Law selectively applied in sheriff case

Reader Input
-A +A
Question? Why would a lieutenant in the Placer County Sheriff’s Office, who is sworn to uphold the laws of the county, prevent/obstruct the local police from doing their job (“Savage case dismissed,” Journal, Feb. 2)? How is it up to the accused to define what he will or will not allow the investigating officers to do? Is this lieutenant above the laws he is sworn to uphold? Here again we find the county sheriff’s department in the news. Last time we had toddler’s death. Is this another case where the sheriff of Placer County sees no impropriety in the lieutenant’s behavior? Seems to me that once he was accused and the Rocklin police showed up, and (if the accused were) innocent he would have said, “Have at it guys! I’ve got nothing to hide.” But he didn’t. Instead, he said no to a car(s) search for a gun, and no to the (gunshot) residue test. Are these the actions of an innocent lieutenant sheriff? Something smells again in the sheriff’s office. It appears we have selective enforcement of laws when it comes to the law enforcement community. Why should this lieutenant of law enforcement with this attitude continue to draw a paycheck from the taxpayers of Placer County after obstructing the Rocklin police from doing their lawful jobs? JAMES McKESSON, AUBURN