STATE OF IDAHO ‘OFFICE OF MH ATTORNEY GENERAL January 22, 2016 Dan Roberts Dear Mr. Roberts, Our office previously reviewed your complaint regarding the Madison County Sheriff and accepted the matter for preliminary investigation per Idaho Code §31- 2002. That statute authorizes the Attorney General to conduct a preliminary investigation of “any allegation of a violation of state law, criminal or civ, against ‘a county officer occupying an elective ofice for violation of state law in his official capacity.” Idaho Code § 31-2002(1). Upon completion of the preliminary investigation, the Attomey General may do one of three things: issue a finding that no further action is necessary, prescribe training or other nonudicial femedies that do not involve the fling of criminal charges or a civil action, or issue @ finding that futher investigation or prosecution is warranted. We have completed the preiminary investigation and, by this letter, are issuing a finding that no further action is warranted, ‘The actions which form the basis of your complaints that we investigated are that the Madison County Sheriff used funds obtained through concealed weapons license permitting fees for inappropriate purposes and committed perjury. You also alleged that county budget and finance procedures had been violated as they related to funds obtained through concealed weapons license permitting fees. ur investigation revealed that the funds at issue were used for various office wide expenditures for law enforcement prior to July 1, 2015. The language of the relevant statute during that time-frame allowed for the funds to be used for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the entire Chapter 33, Tile 18, Idaho Code. Chapter 33 contains more than just licensing obligations; it encompasses ‘a number of criminal offenses and their penalties as well, Because a county sheriff is charged with arresting those who attempt to commit or have committed ‘apart aR Te2 public offense and carry the primary duty of enforcing all penal provisions of the state, arguably spending funds on office-wide expenditures of a law enforcement lageney could fit under this statute. The possibilty of such a broad statutory interpretation coupled with the fact the Madison County Sheriff has, since the enactment of the new version of the statute, only expended funds on items directly related to concealed weapons licensing processes, indicates a lack of intent on the part of the Madison County Sherif to violate this statute. Due to this lack of evidence of intent, along with the Sheriffs wilingness to proactively take femedial action, tis offends that no further acton on this algaton is warrante Related to this allegation is the assertion that Madison County failed to follow appropriate county budgeting and finance procedures for the funds obtained from. concealed weapons license permitting fees. Although our investigation revealed potential deviations from Idaho Code relating to county budget and finance, there ‘was no allegation or evidence uncovered indicating that these deviations led to inappropriate expenditures or criminal activity. Furthermore, In October 2015, Madison County suspended the previous procedures employed regarding these funds and now treals the account holding these funds like all other county ‘accounts. The funds are handled by the Madison County Clerk and expenditures must be authorized by the Madison County Commissioners. In light of the cortective action taken and the lack of evidence of criminal conduct, we conclude that no further action on this allegation is warranted. ‘The final allegation of perjury was also investigated and is factually unsupported by the evidence. Though ultimately we do not find a basis for further investigation or prosecution, we appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention, Paul Panther Deputy Attomey General Chief, Criminal Law Division co: Sid Brown, ‘Madison County Prosecuting Attomey