St. Louis Sheriff Alfred Montgomery and his legal team are attempting to stave off an attempt by the Missouri attorney general to remove him from office.
In a 158-page response filed this week, Montgomery’s legal team — attorney for the sheriff’s office David C. Mason and co-counsel Matthew Gio and Justin Gelfand — accuse Attorney General Andrew Bailey of using “extraordinary” legal maneuvers.
They write that Bailey’s quo warranto petition is “based on unsettled questions of law and factual allegations that are objectively false, or, at a minimum, lack important context."
Montgomery’s attorneys asked the court to deny the attorney general’s petition.
Here are nine defenses Montgomery and his legal team presented in their response:
1. The Missouri attorney general wants to 'overturn the will of the voters'
Montgomery’s lawyers argue the sheriff should not be removed. If the attorney general wants him out of office, they wrote, citizens have an avenue: the next election. They call the removal effort a “political stunt” by Bailey.
2. The sheriff’s duties are up for debate
The sheriff’s team argues a quo warranto petition is not the way to define those responsibilities, including whether the sheriff’s office is required to transport detainees from the city jail to hospitals. They write that jail employees have handled the transportation since Montgomery took office through June 12. The attorney general cited that as evidence of the sheriff’s failures in the filing.
Montgomery’s team argued that previous sheriffs performing a task doesn’t make it a requirement of the office. His attorneys said it is the duty of the Criminal Justice Center because detainees are in the custody of the jail.
What’s agreed upon is that the sheriff is responsible for the security of the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court courtrooms, serving court papers and eviction notices, overseeing land tax sales and issuing concealed carry permits. Other duties of the office aren’t well defined.
Earlier this year, 5th Ward Alderman Matt Devoti introduced a bill that would lay out the office’s responsibility; it is still being considered by the Public Safety Committee. It’s not clear if the Board of Aldermen has jurisdiction over the sheriff’s duties.
3. There was no nepotism
Montgomery’s team said that by alleging he hired a paternal half-brother, Malik Taylor, the attorney general is “moving a case without basis in law.”
The lawyers deny that Taylor and Montgomery share a father, providing birth certificates — Taylor’s lists no father — to support their claim.
The sheriff’s team argues that the nepotism charge is frivolous, without a “good faith argument” and a violation of both the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure and the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct.
4. Ongoing FBI investigations should shield the sheriff
Montgomery’s lawyers argue the FBI is already reviewing the nepotism charge against the sheriff, so it should be off the table for the attorney general.
Trying this nepotism charge “will put him at a severe and unfair disadvantage should federal authorities see forth to proceed with a charge against Montgomery,” they wrote.
5. An 85-word copy-paste response about Montgomery handcuffing the acting jail director
Montgomery’s response doesn’t directly address Bailey’s interpretation of those events and instead leaned on the art of writing a nonanswer — more than 50 pages' worth.
Last February, Montgomery had Ross handcuffed after she prevented him and his deputies from interviewing a detainee who had accused a sheriff’s deputy of sexual assault. In the quo warranto filing, the attorney general’s office gives its version of the interaction, but Montgomery’s legal team repeatedly refuses to comment on the incident because of the federal investigation.
The sheriff’s attorneys repeat the same 85-word response more than 100 times:
“At all relevant times, Respondent acted consistently with the statutory and other legal authority governing the position to which he was democratically elected. Respondent has been made aware of an ongoing federal criminal investigation regarding this alleged incident. Accordingly, admitting or denying each of these allegations with further particularity would infringe upon Respondent’s constitutional rights. Thus, to the extent a further response to any of these allegations is required, each allegation as to Count II is hereby specifically denied and Respondent demands strict proof thereof.”
The response uses this to counter the attorney general’s allegations that Montgomery lacked the authority — either as sheriff or private citizen — to arrest Ross, committed an act amounting to kidnapping, is “a usurper who must be removed,” plus more than 100 other accusations.
6. Ross was always free to go — there was no detention
This assertion by Montgomery’s attorneys is stated without further explanation in their response.
7. A security guard detained by a sheriff’s deputy turned over his gun voluntarily
Last January, Montgomery and then-Capt. Anthony Anderson detained and disarmed Darryl Wilson, a former deputy in the department, for allegedly impersonating a sheriff’s deputy while working a private security job.
The events around Wilson’s departure from the department on Jan. 8, about a week before the incident, have been contested. The sheriff’s lawyers said they agree with the attorney general that Wilson resigned. (The former deputy testified in a related protective order case earlier this year that Montgomery forced him to resign.)
The new response repeatedly denied that Montgomery and Anderson forcefully confiscated Wilson’s gun, saying he gave it to them voluntarily. It also denied that temporarily taking the weapon violated Wilson’s rights.
The petition described Wilson as wearing “a black, hooded sweatshirt, black pants, and a black skullcap that displayed the word ‘security.’” Police who responded to a 911 call said he was not wearing anything that would imply he was impersonating a sheriff’s deputy. Montgomery’s team denies this description.
8. Yes, a sheriff’s department employee used a marked department vehicle to pick up Montgomery’s children — but he didn’t order her to do that
Montgomery's lawyers argued that the attorney general would know the sheriff didn’t use city resources for personal gain if his office had just asked.
Bailey’s writ claims Montgomery ordered Sgt. Barbara Chavers to give his children a ride from school to the sheriff’s office while she was on duty. Montgomery’s team denied that, saying that he never gave such an order and that Chavers was off duty — though the response admits she was driving a marked department vehicle. The sheriff’s lawyers said department employees no longer use their work vehicles to transport Montgomery’s kids.
9. The sheriff never violated the state’s hands-free driving law — thanks to his use of a phone mount
Bailey accused the sheriff of violating the Siddens Bening Hands Free Law by filming TikTok videos of himself while driving on the job. Montgomery’s team said he was using a hands-free mount.
Another video, posted on June 22, shows the sheriff skydiving, which Bailey claims was filmed two days earlier — hours after Montgomery allegedly failed to take an inmate to the hospital. Bailey noted how a member of the public commented, “Probably used the sheriff budget for this too.” Montgomery admits that he replied with laughing emojis in response but disputes that is of legal relevance.
The next hearing in the case is set for 11 a.m. Aug. 29 with Judge Steven R. Ohmer presiding.
