 Primary Questions for Scott County Sheriff, the cell-phone and digital device ban decreed in 2010 by Judge Alpers is worth re-visiting. Please see the Q&A we published in May 2016 on this topic below, prior to answering the 2024 General Election questions on this topic. 

2016 Primary Election Question 2: As sheriff, will you continue to enforce the 2010 administrative order banning non-attorney, non-media, and non-staff people from bringing electronic devices such as cell phones or laptops into the county courthouse? If the answer is “yes,” please state the authority from which an administrative order originates that compels the county sheriff to enforce the order, and please provide an example of an administrative order that – if such an authority decreed it – you would refuse to enforce as county sheriff. 

May, 2016 Response from Thomas Gibbs: I do support the administrative order restricting certain items from within the courthouse from members of the public. This order came to be because citizens were in the courthouse and using cell phones to intimidate and coerce the judicial process. We have also had instances from within the courthouse of opposing parties getting into physical altercations; by having security screening at the front entrance, we are minimizing availability and access to weapons. Courthouses are not exempt from disgruntled individuals who seek revenge through violence. The security procedures in place at the courthouse help to provide a safe environment for staff and visitors to the building.

May, 2016 Response from Tim Lane: I will continue to enforce the policy banning cell phones in the courtroom area of the county campus. Cell-phone disruption can be a serious problem for a courtroom, and thus the order is proper. However, I would have no problem refusing to enforce an illegal or improper order from any authority.

2024 Publisher's Comments and Analysis: Note that the 2010 Judge Alpers administrative order cited and linked to in the 2016 article on this topic, is no longer available via the website:https://www.scottcountyiowa.net/courts/pub/20100415_Electronic_Devices_Admin_Order.pdf and the search for any data at the Scott County website for the term “Electronic_Devices_Admin_Order.pdf” returns zero results now. The archive of that order is available athttps://web.archive.org/web/20150908002449/https://www.scottcountyiowa.net/courts/pub/20100415_Electronic_Devices_Admin_Order.pdfThis order states in part under “Authorized Exceptions”: “2. Attorneys admitted to the Bar in the State of Iowa or Illinois, including attorneys admitted pro hac vice. However, such equipment shall not be used at any time in a courtroom unless permitted by the presiding judge, and will not be allowed if the attorney is present for jury service.”
To date, the authority from which this order must be enforced by the County Sheriff has not been answered by either candidate. 
This may seem like an esoteric exercise to most, and I greatly appreciate each candidate's willingness to further elaborate on this topic for the following reasons and analysis: 
A) This discriminatory division of “haves” and “have-nots” of the most ubiquitous personal property nearly every adult in the county owns and uses every day – their cell phone – is presumed to be ignored by these prior responses and the 2010 non-adjudicated order's continued unchallenged enforcement. 
B) If using cell phones in the court room is an issue, the judge has the authority to declare none shall be used to take photographs, or even be displayed in public in his/her court room and if violated then the Sheriff's bailiffs will arrest them for contempt.  
C) If one is an attorney that meets the “Authorized Exceptions” clause of this 2010 administrative order, and can bring one's cell phone into the court room with a judge's permission (which is seemingly implicit if one is an attorney and is allowed to bring one's cell phone into the building), then can one also “intimidate and coerce the judicial process” or be a “disruption”? The answer technically is, “Yes.” And if an attorney did so, they would likely be ruled in contempt and arrested or removed by the bailiff at judge's order. 
The following questions are semi-rhetorical, intended to inform the formal questions below. 
Why are attorneys provided the benefit of the doubt and the public is not? Forget cell phones, what if you wanted to bring your laptop in while you were conducting business in the courthouse and you were not an attorney? No can do. Why are laptops banned too, unless you are an attorney? Are laptops “disruptive” unless in the hands of an attorney? Are laptops used to “intimidate and coerce the judicial process” unless operated by an attorney? 

2024 General Election Questions #2: 
2.1: Please cite the authority by which former Judge Alpers is able to compel the Scott County Sheriff to enforce such a discriminatory order? If there has been a more recent order on this topic since 2010, please provide a copy or a link to same. 
2.2: What is precluding the County Sheriff from enforcing those who are in the court house as a party to, or an observer of a judicial proceeding, or to conduct lawful business, have the same property rights related to digital devices and cell phones, as those identified in the 2010 Authorized Exception definitions? 
2.3: Since 2010's initial order discretionarily banning cell phones and digital devices in the court house, has the Sheriff's office been provided an updated or new order on this topic? If yes, when was it issued and can you please provide a copy? 
2.4: Any modifications or additions to your 2016 response to this question? 

