Across litigation, rulemaking, and administrative practice, executive agencies are narrowing the powers and authority that the legislature and the common law granted to a locally elected office. The pattern is coordinated, the record is on the docket, and the office is being eliminated piece by piece.
Pennsylvania's constables have served as locally elected peace officers since 1664. The concern presented here is not that every disagreement proves bad faith; it is that multiple institutions have advanced overlapping restrictions and arguments that, taken together, point in the same direction. The Pennsylvania State Police and PCCD joint amicus brief in Wiggs, along with the Stabile dissent, matter because they move this concern out of the realm of rhetoric and into the record: they show both an institutional push to limit the office and a credible warning that executive actors are pressing against legislative grants they did not create.
Constable authority is older than Pennsylvania's statutes and broader than them. The office is a common law office that predates the General Assembly's first definition of it; the modern statutes supplement, but do not replace, that common law foundation. Pennsylvania appellate courts have repeatedly affirmed this dual basis — most recently in Commonwealth v. Allen (Pa. Super. 2019), holding that constables retain common law arrest authority for breaches of the peace independent of statute.
Constable authority is also foundational to the rest of Pennsylvania law enforcement. The Pennsylvania State Police (created 1905) was explicitly authorized to have "the powers and prerogatives conferred by law upon...constables of this Commonwealth." County detectives "shall have all the powers conferred by law upon constables." Philadelphia police, under the 1951 Home Rule Charter, hold the same derivation. These agencies did not invent their authority — they inherited it from constable law.
Today's attack on constables is not about public safety or professionalization. It is about eliminating the source of that authority. If constables disappear, state agencies no longer answer to locally elected officers. Communities no longer control who enforces the law. That is why the pressure is relentless and multifaceted.
Lawfare is the use of courts, prosecutors, and administrative agencies as weapons — not to serve justice, but to eliminate political opponents and consolidate power. Against constables, it takes five coordinated forms. Click any card to read the full account of that tactic:
Systematic pressure on constables damages everyone.
Closed Philadelphia matters (2018–2022). Constable Steven Ahmad Wiggs performed his authorized law enforcement duties in Philadelphia. The Pennsylvania State Police prosecuted him for it — not because he did anything wrong, but because state agencies had decided constables should not be allowed to operate the way the legislature authorized. Across multiple dockets covering impersonation, firearms, and lights charges, every Philadelphia charge was dismissed, quashed, or resulted in a not-guilty verdict. The Court of Common Pleas ordered PSP to return his marked police vehicle, his firearms, and all property seized. A second constable, Douglas Filson, was tried de novo on summary appeal in November 2023 and found Not Guilty on the same statutory basis used to prosecute Wiggs (Commonwealth v. Filson, CP-46-SA-0000254-2023, Montgomery County C.P.).
Pending Perry County / Superior Court matter. PSP cited Wiggs for equipping his marked constable vehicle with emergency lights while performing his duties. A three-judge Superior Court panel split 2-1 affirming the conviction on February 6, 2025 (Commonwealth v. Wiggs, 2025 Pa. Super. 29, No. 641 MDA 2023); the dissenting judge captured the mechanism: "A legislature that authorizes constables to direct traffic and issue lawful orders to motorists cannot then deny them the emergency lights that allow those motorists to recognize and respond to that authority." The full Superior Court granted en banc reargument on April 24, 2025. This matter is pending and the panel decision is not final.
The two state agencies most responsible for constable certification and ORI eligibility — the Pennsylvania State Police and the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency — filed a joint amicus brief against the constable in the Superior Court matter, urging a narrow interpretation of constable authority. (See Brief of Amici Curiae Pennsylvania State Police & Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency in Support of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Commonwealth v. Wiggs, 2025 Pa. Super. 29.) The two agencies that issue ORI numbers and administer training certification have, on the record, briefed against the office whose officers they are charged with credentialing.
This is how you narrow an office without abolishing it. Prosecute constables for performing authorized duties, regardless of outcome. Force them to defend themselves in court. Make the office expensive, frightening, and administratively exhausting. Eventually, people stop running for it.
Constables are not employees of any government body. The statutory fee schedule (44 Pa.C.S. § 7161) governs only constables' judicial duties — warrant service, civil process, prisoner transport for the courts, and similar court-directed work — and even there has not been updated to keep pace with cost. Constable activity outside the judicial fee schedule (training, public safety, election duty, contracted services) is not constrained or reimbursed by it. Across all sources, constables bear costs no other elected officer bears. They pay 15.3% self-employment tax on top of ordinary income taxes, with no employer contribution. From the same fee income, they pay for training, equipment, vehicle purchase and maintenance, and professional liability insurance (required by statute). Pennsylvania compounds this by issuing conflicting guidance on how to classify income across tax years, leaving newly elected constables — who ran for office in good faith — facing unexpected large tax liabilities at the end of their first year.
