The Westmoreland County sheriff is asking a judge to rescind a 2006 court order that requires sheriff’s deputies to transport county inmates to and from magisterial district courts, claiming it could save taxpayers more than $250,000 a year in overtime.
Sheriff James Albert is not wrong in saying Westmoreland relies more heavily than most counties on sheriff’s deputies for inmate transportation, including to minor judiciary courts. It has placed strain on staffing and scheduling. But it is also not new.
This has been a sheriff’s office responsibility for roughly 20 years. It is reasonable to ask whether that system still makes sense, but questioning a longstanding practice is not the same as ending it.
“It has become an unnecessary burden on the sheriff’s office,” Albert said.
Law enforcement is inherently burdensome. It is demanding, risky and, at times, life threatening. That is true of every assignment a sheriff’s deputy takes. But that is not the argument being made here.
This is a debate about money. Last year, sheriff’s deputies logged more than 17,000 hours of overtime, costing taxpayers about $658,000. That figure deserves scrutiny — but only in proper context.
Although the overtime appears in the sheriff’s budget, the burden does not fall on Albert personally. It falls on taxpayers. Those costs represent about 11% of all overtime paid to county employees, underscoring that this is not a departmental issue but a county expense and a public responsibility.
No matter who is driving, inmates must be transported from the county jail to district courts. Whether that work is done by sheriff’s deputies, constables, corrections officers, local police or state police, changing who performs the task does not eliminate the cost. Moving the line item to another budget does not make it free.
It is possible shifting transportation duties could reduce overtime within the sheriff’s office. That does not necessarily mean it would reduce countywide costs. Without a clear plan detailing who would take over the work, at what pay rate, with what staffing levels and with what long-term capacity, claims of savings remain departmental rather than public. Cost shifting is not the same thing as cost saving.
Constables may be an alternative, but that option has limits. Westmoreland County has 21 constables or deputy constables, only 12 of whom are firearms- certified, according to the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. Even that figure does not guarantee stability. Seventeen of those certifications expire Feb. 12, with another set to expire April 1.
Statewide, the number of constables is shrinking. A 2023 study found a 31% decline in the number of constables between 2016 and 2021. That does not mean constables are incapable of doing the work. It means they are not a growing or reliable workforce on which to build a long-term solution.
None of this is a reason to dismiss the sheriff’s concerns. This is a conversation worth having — with the courts, the commissioners, the jail and law enforcement leadership. It should be grounded in a full accounting of cost, capacity and sustainability. But that conversation should happen before asking a judge to rescind a court order that has shaped county operations for two decades.
That is not putting the cart before the horse.
That is unhitching the horse while the cart is moving.