Teton County Sheriff 2026: The Record

Uniformed personnel in campaign material

What the record shows

AUTHOR RECORD Exhibits A and B: roughly 45 Sheriff's Office personnel in County uniform holding the campaign banner, posted by the campaign account on September 18 and reused as a campaign graphic on October 15. DERIVED Exhibit N: the County's official account posted the same group, in the same place and light, on September 10 with a First Responders Support Fund sign in place of the banner, captioned as an Old Bill's giving-season post for the three first-responder agencies. Exhibits G through J: more than a dozen deputies in duty uniform, ballistic vests marked SHERIFF, duty belts, and radios, standing along the walls and seated in the audience at the Republican Party candidate forum on October 5. Carr and Snow appear in uniform; Snow, a deputy, addressed the forum in his. AUTHOR RECORD Exhibit P: a deputy in a duty vest marked SHERIFF seated at the September 14 Shelter JH candidate forum, from ShelterJH's photographs of the event; the author attended. The second complaint's count of four uniformed deputies at that event is NOT ESTABLISHED by a record on this site.

The rule

Policy Manual Section 8-7(B): employees may not "campaign in their official County uniforms, County Logo attire or while wearing County identification badges or name tags," and may not "identify themselves as County employees" while campaigning. Section 8-7(A) protects political activity "confined to hours when the employee is not on duty."

In plain words

Deputies may support any candidate on their own time and in their own clothes. Posing in County uniform behind a campaign banner is the conduct the policy names, and so is a deputy campaigning for himself in uniform, which Exhibit H shows Snow doing. Whether anyone was told to be there, or was paid for the time, is a separate question that duty rosters and payroll records answer, and it is the question that moves the matter from County policy into statute and the Hatch Act.

Who decides

The Board of County Commissioners and the Human Resources Director administer the manual. For deputies, discipline rests with the Sheriff. Whether Section 8-7 binds the Sheriff himself as an elected official is for the County Attorney or the Board to say.

The hiring without Board consent

What the record shows

VERIFIED Carr announced a conditional offer to Rojas in June, before commissioners acted, and commissioners declined to fund the executive position on June 30. Rojas started July 6 in a deputy position already funded.

The rule

Policy Manual Section 2-3(B)(c): for staffing the Board has not authorized, the elected official "shall obtain the consent of the Board prior to recruiting, extending offers of employment or otherwise staffing positions."

In plain words

The Sheriff may hire into jobs the commissioners have already funded. For a new job, he has to get their consent before making an offer. Here the offer came first and the consent never came, so the hire went into an existing deputy slot instead.

Who decides

The Board of County Commissioners and the County Attorney. Section 2-3(B)(c) applies to the Sheriff by its terms.

County social media and aircraft in campaign content

What the record shows

AUTHOR RECORD Exhibits C, D, E, F, and K: Instagram collaboration posts carried on the County's official account together with the campaign account, the County's Search and Rescue helicopter and hangar as the setting for one of them, and, in Exhibit K, Carr in his uniform shirt and a "Matt Carr Sheriff" campaign cap wearing a Teton County Democrats apron beside four volunteers in the same party aprons, posted on the County account about October 21. Exhibits L and M, the two accounts' profile grids on the same day, show the same images on both feeds: the party-apron post in the first position on the County feed, and County public-safety material and photographs of uniformed deputies on the campaign feed.

The rule

Policy Manual Section 8-7(B)(b): employees may not "use their official capacity or influence to interfere with or affect the result of elections or nomination for office."

In plain words

An Instagram collaboration puts a post on both accounts' feeds and only works if the County account accepts it, so someone with the County's login chose to carry campaign-account content to the County's 2,099 followers, about five times the campaign account's 441. The grids show content moving both ways. The account's administrator list and whatever activity history Meta keeps would show who.

Who decides

The Board for the policy. The same facts fall under W.S. 9-13-105, below.