Thomas Gibbs: Under article V, section 4 of the Iowa Constitution, the Iowa Supreme Court is vested with the power to exercise supervisory and administrative control over Iowa’s district courts. With all power comes responsibility. With the power to supervise and administer courts comes the responsibility to promote safety in courthouses and court facilities. (except from a 2018 administrative order banning weapons from courthouses https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/155/embed/SupremeCourtOpinion) 

Authority for the cell phone and digital device ban resides with the Chief Judge of the 7th Judicial District who has supervisory and administrative control of the District Court. Attorneys are considered officers of the court, with that comes some inherent trust. Along with law enforcement who are allowed to bring cell phones into the courthouse. There are times in which cell phones belonging to the public may be brought into the courthouse (e.g. contains evidence related to a court case/petition). You are correct in that anyone in violation may be found in contempt of court by the presiding judge. But officers and attorneys who violate the rules not only face contempt, but also disciplinary actions of their agencies unlike the public. 

As Sheriff, any concerns with an administrative order would be reviewed with the County Attorney’s Office. 

Tim Lane: The Iowa Supreme Court has issued an opinion that courthouses such as the one in Scott County are mostly under the jurisdiction of the court system, even in the common areas and hallways, because they are primarily made up of court rooms and other supporting offices. In Scott County, the remaining offices, such as the Treasurer, Auditor, Recorder, Facility maintenance, County Roads, etc. are all in other buildings. This gives the chief judge the ability to set the rules in our courthouse under the same authority that would allow them to find someone in contempt of court within the actual court room while court is in session. Cell phones have far more abilities now than they did in 2010 but primarily, they are a severe distraction for the court system when they are in the possession of citizens viewing court proceedings or jurors who are performing their duties. Employees and lawyers are able to enter places within the courthouse that the public is not allowed. This is where cell phones can be used. It was never well known that until recently, cell phones did not actually work in a large portion of the courthouse because the booster that ran the jail and bailiff communication system interrupted their ability to get a signal.

(See both Sheriff Lane's and Officer Thomas Gibbs' updated responses to this topic the Reader covered with both candidates in 2016 at RCRader.com/y/sheriff2024)

Topic 3: Accreditation and National Best Practices

On CH4 with Jim Niedelman, candidate Gibbs stated the Sheriff office must refresh its policies procedures and our practices to make sure they are following national best practices. The Sheriff office and staff need a third party entity verifying the county sheriff office is meeting such best practices (OurQuadCities.com/news/4-the-record/gibbs-pushes-accreditation-in-his-bid-for-scott-county-sheriff/). This was echoed at the September 21, 2024 People's Forum for which an audio recording is available at: Scott County Iowa Sheriff Candidate People’s Forum – September 21, 2024. In a followup e-mail, Gibbs stated, “Accreditation would be through CALEA Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA.org) and American Corrections Association (ACA.org). The priority is reviewing and updating our policy manual.”

2024 General Election Questions 3

3.1 to Candidate Gibbs: Which current policies, procedures or practices are not following national best practices that a third party accreditation will assure the public are being followed?

Thomas Gibbs: We have at least one policy which violates state court ruling (State v Ingram). That is a 2018 case rendered by our Iowa Supreme Court, which our policy was never updated to reflect the outcome of that ruling. We have several policies which still bear the signature of Sheriff Conard. That means in seven and a half years, policies haven’t been reviewed and updated. Policies should be reviewed on a regular basis, if nothing else just to show they have been reviewed by administration and still in effect updating their effective date to show when they were reviewed. Some policies should be reviewed annually (e.g., use of force, pursuits). Others may be reviewed on a regular interval/schedule.

3.1 to Sheriff Lane: Is the cited policy manual a document the public can have access to? If so, please attach a copy.

Tim Lane: I recently requested that the Sheriff’s Office general orders be placed on our public Web site for all to read. However, public display of general orders is not a requirement of an accredited law enforcement agency.

3.2: What is the benefit to Scott County residents that the Sheriff's office is following any of the yet to be identified national best practices?

Thomas Gibbs: Having an outside party review our policies ensures our policies are up to date and provides verification to our citizens. Accreditation ensures policies are being reviewed every three years when applying for Accreditation.

Tim Lane: National accreditation for law enforcement is done through multiple private companies who come into the agency and review the policies to make sure that an updated policy exists for each function that the agency performs. Then the agency provides the private company with proof that the policies are being followed and documented and that the employees are being trained on them. Some of the private companies concentrate on reducing financial liability to the agency through risk management and some of them concentrate on public relations.

This is the same function that any law enforcement management team should be doing as part of their primary focus. The difference is the plaque on the wall, the cost to the agency, the ongoing recertifications, and the structure of the agency. The Scott County Sheriff’s Office looked into accreditation a couple decades ago but chose not to due to the need to have two full time positions dedicated to it while also paying the company for their work and travel expenses. Then the company requires that you continue paying them to recertify the agency or they will decertify your agency. There is no true benefit to the public in my opinion. Accreditation looks good on a police chief’s resume but to be decertified does not, which is how the company gets their hooks into the agencies budget.

