Should "Sheriff Joe" be able to do anything HE wants? Judging from the comments so far in this thread, it seems like his innocence is just assumed because he says he's fighting illegals.
I'm not sure that's how the legal system works...
There's so much vitriol when discussing Joe, that sifting fact from fiction on internet forums especially is problematic at best.
As far as I'm concerned those who are at the highest on the government pyramid still have to abide by the rule of gathering evidence. It is my understanding (which may be subject to change since "reporting" seems to consist mainly of hyperbole) that the Feds are asking for documents without a sufficient explanation of what they are. I assume a judge will eventually step in and define this more clearly.
Joe is not permitted to do whatever he wants but even when evidence is damning our society had realized that those in power can crush those below themselves by virtue of unlimited resources and power. To combat that, we've come up with an imperfect system where there is automatic presumption of innocence in many cases. This is not always the case as in taxation issues where in essence the government has the advantage of assumed correctness and it's up to the individual to produce records showing he or she has fulfilled whatever obligations exist. Wolf or others can correct me if I am wrong or have oversimplified things.
If I am more or less correct in my understanding of things, Joe is subject to possible criminal penalties for whatever the Feds are looking for. That being the case, he has the right and the government who he immediately answers to the obligation of making sure the US govt. does not exceed it's authority under law as derived from the Constitution.
Now the statement of "well what if HE (Joe) exceeded his authority". Well if he did the Federal government can prosecute, but they have to follow the procedures. So Joe will fight, but eventually the Federal Government will win IF they can conduct themselves in a proper way and there sufficient evidence to convict. If not, then no matter how much one dislikes the man, the government hasn't demonstrated anything other than the desire to go fishing.
These rights and procedures do not exist for people one finds worthy. They exist for everyone, and if Joe has done what some believe he will be punished, but maybe not in the way or time some would like. That's the price we have for freedom. Occasionally those who should be punished go free, and sometimes the reverse. Overall, the system does work for all it's imperfections. The alternative is that public opinion drive justice. That used to be known as a lynching.
Worse than a corrupt individual is a corrupt or abusive system of great power. There is no relief from the latter.