Mr. Errol Romo Romero

1076 (W.D.La. 1994) Errol "Romo" Romero, Sheriff of Iberia Parish, Louisiana v. United States of America.Civ.A.No. 94-0419.United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette-Opelousas Division.Dec. 8, 1994.Memorandum Denying Amendment of Findings But Altering Judgment, Feb. 6, 1995.
...
Stipulated Facts [footnote 1] Sheriff Errol Romero is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer, as defined by the Brady Act, for the Parish of Iberia, State of Louisiana.As Sheriff, Mr. Romero has responsibility for performing various civil functions as well as criminal interdiction throughout Iberia Parish.Due to lack of sufficient funding, Sheriff Romero does not have the ability both to completely fulfill his duties as defined by the State of Louisiana and to undertake the additional duties mandated by the Brady Act.Due Process Sheriff Romero seeks a declaratory judgment that the criminal sanctions provision of the Brady Act is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as an injunction prohibiting enforcement against himself of that provision.Defendant has challenged Sheriff Romero's standing to seek equitable relief concerning the criminal sanctions provision.In order to assert a claim for equitable relief, a party must satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of this Court.The primary jurisdictional requirement is that a claim presents a "case or controversy," as found in Art.III of the United States Constitution. [footnote 2] In order to present a case or controversy, a plaintiff must have standing to bring his claim. [footnote 3] The United States Supreme Court recently reiterated the standing doctrine's requirements: (1) An injury in fact which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; (3) and a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. [footnote 4] The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements. [footnote 5] By his own admission, Sheriff Romero is not enforcing the provisions of the Brady Act, [footnote 6] and claims to be in peril of criminal prosecution for knowingly violating the terms of the federal law.By this admission, Sheriff Romero seeks to establish that the harm of prosecution is sufficiently imminent to satisfy the standing requirement.The only entity which is legally authorized to enforce the criminal sanctions contained in the Brady Act is the United States Department of Justice.The Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice has issued a memorandum finding that the Brady Act's criminal penalties "do not apply to [local law enforcement officers] in performance of their duties under the Act."[footnote 7] In making this finding, the Office of Legal Counsel states that enforcement of the criminal penalty provision would be "contrary to Congress' intent as determined according to rules of statutory construction and the relevant legislative history," [footnote 8] The Memorandum concludes with the assertion that "18 U.S.C. section 924(a)(5) does not apply to state officials and that the United States therefore lacks the authority to prosecute such officials for violations of the Act."[footnote 9] The Department of Justice has clearly indicated an intent not to enforce the criminal sanctions provision of the Brady Act against law enforcement officers in connection with the background check provisions of the Brady Act, presumably including Sheriff Romero.Furthermore, Sheriff Romero has not presented this Court with any evidence to suggest that the local U.S. Attorney intends to act in violation of the Justice Department's clearly stated interpretation of the enforcement authority granted in the Brady Act.Therefore, plaintiff has not sustained his burden of proving that he is under an imminent threat of indictment sufficient to grant him standing to challenge the constitutionality of the criminal sanctions provision of the Brady Act. [footnote 10] For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's Fifth Amendment challenge to the criminal sanctions provision of the Brady Act.The Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause I. Complainant seeks a declaratory judgment that section 102(a) of the Brady Act is inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment and unconstitutional for that reason.As noted above, Sheriff Romero cannot assert a claim for equitable relief unless he proves his standing to bring such a claim.Standing requires the existence of an injury in fact, a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and the likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favor able decision. [footnote 11] The parties have stipulated to the harm actually caused and threatened by the Brady Act.The law creates a political dilemma for Sheriff Romero."[The Brady Act] puts him in the middle of the conflict between those citizens of Iberia Parish who firmly believe that the provisions of the Brady Handgun Control Act unconstitutionally infringes [sic] upon their right to bear arms and those who feel it is a legitimate exercise of Congressional authority."[footnote 12] This is precisely the type of injury which the Supreme Court has recognized that the Tenth Amendment and the constitutional structure are designed to avoid, [footnote 13] Sheriff Romero has Hobson's Choice of either being a law enforcement officer not enforcing the law, or enforcing a law he and many of his constituents believe is unconst

Term-limited state rep. and former Iberia Parish sheriff Errol "Romo" Romero also has erected signs around town that don't specify what he might be running for.Yesterday, he refused to clarify his position, telling The Advocate, "I'm not opening the door and I'm not closing the door."

Errol "Romo" Romero, a former sheriff who said wardens can use those privileges as rewards and penalties to keep order.

It wasn't Rep.Steve Scalise's first attempt to limit what he calls "perks" in the state facilities.

Errol "Romo" Romero, a former sheriff in Iberia Parish, who said, "Did you know that the Brady Bill is the best feel-good legislation ever passed in the U.S.?"

Errol "Romo" Romero, a former sheriff in Iberia Parish, who said: "Did you know that the Brady Bill is the best feel-good legislation ever passed in the U.S.?"

Hebert won in his first run for the office in 1995, defeating longtime Sheriff Errol "Romo" Romero.

Romero was born February 27, 1937. He graduated from New Iberia Senior High in 1957. He served in the United States navy for 2 years and was on inactive duty for 6 years. He attended USL and LSU and graduated from the FBI National Academy.

He began his career as a vocational plumbing teacher with the Iberia Parish School Board. In 1968 year he was elected police juror, on the Iberia Parish police Jury and served as Police Jury President from 1978 - 79.

In 1979, "Romo" pulled off one of the biggest political upsets in history. Campaigning on a platform calling for more accountability from the sheriff's office, Romero defeated 24-year incumbent and six-term Iberia Parish Sheriff G. "Jerry" Wattigny in a very bitter race, receiving 58% of the votes.
...
In 1991, Wattigny challenged him once again for the position of sheriff, and this time Romero garnered 69% of the vote winning 83 out of 85 precincts to easily fend off the former sheriff's challenge.
...
Romero served as Iberia Parish Sheriff for 16 years from 1980-1996. Romero will go down in the history as the only sheriff in the United States who refused to enforce the "Brady Law". His brief stated "Sheriff Romero suffers the damage incumbent upon being politically accountable for an action taken by Congress, for which he was not responsible". Filed in 1994, it was upheld by the United State Supreme Court as unconstitutional; (Errol "Romo" Romero, Sheriff of Iberia Parish Louisiana vs. United States of America Civ. A. No 94-0419) At that time Romero said, "It's a matter of upholding the constitution, the primary function of the federal government is to protect us from foreign invasion, the Federal government cannot mandate local governments to do something they are not willing to pay for."

In 1990, the Daily Iberian selected Romero as one of the most influential individuals in Iberia Parish. He is a lay minister, lecturer and usher for the Nativity of Our Lady Catholic Church. In 1997, Romero was elected to the House of Representatives District 48 seat, which includes Iberia and St. Martin parishes, succeeding Elias "Bo" Ackal, Jr. who left office to take a job in the Foster administration.
...
Throughout his professional career, Romero has been involved in many civic organizations: he has coached youth swimming, boxing and baseball. He was the former chairman of the March of Dimes, the Bishops Services Appeal and the United Givers Drive. He is a member of the American Legion, Knights of Columbus, Woodmen of the World and the Kiwanis Club.