Chris West

REASONS TO DEMAND RESIGNATION:

DEPUTIES SEXUALLY ASSAULT INMATES DURING TRANSPORT

The 2022 Sexual Assault

In May 2024, a civil lawsuit petition was filed in Canadian County District Court [CJ-2024-328], In December 2024, the case was removed to in The Western District of Oklahoma Federal Court naming Sheriff Chris West, former deputy David Wayne Loman, and county commissioners in connection with multiple allegations that Loman sexually assaulted female inmates in sheriff’s transport vehicles in September 2021 and April 2022. 

According to the petition, a third female inmate was also allegedly assaulted in July 2023 by deputy Wesley Wayne Hunter Jr. during transport from Bryan County. 

The lawsuit contends that Sheriff West maintained a “pattern and practice” of permitting male deputies to transport female inmates alone, often without dashcams, bodycams, or other safeguards, thereby creating “unconstitutional conditions” that facilitated these assaults. 

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) independently investigated the April 2022 incident, resulting in criminal charges against Loman, who resigned from the sheriff’s office, facing forcible sodomy, sexual battery, and a pattern of criminal offenses for allegedly assaulting an inmate three times during a single transport.

The 2023 Sexual Assault

In July 2023, Canadian County Deputy Wesley Wayne Hunter Jr. was transporting a female pretrial detainee from Bryan County when he intentionally deactivated his mobile tracking system and diverted from the official route, subsequently stopping in a remote area and allegedly sexually assaulting the detainee. 

Hunter was arrested by the OSBI on second-degree rape charges and later came under federal scrutiny for altering and falsifying official records to conceal the incident.

On June 5, 2024, Hunter pleaded guilty to a federal count of destruction, alteration, or falsification of records to obstruct a federal investigation, a plea stemming from a joint FBI and OSBI investigation. He was sentenced on January 30, 2025, to a non-parole-able 70-month prison term by Judge John D. Russell in the Eastern District of Oklahoma 

While West invited external oversight, the case highlights deep systemic shortcomings under his leadership, including inadequate oversight of transport logistics (e.g., tracking system integrity, route monitoring, and lack of immediate accountability) underscoring policy failures at the department level during his tenure.

WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS

Burns and Adkins reported these concerns to Undersheriff Kevin Ward and Sheriff West in May 2021, only to be reassigned and disciplined, and ultimately terminated on August 20, 2021. The plaintiffs allege these actions violated Article II, § 30 of the Oklahoma Constitution (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures) and OK Stat. tit. 21, § 1738 (preventing deprivation of property). Judge Kristan K. Strubhar denied West’s summary judgment motion in December 2023, ruling that genuine disputes remained over whether their allegations fell within recognized public policy exceptions to at-will termination 

The consolidated lawsuits are assigned to Canadian County District Court, [Burns v. west et al CJ-2022-166 and Adkins v. West et al CJ-2022-167 ]. A jury trial was initially scheduled for January 8, 2024, before Special Judge Khristan K. Strubhar 

However, on January 2, 2024, plaintiffs’ counsel voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice, effectively ending the litigation permanently, with each party bearing its own fees and costs. 

The dismissal without reaching trial leaves unresolved questions regarding whether Sheriff West took corrective action in response to the whistleblower reports or if the allegations constituted retaliatory firings. The case remains a significant stain on West’s record, raising serious questions about accountability and internal oversight within his administration.

Extremists Affiliations and paramilitary-style civilian “posse”

Sheriff Chris West’s creation of a volunteer “Sheriff’s Posse” with some members reportedly affiliated with 3% militias and extremist groups, has alarmed civil liberties advocates due to its parallels with extremist militia structures. Records obtained by The Frontier detail members listing expertise in “combat skills,” “hand-to-hand combat and weapons training,” and even “knowledge in insurgency and guerrilla warfare” on applications, some from residents outside Canadian County. 

West, proclaiming the group “is not a militia,” nevertheless formed it to “bring the community into a more active role” and provide a “rapid response force.” This approach treads into grey areas of law when armed civilians are organized, trained, and equipped by a law enforcement agency, raising serious constitutional questions about separation of powers and oversight.

Forming such an armed civilian unit without the normal oversight of elected legislatures or judicial review stands in stark conflict with constitutional guarantees of civilian control over armed force, as outlined in both Printz v. United States (federal anti‑commandeering) and Posse Comitatus traditions. This “Posse” aligns with extremist ideologies linked to modern militia movements. Though West distances the group from labeled organizations, its similarities to Three Percenters and sovereign‑citizen extremists are hard to ignore—especially given the “combat skills” and guerrilla rhetoric in membership materials . The Southern Poverty Law Center characterizes such ideologies as inherently anti‑government, often embracing the notion that sheriffs—rather than courts or Congress—hold ultimate legal authority 

West’s alignment with this philosophy contradicts the foundational constitutional principle that law enforcement power must derive from legal authority, not from popular consent alone. Scholarly analysis recognizes the danger of converting sheriffs into “private militias” free to interpret and enforce, or refuse to enforce, laws based on personal judgment, a model ripe for abuse and rogue enforcement. 

