Mirage wrote:
You raise a good point. Originally and when state's rights were equal to or greater than the Federal government a good case can be made that a sheriff is the head of law enforcement.
Exactly, the federal government was NEVER intended to have more power over the states. They were intended to have jurisdiction over only 10 square miles (Wash, DC) and federal lands (military bases, now national forests, etc.) each state is like it's own country (they used to be called "nation states") which is why each state has it's own Constitution. The feds often use bribery (withholding highway funds for example) to force states to do whatever they want them to.
Mirage wrote:
But even looking at the state constitution it makes the office seem more administrative.
The sheriff sets policy for his deputies and the jail, holds prisoners for trial and collects taxes. He, himself, isn't the one out there kicking in doors, making arrests, etc. (often that is only photo op time now)
He can also launch investigations into any wrong doing, including public corruption. The sheriff is a very powerful position that I don't feel should be trusted to a member of law enforcement, that is the fox watching the hen house. He has a county police chief that can act in an advisory position for police concerns.