The Herald's editorial board endorsed Scott Miller for Sheriff calling him a "perfect fit". When writing about the possible influence of "politics" in this matter; the Herald should disclose their participation in the politics. It is logical to assume the Herald would want to defend their position and be reticent to admit they may have got it wrong.
The Herald alludes to the officers involved being supporters of the previous Sheriff but fails to indicate how this might be relevant to this incident. The new Sheriff is barely into a four year term. Is the Herald suggesting that theses officers are trying to somehow bring back the previous Sheriff?
The real questions the Herald might want to consider are:
If politics are at play what role did Scott Miller have, if any, in punishing those officers who did not support his election for Sheriff?
In how many other cases, has the Sheriff, or any other member of the department, ever called the family members of other suspects to inform them that the Sheriff's department is going to be kicking in your door; so don't be alarmed?
The under-sheriff is a political appointee of the Sheriff, does the Herald really think that if informed of the investigation, he would not inform the man he owes his job to?
If there is Deputy resentment against the new Sheriff, what is the cause of it? The new Sheriff's personality or leadership style?
The Herald has an interest in supporting Scott Miller and should disclose that fact. They also should be interested in discovering the answers to the above questions and the reasons for the peculiarities of this investigation. To fail to do so, and to just blindly support the new Sheriff seems to be an "unfair leap" and a failure of investigative journalism.