Accountable Law Enforcement

Constables are democratically-elected officials, answering directly to voters. Their community foundation fosters transparency, reducing misconduct common in centralized, bureaucratic law enforcement agencies. Independent from rigid hierarchies, political agendas, and special interests, constables avoid the bureaucratic shielding that can obscure accountability and lead to distrust of law enforcement. Constables are a direct, visible, and responsive link between the public and justice.

Pennsylvania Superior Court · En Banc · June 17, 2026

Pennsylvania's Only Directly-Elected Police — Under Attack

Pennsylvania elects two kinds of law enforcement: sheriffs and constables. But only the constable's arrest authority is granted by statute rather than merely the common law — and that statutory arrest power is the very thing the Vehicle Code's definition of a “police officer” requires. 75 Pa.C.S. § 102. Sheriffs are elected, but their arrest power is common-law, not statutory. Municipal and state police hold statutory power, but they are appointed, not chosen by the people. The constable alone is both elected and statutory — the only directly-elected officer the General Assembly has made a police officer by law.

In Commonwealth v. Wiggs (June 17, 2026), a divided Superior Court ruled 8–1 that a constable's vehicle is nonetheless not a “police vehicle.” We believe that decision is wrong — and so did Judge Stabile, whose dissent shows the majority set aside the plain words of the statute to reach a result the General Assembly never wrote. It is one more element of a concerted effort to limit the authority of the officers Pennsylvanians choose directly.

This decision should not stand — and we are fighting it, in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and in the General Assembly. We are pursuing a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and an amendment of 75 Pa.C.S. § 4571(b)(1) so the law says plainly what the statutory scheme already implies.

Read the Case & the Stabile Dissent Join the Fight

What Constables Do for Your Community

Carry out court orders

When a court issues an order, constables help make sure it is carried out in the real world. That means the justice system does not stop at paperwork when families, tenants, small businesses, or victims need action.

Deliver important legal notices

Constables serve civil papers so people receive official notice that affects their rights, property, or obligations. For residents, that protects fairness: you should know when the legal system requires your attention.

Transport people safely and securely

Constables transport prisoners for the courts when safety, reliability, and chain of custody matter. This helps keep hearings moving and relieves pressure on already stretched local agencies.

Protect polling places on Election Day

Constables are the only law enforcement officers permitted inside polling places on Election Day. Their presence helps keep the peace close to the ballot box while preserving voter confidence and local accountability.

Fill the gaps other agencies cannot

In rural areas and underserved parts of the Commonwealth, constables often provide coverage where larger departments are farther away or focused elsewhere. That local presence matters when distance, time, and limited resources can leave communities exposed.

Answer to the people they serve

Constables are elected by the communities they protect, not appointed from above. If residents believe a constable is doing well or falling short, they have a direct voice at the ballot box.

A Record Older Than the Commonwealth

The constable's office in Pennsylvania predates the Commonwealth itself: it was carried forward from English common law in 1664 and survived the founding of Pennsylvania as a proprietary colony. Royal governors required constables alongside justices and sheriffs to enforce the law through the colonial period, and a century later Pennsylvania's own civics textbooks described the constable as "the chief executive officer of the township," responsible for maintaining peace and order.

That foundational role is not merely historical. When Pennsylvania created its State Police in 1905, the legislature explicitly granted them "the powers and prerogatives conferred by law upon...constables of this Commonwealth" — acknowledging that constable authority is the original baseline from which the rest of Pennsylvania law enforcement derives. Philadelphia police derive their powers from the same foundation: the 1951 Philadelphia Home Rule Charter grants them "all the powers conferred by law upon constables of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania."

What the Law Authorizes Constables to Do

The constable's authority comes from the common law first and from statute second. The office existed in Pennsylvania before the General Assembly first defined it; the statutes that govern constables today supplement that common law foundation rather than replace it. Where statute and common law overlap, both apply. Where statute is silent, the common law power remains.

Statutory Authorities

  • Make warrantless arrests for felonies and breaches of the peace — an arrest power granted by statute, which is exactly what the Vehicle Code requires of a “police officer” (75 Pa.C.S. § 102)
  • Execute warrants for courts throughout the Commonwealth
  • Serve civil process — summonses, judgments, and orders of possession
  • Transport and hold prisoners for the courts
  • Provide courthouse security
  • Keep order at election polls — the only law enforcement officers permitted inside polling places on Election Day
  • Direct traffic; motorists are required by statute to comply with the lawful orders of a uniformed constable
  • Carry firearms in the course of duty, including concealed, without a separate license

Common Law Authorities

  • Arrest for breaches of the peace independent of any statute
  • Keep the peace within the township, borough, or ward
  • Act as ex officio peace officer for the courts that elected or appointed them
  • Exercise the original constable office — older than the Commonwealth itself, carried forward from English common law in 1664

Pennsylvania appellate courts and the federal courts have confirmed these authorities; constables exercising arrest power act under color of state law, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has classified constables as executive-branch officers because their function is law enforcement. Accountability comes with that authority — constables are subject to constitutional standards the same as any law enforcement officer.

Read the statutes and case law on the Law Library page

Rooted in Our Community

Elected at the township, borough, or ward level, constables are deeply connected to the local area, serving as familiar faces who understand the community's unique needs. Constables strengthen the community through partnerships, collaboration, and active involvement. Their position as accessible, grassroots officers allows constables to bridge divides and strengthen social bonds in ways that larger, centralized law enforcement entities cannot. Constables serve as peacekeepers, a role that extends beyond enforcement to resolving conflicts within the community. They prevent disputes from escalating and help maintain social cohesion. As elected officials, constables embody a form of governance that reflects the people they serve. This democratic connection encourages residents to see them as allies rather than adversaries, fostering a collaborative spirit across cultural, economic, or generational lines. Constables uphold public safety in a way that aligns with local norms and values, rather than enforcing detached, centralized policies. This alignment unites residents around a common vision of their community's well-being.

