AS I understand it, the Sheriff is the highest elected official in a county. As such, the Feds can not run law enforcement opecations without the Sheriff’s permission and knowledge. There is an exception if they are investigating the Sheriff for corruption.
Consequently, the Sheriff can stop a Federal enforcement action.
True. And historically in the west, and especially in New New Mexico and Arizona, The Marshals were extremely careful to cooperate with the Sheriff.
Despite what the movies portray, Marshals had less power than a sheriff. Even worse, they were very short of manpower and facilities. If a US Marshal wanted to lock someone up, federal facilities almost didn’t exist. The only jails and lockups were run by sheriffs.
Offend one and you have nowhere to take your prisoners.
To a limited degree this is still the case. If the Marshals would have arrested this sheriff, they would be out of business in that county. And for more fun, surrounding sheriffs might go along with it.
The bitter truth for the feds is that they cling to a very slender reed of control. Mass disobedience could easily arise over something widely perceived as unjust. And they really don’t have the power to force widespread compliance.
Sometimes Posse Comitatus trumps the Sheriff. Last spring, Warlord Bundy and his militia threatened war not only with BLM but also the Clark County Sheriff's dept.
In some states, the sheriff is the highest elected official in a county; in other states he is not. (Some states don't have county sheriffs at all; in some states they're not elected; and in most states there are other county-wide elected officials.)
As such, the Feds can not run law enforcement opecations without the Sheriff’s permission and knowledge. There is an exception if they are investigating the Sheriff for corruption. Consequently, the Sheriff can stop a Federal enforcement action.
Nonsense. The Supremacy Clause means that federal law enforcement always trumps state law.