Topic 4: Sexual Offenders Task Force

At the previously cited September 21 People's Forum, Sheriff Lane stated there are 500 registered sex offenders in Scott County, and one of his top priorities in keeping children safe from these demonstrated threats to their safety. Officer Gibbs stated in an e-mail responding to our questions about the form the following: “Also to touch on a point from Sheriff Lane, I would be very interested in restarting the Sex Offender Task Force which he has stopped and not restarted.” We found this news release from 2016 at the Reader Web site: RCReader.com/newsreleases/sex-offender-home-compliance-checks and among other things it showed that back then 317 offenders were on the list for a compliance check. And, a search at the County Web site turns up a page (ScottCountyIowa.gov/sheriff/sex-offenders/task-force) that reads in part "Members of the Task Force meet monthly,” and continues to display the Scott County Sheriff office as a member.

2024 General Election Questions 4

4.1: What evidence is there that Sheriff Lane has “stopped” the Sexual Offenders Task Force?

Thomas Gibbs: It is my understanding the SOTF has been shut down for quite some time. You would need to confirm with Sheriff Lane for how long it has not met. You could also inquire with other member agencies if meetings have continued or not.

4.2: Is the web page for the SOTF linked above accurate in its history and membership?

Thomas Gibbs: The Web site still relevant, but not entirely up to date. It still bears the name of Iowa DHS instead of Iowa HHS.

4.3: Does the SOTF still meet monthly, and are those meetings open to the public?
Thomas Gibbs: SOTF meetings are not open to the public. It provides time and space for participants to discuss sometimes confidential information for situational awareness.

4.4: When was the last compliance sweep conducted in Scott County similar to the one publicized in the 2016 news release linked above and what were the statistics for that effort?

Thomas Gibbs: Compliance sweeps are still being conducted; however, staffing has not kept pace with the increase in sex offenders. We need to hire clerks to do the task of registration to free up detectives for compliance checks and investigations. Possibly adding more clerks and detectives to keep pace with the growing numbers of sex offenders registering in Scott County. The Sheriff should be able to provide you with the information regarding the last sweep.

4.5: If the SOTF has been “stopped” by Lane, what are the reasons it should remain inactive or be re-activated?

Thomas Gibbs: If elected, it would be reactivated as soon as possible. It is a way to coordinate information and operations with stakeholders for better awareness. As stated on the Web site, the goal of the Scott County Sex Offender Task Force is to work toward a safer Scott County for all children and victims of sex offenders. That is a collaborative partnership I would like to bring back as soon as possible.

Tim Lane: The Scott County Sex Offender Task Force remains one of my more frustrating problems I have as Sheriff. I want the public to know that my decisions have been for the protection of the citizens of Scott County, primarily children. The task force is made up of 10 agencies that have signed a partnership agreement to work together for the safety of the public by sharing information on convicted sex offenders on the sex offender registry. This includes an informal monthly meeting.

In 2021, the in-person meetings resumed after COVID and were held at the Sheriff’s Office. A Parole Officer from the Department of Corrections (DOC) told the members that a particular sex offender was being removed from the sex offender registry because he had received an assessment that rated him as a low risk to re-offend. This particular sex offender had multiple victims that he raped over the course of many years, usually beginning at the age of eight. This caused me and other members to take note that there had been several sex offenders removed from the registry in that time-frame that had child victims that did not seem to be low risk. I then took a DOC sex offender risk assessment from the Sheriff’s Office sex offender files to the Chief Judge to discuss a resolution. It had been discovered that the sex offenders were being removed from the sex offender registry without a court hearing and that not all sex offenders removed from the registry were rated as a low risk. The Chief Judge released an order that all further sex offenders would have to go to a court hearing to determine if they were eligible to be removed from the sex offender registry.

At the following month’s task force meeting, a member of the DOC and an attorney from Mike Walton’s Office showed up to confront me about talking to the chief judge. After the meeting, I looked further into the situation and found that the DOC had removed 93 sex offenders from the sex offender registry in the 7th judicial district in 2021 alone. When I looked again in the Sheriff’s Office sex offender files, I found that all the DOC risk assessments had been purged from our files.

The DOC director has since reduced the number of parole officers within the sex offender unit, and has said that he does not agree with the sex offender laws. The only way that the DOC can get a sex offender sentenced to lifetime parole for raping children off parole, is to get them off of the sex offender registry first. This concerns me because there are more registered sex offenders than ever before, and some are destined to offend again. This liberal policy on removing sex offenders from the registry was beginning to gain traction in Scott County and we were finding that sex offenders were moving here from other states and some of them only had the intent of using our area to get off the sex offender registry. I was not going to let Scott County become a sanctuary county for sex offenders.

The Sheriff’s Office still conducts sex offender compliance checks and sweeps at a rate that is more than was done in previous years. The DOC management is still upset that the parole officer released that they were removing sex offenders from the registry to the rest of the task force and have put restrictions on the parole officer to keep her from testifying in the court hearings.

I intend to continue the sex offender task-force meetings when the DOC district director is replaced or receives direction out of the Governor’s Office to follow the law. The partnership agreement is to share information, but the DOC was intentionally withholding information from the task force and going down a dangerous path. They learned nothing from when convicted sex offender Henry Dinkins killed Breasia Terrell in 2020 while on parole.