Snow's administrative leave

What the record shows

DERIVED Deputy Snow, Carr's opponent, was placed on paid administrative leave on October 21 by Lt. Mark Priest, thirteen days before the election, after a traffic stop that morning. Carr says he had no role in the decision. The Wyoming Highway Patrol is reviewing Snow's July 18 arrest, which the Sheriff's Office had referred to DCI and the FBI had declined to pursue. VERIFIED A recording the County produced to KHOL shows that on September 21, Lt. Priest telephoned Lt. Evan Storch of the Laramie County Sheriff's Office, who runs the state's drug recognition expert training and trained Snow, and asked him to advise Snow to pause DRE evaluations until the election ended or a pending case "clears up." Priest said on the call that he was "trying to avoid making him look bad" and called the request a "very slippery slope" during election season. Storch declined to decertify Snow without "definitive details" and later told KHOL he was surprised by the request so close to the election; he told Cowboy State Daily the call felt "a little weird, timing-wise." DERIVED Priest sent the recording to Cowboy State Daily. On it he calls the July 18 arrest "not a good arrest." He told the paper the leave was his decision and not Carr's, that the office reviews all deputies' conduct, and that "several other things" concerning insubordination had come up; Snow's attorney, Mark Jackowski, said he saw no signs of insubordination in Snow's file and that "we look forward to litigating this matter in court if necessary."

The rule

Policy Manual Section 6-7(B): paid administrative leave is granted by "an Elected Official or the County Commissioner's Administrator," and leave over three days "must be approved in advance by the Board, Elected Official, Department/Library Director, and the Human Resource Director must be notified." W.S. 18-3-611 protects deputies from discharge, demotion, or unpaid suspension without cause and a hearing.

In plain words

The policy names who may put an employee on paid leave, and a lieutenant is not on the list. If the Sheriff stepped aside, someone else with authority had to step in, and the policy says who that could be. The stop itself gives the office a stated reason to review Snow's work. The September 21 call adds a month to the record: the same lieutenant who imposed the leave had asked a state trainer, a month earlier, to have the opponent pause DRE evaluations for the duration of the election, and said on the recording that he knew what it looked like. The open questions are who made the October 21 decision, when, on whose authority, and why the July arrest, under outside review for months, drew no leave.

Who decides

The Board of County Commissioners and Human Resources for the policy; the Highway Patrol review for the July 18 arrest.

The job offer and the withdrawal

What the record shows

DERIVED Carr and Rojas spoke on April 29, May 28, and May 29. VERIFIED Rojas withdrew on May 29, and Carr asked for a position for him on June 2. NOT ESTABLISHED What was said on the calls. Carr says he "did not offer Rojas a job to get him to drop out of the race" and cannot recall what the calls covered. No record yet shows what was said.

The rule

W.S. 22-26-118 makes it a misdemeanor to cause a candidate to withdraw by "making it a condition of employment, business or patronage, that such candidacy or election shall not be accepted." W.S. 6-5-107, official misconduct, reaches a public servant who, with intent to obtain a pecuniary benefit or maliciously to cause harm to another, knowingly commits an unauthorized act relating to official duties.

In plain words

A person may not tell a candidate, in effect, "you can have the job if you drop out." A job offer by itself is lawful; the offense is tying the job to leaving the race. The texts and call records would show which of those happened. If the job was the consideration, Rojas is the other party to the agreement rather than a witness to it.

Who decides

The County Clerk screens complaints and refers those with merit to the County and Prosecuting Attorney, who decides whether to charge. The Secretary of State can refer a complaint to the Attorney General. Any person may report the conduct directly to the County Attorney as a possible crime.

Employer control of employees' political activity

What the record shows

AUTHOR RECORD Exhibit A shows the September 18 attendance, and Exhibits G through J show deputies in full duty kit at the October 5 forum, which the second complaint says deputies were encouraged to attend. NOT ESTABLISHED Whether the personnel were scheduled, directed, on duty, or paid for either event.

The rule

W.S. 22-26-111(a)(ii), intimidation, a felony: "Soliciting the contribution of funds, other items of value or election assistance to the campaign of any candidate ... by use of threats of physical violence or any form of economic or official retaliation." W.S. 22-26-116, a misdemeanor: an employer making or enforcing "any order, rule, regulation or policy forbidding or preventing any employee from becoming a candidate for public office" or "controlling or attempting to control such employee's vote."

