03/15/2026
“I want the citizens of Okanogan County to see what I sent to our legislators during the time allowed to make comment period and they still pushed forward their agenda to undermine the Office of Sheriff.”
A Sheriff’s Oath and Constitutional Boundaries
Madam Speaker, Members of the Legislature,
My name is Sheriff Paul D. Budrow. I am the duly elected Sheriff of Okanogan County.
I come before you not as a politician — but as a constitutional officer.
I do not answer to a governor.
I do not answer to an agency director.
I answer to the people of Okanogan County.
And above all, I answer to the Constitution — the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington.
When I raised my right hand and took my oath, I did not swear loyalty to a statute book. I swore to uphold and defend those Constitutions — not as a formality, but as a binding obligation.
That oath is not ceremonial.
It is binding.
And it carries consequences.
Let me address something that is often said in this building:
“The Executive Branch does not interpret the law. It simply enforces it.”
With respect — that is not reality.
Every deputy in this state interprets the Constitution every single day.
We interpret the Fourth Amendment when we determine whether probable cause exists.
We interpret due process protections when liberty is at stake.
We apply standards articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States and the Washington Supreme Court in real time — often in seconds, in dangerous and rapidly evolving circumstances.
We do not have the luxury of waiting years for appellate clarification.
Now let us speak plainly.
The Governor of Washington and the Attorney General of Washington are both members of the executive branch.
The Governor is the chief executive of this state.
The Attorney General is its chief legal officer.
Our current Governor and our current Attorney General are both attorneys. They understand constitutional law. They understand judicial precedent. They understand the boundaries that courts have drawn.
Yet we often hear the position advanced that when a law is passed, it is presumed constitutional until the judiciary declares otherwise.
Formally, that is true. Statutes carry a presumption of constitutionality.
But here is the practical question:
If that presumption is absolute in application — if no executive officer may decline enforcement even when a law clearly conflicts with established precedent — then why has a sheriff never been successfully taken to court merely for refusing to enforce a statute he believes plainly unconstitutional?
The answer is not mystery. It is structure.
Because every constitutional officer — including the Governor, the Attorney General, and every sheriff — retains independent authority and independent responsibility under their oath.
And here is the reality that often goes unspoken:
When controversial legislation is passed, the Governor does not personally enforce it.
The Attorney General does not conduct traffic stops or make custodial arrests.
They do not place their qualified immunity on the line in roadside encounters.
The sheriff does.
If I enforce a statute that clearly violates established constitutional precedent, I can be sued under federal civil rights law. My deputies can be sued. Okanogan County can face substantial financial liability.
Qualified immunity does not protect us when the right at issue is clearly established.
So when we are told:
“Enforce the law until a court strikes it down,”
What that means in practice is:
“Sheriff — you carry the risk.”
If we decline to enforce a statute that plainly conflicts with binding precedent, we are accused of defiance.
If we enforce it and a court later rules it unconstitutional, we are accused of violating civil rights.
You are insulated when you vote.
Statewide executive officials are insulated when they announce policy.
We are exposed when we act.
That is not an equal sharing of constitutional responsibility.
Separation of powers was designed to preserve liberty — not to shift liability to the level of government closest to the citizen.
Let me be clear about where I stand.
If I am ever placed in a position where a statute directly conflicts with controlling constitutional precedent — not a gray policy disagreement, but a clear and established violation of rights — I will not pretend that my oath requires blind enforcement.
My oath is to the Constitution.
Not to convenience.
Not to politics.
Not to temporary majorities.
The courts have made clear that “I was just enforcing the statute” is not a defense when the constitutional violation is obvious.
I will enforce constitutional laws vigorously and without hesitation.
But I will not knowingly violate the constitutional rights of the citizens who elected me simply because a statute has not yet been tested in court.
That is not rebellion.
That is fidelity.
If this Legislature believes strongly in a law, ensure it is constitutionally sound before it leaves this chamber.
Do not make county governments the financial backstop for legislative experimentation.
Do not make deputies the constitutional shock absorbers.
And do not suggest that the executive branch has no role in guarding constitutional boundaries — because our oath demands that we do.
The people of Washington deserve laws that withstand scrutiny the moment they take effect — not years later after costly litigation and eroded public trust.
I stand ready to enforce the law.
But I stand first to defend the Constitution.
And that is exactly what I will continue to do.
Sheriff Paul D. Budrow
Okanogan County