Many equate the movement with sovereign citizen ideology obsessed with claiming sheriff supremacy over all other government entities, even invoking violent self-defense if their interpretation is challenged. 

As a constitutional sheriff, West touts a role as protector of freedoms and rights. Yet, by empowering a quasi‑military organization that answers only to him, he creates a private armed force free from judicial oversight and public accountability. This directly conflicts with constitutional frameworks that vest enforcement authority in civilian-led institutions subject to separation of powers and due process. In effect, West has created a hybrid militia that can act beyond the reach of elected oversight, judicial constraints, or community consent, undermining rather than upholding the Constitution he claims to defend.

This undermines every principle of federalism and separation of powers, as recognized in Perpich v. Department of Defense and explicitly prohibited in Printz.

Insurrection 

On January 6, 2021, Sheriff Chris West, an elected official sworn to uphold the Constitution, stood among a crowd that would later violently storm the U.S. Capitol in an unprecedented act of domestic insurrection. While West has insisted that he did not enter the Capitol building itself, he publicly admitted to participating in chants with the mob outside the Capitol and displaying a “MAGA” flag. His presence at an event that directly led to the deaths of police officers, the paralysis of democratic proceedings, and a nationally televised attack on the rule of law is not excused by passive observation. As one of the nation’s highest-ranking law enforcement officials in his county, West's very presence at that rally amounts to an endorsement of sedition.

West’s claim that he was there “as a private citizen” collapses under the weight of constitutional duty. Elected sheriffs are never “off duty” when they are in public, particularly when their conduct, traveling across the country to cheer on a violent effort to stop the certification of an election, undermines the very democratic institutions they are sworn to protect. His prior affiliations with extremist aligned ideologies like the “constitutional sheriff” movement only deepen the concern, revealing a pattern of anti-government sentiment cloaked in constitutional rhetoric. When West stood in solidarity with those chanting to overturn an election, he crossed a line that no oath-bound official would ever approach.

The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3, defines treason as “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” While West may not have physically breached the Capitol, his moral support, attendance, and vocal solidarity with insurrectionists offered precisely that: aid and comfort to enemies of democracy. That betrayal is further compounded by his refusal to condemn the actions of January 6, or the conspiracy theories that fueled it. In failing to disavow the insurrection’s aims, and participating in its energy, West has positioned himself not as a guardian of the Constitution, but as a partisan foot soldier in a campaign to tear it down.

Chris West cannot selectively defend the Constitution only when it suits his political ideology. The hypocrisy of claiming constitutional authority as a sheriff while standing in the shadow of an attempted coup is not only shameful, it is dangerous. History will not be kind to elected officials who sought to destabilize American democracy under the guise of “patriotism.” 

The photo-op featured West prominently behind the Resolute Desk alongside federal law enforcement officials, a visual endorsement of an order that centralizes and indemnifies law enforcement authority. Though presented under the guise of “community safety” and “support for officers,” the symbolism was unmistakable: West publicly aligned himself with a federalized law enforcement agenda that elevates institutional power over constitutional constraint.

The order mandates the Department of Justice to design mechanisms to provide legal defense and indemnification for officers sued over "official duties".  

AKA: MORE IMMUNITIES FOR VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION. 

It also directs the federal government to expedite deployment of military-grade equipment to local agencies, eliminate federal consent decrees that limit aggressive policing, and prioritize funding for prisons and enhanced sentencing, all undercutting decades of legal accountability reform. 

Chief among the Executive Order’s controversial measures is its indirect reinforcement of qualified immunity, federalizing protection for officers to shield them from liability, rather than addressing the doctrine’s deeply rooted injustices.

Qualified immunity, established in Pierson v. Ray and codified in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, allows officers to evade civil liability unless they violate “clearly established” constitutional rights. 

This executive order intensifies that protection by committing public funds to defend questionable or oppressive acts. Critics argue that qualified immunity, far from being a benign safeguard, has become a near-insurmountable barrier for victims seeking redress for police misconduct. Reform advocates are pushing legislative alternatives, such as the Ending Qualified Immunity Act, to reclaim accountability in policing—yet West’s embrace of this order highlights a willingness to reinforce these entrenched protections rather than confront them 

West’s participation in the signing of this executive order starkly highlights his constitutional hypocrisy. He once portrayed himself as a “constitutional sheriff,” yet here, he backbones federal encroachments on local autonomy, judges’ oversight, and civil rights. By endorsing an order that incentivizes aggressive enforcement, militarized policing, and unrestrained immunity, West diverges significantly from the ideals of judicial oversight and civilian protection he claims to uphold. 

Ultimately, this photo-op aligns him not with principled guardianship of the Constitution, but with a movement towards law enforcement impunity, subsidized at taxpayer expense, and shielded from legal accountability.