In plain words

A sheriff may ask for support and may accept it; he may not obtain it by letting deputies understand their standing depends on it, and he may not bar a deputy from running or direct how a deputy votes. Ballistic vests and duty belts are issued equipment worn on shift, so the October 5 photographs raise the question whether the deputies were on duty at a partisan forum. Duty rosters, payroll codes, and any message to staff about either event show which of those happened.

Who decides

The County and Prosecuting Attorney, a special prosecutor from another county if he has a conflict, or the Attorney General on referral from the Secretary of State.

Public resources in campaign content

What the record shows

AUTHOR RECORD Exhibits C through F and K: the County's account, helicopter, and hangar in campaign-account content, and the County account carrying a post with a campaign cap and partisan party aprons. DERIVED Exhibit N: the group photograph came from a Sheriff's Office photo session, posted by the County account on September 10 with a fund sign; the campaign version with the banner and a solo shot of Carr with a yard sign from the same session followed. DERIVED Exhibit O: campaign cards and a "Matt Carr for Sheriff" sign on the Sheriff's Office table under the County tent at Old Bill's Fun Run on September 12. NOT ESTABLISHED Who paid the photographer, and whether personnel were on the clock for the session.

The rule

W.S. 9-13-105(b), the Ethics and Disclosure Act: a public official or employee "shall not use public funds, time, personnel, facilities or equipment for political or campaign activity unless the use is" authorized by law or "properly incidental to another activity required or authorized by law" with the entity reimbursed for any additional cost. Section 9-13-105(a) applies the same bar to use "for his private benefit or that of another." W.S. 6-5-110, wrongful appropriation: converting public property "to his own use or any use other than the public use authorized by law."

In plain words

The County's Instagram account, its helicopter, its hangar, its event tent, and a department photo session belong to the public. If the County paid a photographer for a department photograph and the campaign used the session for its banner shot, public money bought campaign material. The photographer's invoice, the County's payment, and the duty status of the people in the frame would show it one way or the other. The campaign's primary and general finance reports list no expenditure for photography and no in-kind contribution.

Who decides

The County and Prosecuting Attorney for the Ethics Act and for 6-5-110, or a special prosecutor or the Attorney General on referral.

Campaign finance reports

What the record shows

VERIFIED Motorola Solutions, Inc. PAC's 2026 primary report to the Secretary of State, filed August 10, lists a $1,000 contribution to "CARR FOR SHERIFF," address "TETON VILLAGE, WY 83025," on July 6, 2026. The committee's primary report, received by the Clerk August 12, lists "Motorola" $1,000 and "Nick Agopian" $500, both dated July 15, as "personal contributions by candidate," with no addresses; the line for contributions from PACs reads $0.00. The committee's general report, received October 27, lists the same two amounts again, dated "Aug 2026," as contributions from individuals, with Motorola's address given as Chicago, IL, and the amendment box unmarked. On the general report, forty-one contributions carry a month and no day; seventeen expenditures carry no address and one carries a date; $1,500 is entered as "Anonymous Cash Contributions" with no date and no signature on the attestation the form requires; and the itemized contributions total $42,250 against a stated $42,150. Both reports carry the candidate's certification that the statement is "true, correct and complete." Neither report lists an expenditure for photography or for legal counsel.

The rule

W.S. 22-25-106(c): reports "shall set forth the full and complete record of contributions," including "the date of each contribution of one hundred dollars ($100.00) or more, any expenditure or obligation, the name of the person from whom received or to whom paid and the purpose." W.S. 22-25-106(k): reports "shall be filed under penalty of perjury." W.S. 22-25-102 sets the sources a candidate may accept from and the limits.

In plain words

A PAC contribution is lawful and has its own line on the form. The PAC reported the gift to the state with the recipient, the address, the day, and the amount. The committee reported it twice, on two different lines, under two different dates, and never on the line for what it was. Of the three documents, only the contributor's report records a day. The absence of any photography or legal expense bears on two other items: who paid for the September 18 photo session, and where the Sheriff's legal advice on his campaign conduct came from.

