Based Ron DeSantis Removes Woke Florida Prosecutor

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

https://spectator.org/desantis-sacks-non-prosecutor/

Tampa — Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has done the right thing again. No wonder the media and Democrats (pardon the redundancy) are all over him.

On Thursday morning, DeSantis suspended Hillsborough County (Tampa) State Attorney Andrew Warren, who has pledged not to enforce state laws prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks or laws restricting sex changes for minors. DeSantis appointed county Judge Susan Lopez interim state attorney.

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, handing control over abortion laws back to states, 83 prosecutors across the country signed a letter pledging not to prosecute anyone who performs, abets, or seeks an abortion after 15 weeks. Warren, a Democrat who styles himself a “criminal justice reformer,” was the only Florida prosecutor who joined in this pledge to nullify state law. On Thursday, Warren learned that in red Florida state laws are not a judicial cafeteria from which prosecutors may choose what they like and ignore what they don’t like.

Is this right?  Ask yourself if a prosecutor refused to prosecute anti-black hate crimes (to the extent that they refused to seek Hate Crime enhancements) should remain in office.  Or anti-trans hate crimes; what about them?  Prosecutors are to prosecute crime whenever it exists, without passion or prejudice, and a crime is what the law says is a crime.

I love DeSantis more and more because he's not afraid to be controversial to push policies favored by people who voted for him.  And for the rule of law.  Floridians did not agree to suspend the laws Andrew Warren wished to suspend.  So I'm pleased with this.  Leadership, in many instances, is doing it simply because (A) you can and (B) the people who support you expect it.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Good that he is gone but I would rather this prosecutor be removed via impeachment than this way.

Florida Law grants a Governor significant powers to remove public officials in this manner.  Whatever one thinks of it, this will probably stand up in court. 

A few years ago Rick Scott took a case of an accused cop-killer out of the hands of Orlando's State Attorney Aramis Ayala (a Woke Prosecutor who was heavily funded by Soros PACs) and turned the Prosecution to the Marion County (Ocala) State Attorney because Ayala publicly stated that she would not seek the Death Penalty.  I will say that I was personally conflicted; Rick Scott is awful and I'm a Death Penalty opponent.  But Ayala's refusal was not a blanket refusal, whereas this guy Warren has said he won't prosecute whole categories of crimes.  So I'll give a thumbs up to DeSantis and wait for what the Courts have to say on this.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

https://spectator.org/desantis-sacks-non-prosecutor/

Tampa — Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has done the right thing again. No wonder the media and Democrats (pardon the redundancy) are all over him.

On Thursday morning, DeSantis suspended Hillsborough County (Tampa) State Attorney Andrew Warren, who has pledged not to enforce state laws prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks or laws restricting sex changes for minors. DeSantis appointed county Judge Susan Lopez interim state attorney.

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, handing control over abortion laws back to states, 83 prosecutors across the country signed a letter pledging not to prosecute anyone who performs, abets, or seeks an abortion after 15 weeks. Warren, a Democrat who styles himself a “criminal justice reformer,” was the only Florida prosecutor who joined in this pledge to nullify state law. On Thursday, Warren learned that in red Florida state laws are not a judicial cafeteria from which prosecutors may choose what they like and ignore what they don’t like.

Is this right?  Ask yourself if a prosecutor refused to prosecute anti-black hate crimes (to the extent that they refused to seek Hate Crime enhancements) should remain in office.  Or anti-trans hate crimes; what about them?  Prosecutors are to prosecute crime whenever it exists, without passion or prejudice, and a crime is what the law says is a crime.

I love DeSantis more and more because he's not afraid to be controversial to push policies favored by people who voted for him.  And for the rule of law.  Floridians did not agree to suspend the laws Andrew Warren wished to suspend.  So I'm pleased with this.  Leadership, in many instances, is doing it simply because (A) you can and (B) the people who support you expect it.

Literally wtf, arguing that opposing Anti-Trans discrimination is a reason to support Anti-Trans discrimination and limiting a women's access to Reproductive Healthcare.

Yeah, that's gonna be a big fat no from me Fuzzy.

One person's anti-trans discrimination is another person's parental rights.

I side with parents as the best arbiters of a child's interests.  While there are certainly parents who are not the best arbiters, the price of the law not operating from that premise is the destruction of the family as the organizing unit of our society, and that would be catastrophic beyond description.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Is this an elected position?

It is, yes, but Florida's Constitution gives the Governor rather broad powers to remove local officials for cause.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The level of ignorance here is very disappointing. It certainly shows a need to improve civics education in the United States.