Ensuring Your Safety and Rights

Constables are committed to keeping the community safe from crime. They are also a bulwark in the system of checks and balances against corruption and overreach by state and federal governments. Constables, as locally elected officials, are not beholden to the political or financial incentives of a distant centralized authority, but remain accountable to the residents of their jurisdiction, giving citizens a direct voice in law enforcement and governance. By maintaining independence from centralized bureaucratic structures, constables can resist pressures or directives that might conflict with the interests of their community, thereby keeping centralized agendas from infiltrating local governance. By remaining outside of the control of centralized government, constables act as a check on systemic corruption within those institutions. With their roots in common law traditions, constables embody a legacy of protecting individual liberties and property rights against arbitrary government action, ensuring that power remains distributed and responsive to local needs rather than concentrated in elite hands.

Dedicated to Service

Constables' commitment to prioritizing the well-being of residents over mere enforcement is rooted in a tradition of acting as local guardians who address a wide range of civic needs. Unlike many modern law enforcement officers who focus primarily on crime suppression and prosecution, constables perform diverse tasks that directly support community life. Their duties include civil, judicial, and public safety functions, reflecting a holistic commitment to residents' needs and the civic systems that underpin community life. By acting as officers of the court and aides to local government, they ensure these institutions function effectively. Beyond their formal duties, constables often engage in voluntary efforts — such as mentoring, charity events, or teaching safety classes. In today's world, where policing can sometimes feel detached or militarized, constables stand out for their local, service-driven approach. Their independence from large bureaucracies allows them to focus on what locals need most rather than chasing centralized metrics like arrest numbers. This adaptability ensures they remain dedicated to serving people, not just systems.

Challenges to Local Accountability

Constables are not only facing a single dispute or just a temporary policy disagreement. Across litigation, rulemaking, and administrative practice, the office is being narrowed in ways that raise serious questions about executive-branch and judicial-branch encroachment on common law powers granted by the electorate and statutory powers the General Assembly chose to grant.

Prosecution for Authorized Duties

Constables performing duties grounded in common law and authorized by statute — in uniform, in marked vehicles, on official assignments — have been prosecuted by state agencies for those duties. Some of those prosecutions have ended in dismissals, quashed charges, and not-guilty verdicts. Others have resulted in convictions, with appeals still working through the courts. The point is not that state agencies always lose. The point is that the prosecutions keep coming — across multiple counties, against multiple constables, year after year — for conduct the legislature and the common law authorize.

The most recent of those cases is Commonwealth v. Wiggs, 2026 PA Super 126, decided en banc on June 17, 2026. A divided Superior Court ruled 8–1 that a constable's vehicle is not a “police vehicle” under the Vehicle Code — a result Judge Stabile rejected in dissent, observing that a legislature which authorizes constables to direct traffic cannot then deny them the equipment motorists need to recognize that authority. We believe the majority got it wrong, and Judge Stabile's dissent is our north star. The decision is not the end of the matter: we are seeking review in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and an amendment of 75 Pa.C.S. § 4571(b)(1) in the General Assembly.

This is a persistent trend, not a series of isolated disputes. The constable-by-constable record — dockets, dispositions, and the dissenting opinion in full — is on the Issues page.

Administrative Obstruction

Beyond prosecution, state agencies erect barriers to constable operations. State Police have repeatedly denied constables Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) numbers — the federal identifier required to file criminal complaints electronically — citing supervision and accountability concerns the legislature's own 2014 LBFC report characterized as policy disputes rather than statutory disqualifications. Agencies issue policy documents arguing constables lack "police officer" status for operational purposes, ignoring a clear statutory pattern that places constables on functional parity with police officers for core law enforcement duties (75 Pa.C.S. §§ 102 and 3102; 18 Pa.C.S. § 501; 11 Pa.C.S. § 12005; 16 Pa.C.S. § 14340).

The Cost

Whether a charge ends in dismissal, acquittal, or a conviction now on appeal, the prosecution itself costs constables thousands of dollars in legal defense and costs Pennsylvania taxpayers thousands more to pursue. Beyond money, this pattern undermines voter trust. When state agencies prosecute constables for doing exactly what the legislature and the common law authorize — what constables have been doing for centuries before the State Police even existed — residents lose a layer of locally elected accountability they cannot easily replace.

Pennsylvania law should not let executive agencies and divided courts whittle away the powers the people and the General Assembly granted to a directly-elected office. The pressure on the office continues through courts and rulemaking bodies rather than through the General Assembly — a venue where the substance of these disputes can be examined openly, and where we are working to set the record straight.

Read the full record on the Issues page

~1,800 Active constables serving Pennsylvania
67 Counties connected by constable coverage
100,000s Court papers and processes handled each year
Only one Law enforcement role permitted inside polling places on Election Day
Since 1664 The original authority Pennsylvania law enforcement was built from
$0 Cost to taxpayers — constables fund their own salaries, training, equipment, and insurance through service fees

A divided court got Wiggs wrong, and the pressure on directly-elected law enforcement is still building. The question is straightforward: should decisions about a locally elected office be made openly through the legislature, or narrowed indirectly through litigation, rulemaking, and administrative practice? Start with the practical step, then review the background.

Take Action Read the Wiggs Case