This is not incidental inequity. It is part of the strategy. Make the office so expensive that working people cannot afford to run for it. Make the tax burden so unpredictable that candidates face financial ruin. Eventually, only wealthy people run — or no one runs at all. Communities lose locally accountable law enforcement. State agencies fill the vacuum. That is the mechanism.
Constable authority is not a recent grant. It is the foundational law from which Pennsylvania's other agencies derive their own powers. When the legislature created the Pennsylvania State Police in 1905, it explicitly gave them "the powers and prerogatives conferred by law upon...constables of this Commonwealth." County detectives hold the same language. Philadelphia police hold the same derivation. These agencies are not peer-equal to constables — they are derivative from constable law.
Today, under 44 Pa.C.S. Chapter 71 and related statutes, constables hold: warrantless arrest authority for felonies and breaches of the peace; warrant execution for courts throughout the Commonwealth; civil process service; prisoner transport; courthouse security; election duty; and traffic-direction authority on equal statutory footing with police officers and sheriffs (75 Pa.C.S. § 3102). This is comprehensive, explicit, and unchanged for decades.
Yet state agencies now argue in court and before regulatory bodies that constables lack "police officer" status. That argument has to ignore a clear statutory pattern that places constables on functional parity with police officers for core law enforcement duties: 75 Pa.C.S. § 102 defines "police officer" broadly as a person "authorized by law to make arrests for violations of law" — a definition constables plainly meet under the peace-officer powers of 18 Pa.C.S. § 501. The Vehicle Code explicitly names constables alongside police officers and sheriffs for traffic direction (75 Pa.C.S. § 3102). Other statutes establish reciprocity, making municipal police "ex-officio constables of the city" (11 Pa.C.S. § 12005) and deriving county detective powers from "the powers conferred on constables by the laws of this Commonwealth" (16 Pa.C.S. § 14340). Arguing constables are not law enforcement requires ignoring the plain text of the laws that empower the rest of Pennsylvania law enforcement.
State agencies further restrict arrest authority to home wards only, eliminate court-directed investigative duties, and remove constables from courthouse security. Each restriction, alone, looks minor. Together, they dismantle the office piece by piece through litigation and administrative reinterpretation. That is the slow elimination of local power.
Constables complete rigorous mandatory training — 80 hours of basic training, 40 hours of firearms training, 20 hours of annual recertification — all paid out of pocket. Many pursue additional certifications: active shooter response, tactical casualty care, search and rescue, domestic violence response, FEMA management. Constables pay for their own professionalization. That commitment is proven.
Yet agencies now propose mandating 750 or more hours of police-academy-style training — at a cost of thousands of dollars per constable. The purpose is explicit: price out working people who run for the office in good faith. If only wealthy people can afford to become constables, communities lose locally elected law enforcement. If no one runs, the office disappears. That is the mechanism.
The legislature grants statutory authority. If it intends to condition authority on specific training, it enacts that requirement. Agencies cannot use regulatory back doors to strip statutory powers. The sequence is fixed: authority from statute, then training. Agencies reversing that order are not reforming — they are eliminating.
Pennsylvania law designates constables as the only law enforcement officers permitted inside polling places on Election Day. This is a deliberate design choice: election security rests with locally elected, non-partisan officers directly accountable to voters — not with state appointees answerable to the executive branch. Constables protect voters in both directions: they prevent illegal interference and ensure no qualified voter is wrongfully turned away. They report to their communities, not to Harrisburg.
This role is now under systematic pressure. Legislative proposals seek to replace locally elected constables with "election security officers" appointed by the Secretary of State. Other proposals would restrict constables inside polling places to passive observation only, stripping the authority the law already gives them. In jurisdictions with declining constable strength, the election-day role is being eliminated by administrative attrition.
The pattern is unmistakable: centralized power replaces local accountability. Communities no longer decide who ensures their ballots are counted. The state does. That is not election security. That is state control.
Constables are elected by the people, not appointed by the state. They check state power and prevent any single agency from controlling law enforcement entirely.
Constables answer to the people they serve, not to Harrisburg bureaucracies. Communities directly control their law enforcement through elections.
When local law enforcement disappears, power consolidates in the state. Communities lose leverage. The people lose protection from state overreach.
This is not a technical dispute. It is a fight for who controls law enforcement in your community. Constables answer to voters. State agencies answer to Harrisburg. If constables disappear, so does local accountability. The Pennsylvania General Assembly can stop this campaign — but only if constituents demand it.
Most Pennsylvanians do not know that centralized authorities are systematically dismantling locally elected law enforcement. Share this page so your neighbors understand what is at stake — and why constables matter to their freedom.
Share on Facebook
Share on X
Share by Email