Who decides

The County Clerk receives the reports. The Secretary of State administers Chapter 25 and may refer a violation to the Attorney General; a false statement under 22-25-106(k) is a matter for a prosecutor.

The Clerk's decision on the first complaint

What the record shows

VERIFIED A complaint was filed with the County Clerk on August 21. On September 21 the Clerk declined to refer it, in a two-page letter available here as sent. She wrote that "as I am not a lawyer, I also retained outside counsel to review the complaint at the firm of Crowley Fleck Attorneys in Casper, Wyoming"; that W.S. 22-26-109 bribery reaches only inducements to vote or refrain from voting; that under 22-26-118 "even if the Clerk were to accept the allegation that Sheriff Carr offered Mr. Rojas a job if he would drop out of the race, that is not conduct prohibited by 22-26-118" because no threat of loss was alleged; and that the statute "does not vest a clerk with the authority to refer or even review complaints that allege conduct that falls outside of the limited purview of Title 22." The complainant then filed with the Secretary of State.

The rule

W.S. 22-26-121(b): if the county clerk "finds that the complaint has merit and suspects a violation of the Election Code, the county clerk shall refer the complaint to the district attorney."

In plain words

Complaints about a county candidate go to the county clerk first, and the clerk decides whether they go any further. The clerk is an elected official who works alongside the sheriff. The Clerk's letter quotes both clauses of 22-26-118 and analyzes the first, finding no threat of lost employment alleged; it does not discuss the second clause, "making it a condition of employment ... that such candidacy or election shall not be accepted," which is the language that bears on an offer of a job in exchange for withdrawing. When a clerk declines, the complaint does not move to another county. The complainant can file with the Secretary of State, who can send it to the Attorney General, or can report the conduct directly to the County and Prosecuting Attorney. If the County Attorney's office has a conflict, he asks the Board of County Commissioners to appoint a prosecutor from another county. The statute gives the clerk discretion, so a decision not to refer is itself no violation.

Who decides

The Secretary of State and the Attorney General for the three pending complaints; the County and Prosecuting Attorney, or a special prosecutor from another county, for anything reported to him directly.

Whether the Sheriff's Office is covered

What the record shows

VERIFIED USAspending.gov lists a Forest Service cooperative law enforcement agreement paid to "TETON COUNTY SHERIFF" from 2017 through January 2022, FEMA State Homeland Security subawards to the County for tactical team equipment and training in 2018, 2021, 2023, 2024, and 2026, including $100,000 dated August 5, 2026 for ballistic armor, night vision, encrypted radios, and breaching tools, and a $416,150 Stronger Connections school-safety award to the School District in January 2025, whose only school resource officers are Sheriff's deputies. The County's own staff report of November 15, 2022 records a $73,669.50 U.S. Department of Homeland Security cybersecurity grant, through the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security, for the Sheriff's Office's firewall, switches, wireless access points, and laptops, presented to the Board by Carr. The full list is in Federal awards.

The rule

5 U.S.C. 1501(4): a covered employee is one "whose principal employment is in connection with an activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a Federal agency."

In plain words

Partial funding is enough, and the test looks at the employee's duties rather than the source of the paycheck. A deputy on forest patrol under the Forest Service agreement, a deputy on the grant-equipped tactical team, and a deputy assigned full time to schools whose safety program draws federal money would each meet the test on OSC's reading, and OSC has pleaded in Rosado that a sheriff who oversees federally financed activity is covered through the employees who do it. The 2022 cybersecurity grant financed the office's own network, the equipment every employee of the office works on, and the Sheriff asked the Board to accept it. A deputy whose assignment has no federal connection is not covered.

Who decides

The Office of Special Counsel, case by case, from the County's grant agreements and position records. Anyone may ask OSC for a written advisory opinion on coverage without filing a complaint.