The resources for the police, prosecutors and judges are simply not enough to enforce every crime committed.  If there were no scarce resources, there would be police officers on every street making sure that nobody jaywalked.

So, the issue becomes one of who decides what to enforce, or one of prosecutorial discretion.  

In most places here in Canada, there is a police board chaired by the mayor and various appointed civilians that works in concert with the police and the prosecutors to decide what laws to focus on.

In the United States, this discretion mostly seems to be placed with the elected offices. In Florida, that is the county sheriff along with the state's attorney. (The state's attorney is an elected position and in called in most states either the district attorney or the county prosecutor.) Obviously it's best when the county sheriff and the district attorney work together.

Although a mandate and not a law, this really is no different than when the Los Angeles County Sheriff told his officers to not enforce mask mandates. While this county sheriff did not say 'I oppose mask mandates, so I refuse to enforce them', but instead said 'this is too low a priority for the officers available', the point is the same: some authority has to have discretion to decide what laws to focus on enforcing in their jurisdiction.

What this really is from DeathSantis is an attack on local governments. Hopefully the people in this county will resent having their local control taken away from them and help vote out this authoritarian fascist.

1. There is a difference between not prosecuting some cases due to time constraints  which then forces you to prioritize which ones you will prosecute vs which ones you dont. You better have receipts proving you didnt have the time to prosecute the other ones as well

2. Most Mask Mandates were implemented by executive orders and executive agencies and not legislation


So yes if Andrew Warren was smart he probably could have not really enforced this thanks to point number 1 but that point is very different then I will not enforce the law due to my own political beliefs.

1.Every jurisdiction faces this issue and has to prioritize the type of cases to focus on. Have you ever got a ticket for jaywalking?  "better have the receipts"? That's absurd. Do you think the police and prosecutors are just sitting on their asses since if they don't enforce abortion laws? Most police are already overburdened with harrassing minorities and poor people. Just kidding.

2.When a district attorney is elected, the people of the county don't vote for an automaton, they vote for somebody to use their discretion in deciding what to prosecute (even if many of them mistakenly think that every law is enforced, most district attorneys get elected stating what laws they want to focus on enforcing.) If the people of this county disagree with this state's attorney not enforcing abortion laws, the people of the county can vote him out. It's interesting how often right wingers otherwise argue:

A.the will of the voters should not be overturned except by the electorate.
B.the best governments are local governments because they are closest to the people.

If DeathSantis doesn't like counties electing local officials, he should submit a law to remove local and county governments and have their duties handled at the state level.

DeFacto, this is already what many 'red states' are doing to their 'blues cities and counties.'

 This is not what Andrew Warren did as he straight up said he would not enforce the law cause he disagreed with it . He didn’t say we don’t have time to do , but openly said he would not enforce laws he disagrees with .

So if the people of his community did not agree with his exercise of prosecutorial discretion, couldn’t they vote him out in the next election?

They could, yes.  What would the remedy be to victims if a prosecutor refused to prosecute illegal rioters in Tampa, as Warren refused to do?  

BLM and Antifa rioters damaged property and caused injuries, inflicting monetary damages, yet Warren refused to prosecute perpetrators.  Whatever the scope of these damages andinjuries, they WERE damages and injuries that inflicted a cost to the individuals whose property was damaged and whose person was injured.  Now these are CRIMES where the entire State of Florida is the plaintiff, but in criminal law there is an identified victim, a party where probably cause has been established that their life, liberty, or property has been illegally taken from them by a specific party or parties.  Do crime victims not have the right to see justice under the law be rendered against those who harmed them criminally?  Moreover, do individual citizens have the right to be secure in the knowledge that THEIR local prosecutor will prosecute the perpetrators of crimes against THEM in order that justice may be rendered?

I should say here that a civil monetary payout to victims for damages isn't enough.  The Prosecutor's office in whichever jurisdiction exists not only to PUNISH criminals in the name of rendering justice; it exists to DETER crime by ensuring that people know that crime will not go unpunished.  Did Mr. Warren not grievously fail the citizenry of Hillsborough County, FL in that manner?

So I go back to my earlier question:  What would be the remedy to people whose robber/thief etc went unprosecuted and unpunished by Mr. Warren?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The level of ignorance here is very disappointing. It certainly shows a need to improve civics education in the United States.

The resources for the police, prosecutors and judges are simply not enough to enforce every crime committed.  If there were no scarce resources, there would be police officers on every street making sure that nobody jaywalked.

