Hailey
In 2025, the Missouri Attorney General initiated efforts to remove St. Louis Sheriff Alfred Montgomery from office, citing serious allegations of misconduct, abuse of authority, and neglect of duty.
The legal battle, centered on a quo warranto proceeding, continues to unfold.
In this article, you will find the latest facts and figures, details of the legal claims, responses, and what comes next in this high-stakes dispute.
The Turning Point- AG’s Demand & Quo Warranto Filing
- On June 24, 2025, Attorney General Andrew Bailey demanded that Sheriff Montgomery resign by noon June 25, or face legal removal via a writ of quo warranto.
- The AG’s office also opened a tip line to receive whistleblower reports about misconduct in the sheriff’s office.
- Shortly thereafter, Bailey filed a 90-page writ of quo warranto, seeking Montgomery’s ouster on six separate counts of misconduct.
- The filing resulted in a preliminary order that could bar Montgomery from performing official duties pending the litigation.
Six Allegations Against Montgomery
Below is a table summarizing the six counts laid out in the removal petition:
| Count | Allegation | Key Details / Figures |
|---|---|---|
| Count 1: Nepotism | Hiring a relative | Montgomery allegedly appointed his half brother, Malik Taylor, as deputy, violating the state constitution’s ban on nepotism. |
| Count 2: Illegal Arrest of Acting Jail Commissioner | Unlawful arrest order | Montgomery is accused of ordering deputies to arrest Tammy Ross, the acting jail commissioner, despite lacking authority. |
| Count 3: Illegal Arrest & Disarmament | Seizing firearm unlawfully | The claim holds that Montgomery ordered arrest of a licensed private security guard, Darryl Wilson, and confiscated his weapon without authority. |
| Count 4: Failure to Transport Inmates | Endangering detainee health | Since taking office, Montgomery is alleged to have failed to transport inmates for medical or mental health treatment on at least 59 occasions. The petition states the first violation occurred less than 15 hours into his tenure. |
| Count 5: Using Office for Personal Benefit | Misuse of personnel & resources | He is accused of directing deputies to babysit his children, use government vehicles for personal errands, and other personal uses of official capacity. |
| Count 6: Financial Mismanagement | Wasteful spending & overreach | Montgomery allegedly spent tens of thousands of dollars on items like gold-plated badges, golf carts, “office robots,” a take-home Chevy Tahoe, and hired attorneys in excess of statutory limits. |
Court Proceedings & Recent Developments
First Hearing & Judicial Decision
- On July 9, 2025, a bench hearing was held. Judge Steven R. Ohmer declined to immediately remove Montgomery, calling that a “drastic step” not justified at that stage.
- At that hearing, the sheriff’s legal team challenged several counts, including disputing that the nepotism claim and the allegation of responsibility for inmate medical transport were valid.
- The court and both legal teams agreed on a procedural schedule for the litigation.
Procedural Timeline
As of mid-2025, the agreed schedule includes:
- July 21: Montgomery must file his formal answer
- August 29: Deadline for discovery to conclude
- September 19: Deadline for filing motions
- November 10, 2025: Bench trial is set to begin
- Additional status hearings may be held on August 29, September 26, and October 29 if needed
Change in the Nepotism Charge
- In August 2025, the Attorney General’s office dropped the nepotism charge. The decision came after Montgomery’s team submitted evidence—including a 2016 paternity order and DNA result—that undermined the allegation of familial relation.
- The AG’s office acknowledged the evidence revealed that Malik Taylor’s biological father is someone else, making the nepotism count untenable under the new facts.
Montgomery’s Position & Defense
- Sheriff Montgomery denies all wrongdoing and has vowed to defend his office.
- His attorneys argue the petition misinterprets legal responsibilities, especially regarding inmate medical transport, arguing that responsibility lies instead with the jail’s medical provider or contractual obligations.
- They also contend that some of the allegations lack sufficient factual support—particularly the nepotism claim which was eventually withdrawn.
Why This Case Matters
- Precedent & Executive Authority
The case tests the limits of a state Attorney General’s power to remove an elected law enforcement official through legal proceedings. - Accountability & Public Trust
Allegations like failure to transport medically needy inmates or misuse of office erode trust in law enforcement and public institutions. - Role of Quo Warranto
Use of quo warranto is rare; its deployment in this case may shape future accountability tools for public officials in Missouri. - Election vs Judicial Remedy
Montgomery’s defense emphasizes that voters—not courts—should decide whether an elected official stays in office, raising the question of judicial intervention in democratic outcomes.
The confrontation between the Missouri Attorney General’s office and Sheriff Alfred Montgomery is now a defining legal and political battle.
With multiple serious charges—ranging from negligence toward inmate health to misuse of public resources—the case dives deep into governance, accountability, and the rule of law. Although the nepotism count has been dropped, the remaining allegations still pose serious challenges.
As the November 10, 2025 trial approaches, observers across Missouri will be watching closely. The outcome could reshape how far a state can go to hold elected law enforcement leaders accountable under the law.