Directed or coerced attendance

What the record shows

AUTHOR RECORD Exhibit A, roughly 45 uniformed personnel with the campaign banner on September 18; Exhibits G through J, more than a dozen deputies in duty uniform and vests at the October 5 forum, with Carr and Snow in uniform. DERIVED Exhibit N shows the group photograph was a Sheriff's Office session the County account published first. DERIVED Carr told KHOL he did not ask deputies to attend the October 5 forum and was "[as] surprised as anyone"; Priest said deputies were not asked and "Everybody wanted to be there." NOT ESTABLISHED Whether attendance at either event was scheduled, directed, on duty, or organized by a supervisor. The complaint filed October 13 states that a shift change preceded the October 5 forum, that deputies arrived in official vehicles, and that Carr told an attendee he knew some attending deputies were on duty; those statements are the complainant's and are not shown by a record on this site.

The rule

5 U.S.C. 1502(a)(2): a covered employee may not "directly or indirectly coerce, attempt to coerce, command, or advise a State or local officer or employee to pay, lend, or contribute anything of value to a party, committee, organization, agency, or person for political purposes."

In plain words

Time and appearance in a campaign photograph count as something of value. OSC's 2015 advisory opinion on a sheriff's reelection letter states the standard: a supervisor asking a subordinate to support a political cause is "inherently coercive," and the Act "would prohibit any sheriff's office supervisor, including the sheriff or the chief deputy," from asking subordinates to take part. OSC's 2012 advisory opinion on elected sheriffs states the same rule with its source: "Where the supervisor-subordinate relationship exists, no particular words are required to establish coercion because virtually any language can be threatening. Special Counsel v. Gallagher, 44 M.S.P.R. 57, 76 (1990). Thus, sheriffs should not ask their employees to contribute to political campaigns." The request itself is the violation; no threat has to be shown. Voluntary off-duty attendance violates nothing; a deputy who was asked to attend is a witness, and the supervisor who asked is the subject.

Who decides

OSC investigates; the Merit Systems Protection Board decides a contested case.

Use of official authority to affect the election

What the record shows

AUTHOR RECORD Exhibits C through F and K, the County account carrying campaign-account content, including a post of the Sheriff in uniform shirt, campaign cap, and Teton County Democrats apron. VERIFIED The Rojas hiring sequence. VERIFIED The September 21 recorded call in which Lt. Priest asked the state DRE trainer to have Snow pause evaluations until the election ended. DERIVED The October 21 leave, imposed by the same lieutenant.

The rule

5 U.S.C. 1502(a)(1): a covered employee may not "use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for office."

In plain words

OSC treats an agency's official social media account as official authority. The hiring power, the leave power, and a lieutenant's call to another agency about a subordinate's certification are official authority as well. The question for each is purpose: whether the County account, the job, the call, or the leave was used to affect the race. On the September 21 recording the lieutenant tied the request to the election in his own words, and in the final week of the campaign the County provided the recording to KHOL on request and Priest sent it to Cowboy State Daily. The administrator list, the hiring file, the recording, and the leave file carry the answer.

Who decides

OSC and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The pending case, OSC advisory opinions, and the 2012 amendment

What the Act allows the Sheriff

The rule

5 U.S.C. 1502(c)(4) exempts "an individual holding elective office" from the Act's bar on candidacy. OSC's August 14, 2018 opinion on elected sheriffs campaigning in uniform says an incumbent may attend campaign events in uniform and may drive an agency-issued vehicle to one.

In plain words

Carr may run, may campaign in uniform, and may use his title. The exemption covers his own candidacy and nothing else; the coercion and official-authority provisions still apply to him. OSC filed complaints with the Merit Systems Protection Board in December 2025 against the sheriff and undersheriff of Chesapeake, Virginia, on those two provisions, alleging ticket quotas for fundraisers, employees placing signs and working polling sites, employees in campaign videos identified with the office, and pressure to attend party meetings. OSC pleaded that the sheriff was covered because he oversaw activities financed in part by a Department of Justice grant and federal task-force work, without regard to who paid his salary, and asked for his removal. The cases are pending.