So, the issue becomes one of who decides what to enforce, or one of prosecutorial discretion. 

This is an excellent point and I'm happy to adjust my view of this kind of situation because of it, so thanks. I suppose the issue is more that American prosecutors behave like—and are—political figures in general than that they exercise this discretion for their own ideological or moral reasons in particular (which I'm sure police boards etc. do in Canada as well).

The discretion does not come from monetary concerns.  The discretion comes from the prosecutor's decision to formally charge a defendant with an information.

The state shall file formal charges on defendants in custody by information, or indictment, or in the case of alleged misdemeanors by whatever documents constitute a formal charge, within 30 days from the date on which defendants are arrested or from the date of the service of capiases upon them. If the defendants remain uncharged, the court on the 30th day and with notice to the state shall:.

(1) Order that the defendants automatically be released on their own recognizance on the 33rd day unless the state files formal charges by that date; or
(2) If good cause is shown by the state, order that the defendants automatically be released on their own recognizance on the 40th day unless the state files formal charges by that date.
In no event shall any defendants remain in custody beyond 40 days unless they have been formally charged with a crime.

FL. R. Crim. P. 3.134

Renumbered by 573 So.2d 826, effective 4/1/1991.

State Attorney discretion is not absolute.  A State Attorney can't just not file a charge against a defendant because they are philosophically opposed to a statute if a defendant has been arrested for the charge and the State Attorney determines that there is probably cause to go forth with a prosecution.  When an Information is filed by a State Attorney charging a person with a crime, they are not only stating that they have met the standard for Probable Cause to show that (A) a crime was committed and (B) the person charged committed the crime; they are also saying that their Office will be able, at Trial, to prove the defendant's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Yes, things can happen to make that assessment change over time, but a State Attorney does not have the discretion to not file the appropriate charge if evidence shows that a crime was committed and probable cause shows that the accused did the crime.

When a State Attorney does not file charges against a criminal, that is non-feasance.  It's deliberately not doing the job you were elected to.  If people here were honest with themselves, they would have been fully supportive if the Governor of Kentucky removed Kim Davis from office because she would not issue marriage licenses to same-sex people.  "Discretion" does not mean the utter refusal to bring criminal charges simply because you disagree with the law in question.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Ultimately if leftists/liberals want to see real change, they should change the law. And to do that, they need to win elections--in this case, elections in Florida.

The drafting and execution of the law is---or should be---determined by politics, but not in the sense of the personal preferences of individual officials. It is determined by politics in the broader, democratic sense of the people's elected representatives in the legislature and executive branch (with the judiciary being more complicated, yes, but I'm parking that debate for the purposes of this discussion). As much as I vehemently disagree with the laws in Florida, and maintain that DeSantis and Republican politicians in general are doing grievous harm to already marginalized communities, I have to agree with Fuzzy in that it's not for prosecutors or other executive branch officials to outright refuse to faithfully execute the laws.

Elect people who can repeal the laws you don't like and enact the legalization you want to see enacted. That's a more effective and sustainable strategy anyway than relying on some government official(s) who in the short term may or may not defy a few of the laws and policies currently on the books but can't possibly be a substitute for political change coming from the voters.

In a perfect world, yes.  But our system of state government ought to have mechanisms to at least suspend officials who commit nonfeasance or malfeasance of office.

Warren, by the way, is "suspended".  He does have recourse to this.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

In Florida, that discretion is entrusted to the state's attorney. The people of Hillsborough County have selected an individual to serve as state's attorney, because they trust him to use his discretion and judgment to determine when a particular set of circumstances requires a decision to prosecute. The approach to that discretion is the central issue in these elections — the entire reason they are elected is to ensure that decisions to prosecute or not prosecute align with community priorities. By all accounts, he enjoys broad popular support (he received roughly 125,000 more votes than DeSantis in the last election). If the people disagree with his priorities, they can vote him out.

Yup, my position is pretty much this x100.

Elected prosecutors should not have to justify their use of prosecutorial discretion to anyone except the voters.  Prosecutors must be allowed to act independently of government influence or interference. 

Ordinarily I would agree with these posts.  But when a prosecutor says he will not prosecute violators of a whole category of law, or a whole class of defendant, there comes a point where this rises to nonfeasance of office.  Florida's Constitution has given the Governor the power to suspend local officials for nonfeasance or malfeasance, and especially when the nonfeasance or malfeasance is motivated by purely political considerations.