Request By:
Mr. Kevin E. Quill
Lange, Quill & Powers
Attorneys at Law
400 Lawyers Building
Newport, Kentucky 41071
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; Elizabeth E. Blackford, Assistant Attorney General
You have written on behalf of James Murphy, the sheriff of Campbell County, to ask a series of questions relating to his duties. We will answer the questions as propounded.
1. Who is responsible for maintaining a county jail facility which is adequate both in size and housing requirements for the needs of Campbell County?
Answer: The fiscal court bears this responsibility. See OAG 78-129, copy enclosed, wherein this office opined that KRS 67.080 operates an affirmative duty on the fiscal court to maintain an adequate jail. The language of KRS 67.080 was amended in 1978. As a result of that amendment the language which provided that the fiscal court may secure a sufficient jail was deleted and the following language was inserted which states:
"(2) The fiscal court shall:
(a) appropriate county funds . . . for purposes required by law;
(b) as needed, cause the construction, operation and maintenance of all county buildings and other structures. . . ."
Pursuant to KRS 67.080 (2)(b) the fiscal court continues to have an affirmative duty to provide an adequate jail.
2. Is Sheriff Murphy required to accept prisoners placed in his custody by judges when both he and the judges are aware that no facilities are available for housing the prisoners?
Answer: Yes. The Sheriff has a duty to obey all orders of the courts of justice, and to execute the sentence of the court. KRS 71.130; KRS 71.140; RCr 11.22; KRS 441.500. This duty is absolute. If the sheriff is charged to take custody of a prisoner by a judge he must do so.
3. Doesn't the responsibility to locate facilities for prisoners fall upon the judge placing the prisoners in jail?
Answer: The judge has the primary duty to determine where the defendant is to be committed and to enter an order directing such commitment. However, the court may order the sheriff to keep it informed of what facilities are available for housing the prisoners. KRS 532.100; KRS 441.030; KRS 21A.110. Also see OAG 80-129, copy enclosed. Where the judges have ordered the sheriff to keep them informed of what facilities are available to house prisoners, he must do so. KRS 70.140.
4. How far is Sheriff Murphy required to transport prisoners placed in his custody, considering his manpower limitations, travel time and security problems related to travel.
Answer: He is required to transport them as far as is necessary to execute the orders of the courts as to the prisoners' place of confinement. KRS 441.020; RCr 11.22; KRS 441.500; KRS 71.130. 1
5. Who is required to reimburse the sheriff for the extra costs of transporting prisoners to a location other than the Campbell County Jail, for additional deputies to provide adequate security and the related administrative problems of coordinating transportation and court appearances for prisoners?
Answer: If the circuit court has ordered the transfer of the prisoner to another jail because of the failure of the fiscal court to provide adequate facilities to house the prisoner, then the sheriff may be reimbursed as per the provisions of KRS 64.070 from county funds. KRS 441.040. The Court must state in its order that the costs shall be borne by the county. KRS 441.030; KRS 441.040.
Beyond this, the sheriff is not entitled to reimbursements for the costs involved in transporting prisoners. KRS 441.500; KRS 64.070; Also see, OAG 80-23, copy enclosed. However, the fiscal court may, in its discretion, provide the sheriff's office with allowances to cover the costs. See OAG 78-271, copy enclosed; KRS 64.346.
6. If a prisoner is placed in the hospital, upon whom does the responsibility rest for guarding said prisoner while he is so hospitalized, and, if it falls upon the sheriff, who is required to reimburse the sheriff for overtime personal expenses related to guarding said prisoner while he is hospitalized?
The question has been treated in OAG 77-607 and 80-434, copies enclosed. In OAG 77-607, the office opined that the primary duty in this regard rests with the jailer but that the sheriff might be ordered to provide additional security for the hospitalized prisoner by the judge or the fiscal court. See also, KRS 70.130. In OAG 80-434, this office opined that the sheriff must bill the fiscal court for reimbursement of actual and necesssary expenses incurred in prisoner transportation, through a documented claim, and for the payment of the guards utilized in providing these security services. Accordingly, this office is of the opinion that the fiscal court shall reimburse the sheriff upon presentation of a properly documented claim.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 You included a decree in a case styled Brenda Sebastian, et al. v. Lambert Hehl, et al, No. 78-76, which was entered in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington. As a portion of that judgment the defendant is permitted to arrange for the transfer of certain inmates of the Campbell County Jail to jails located in Campbell, Kenton or Boone Counties. However, the decree goes on to say that it does not affect the power of the courts to order the transfer of prisoners pursuant to KRS 441.030, KRS 441.050 or other similar statutes.
KRS 441.030 simply provides that where there is no jail the circuit court may order the prisoner to be transferred to the nearest secure jail, and that jail may be further away than Campbell, Kenton or Boone Counties. Likewise, the decree will have no impact upon the inherent power vested in the district judge to order a prisoner transfer. See OAG 80-129 for a discussion of that power. The decree will have no impact on the power of the court to order the prisoner's transfer or upon the duty of the sheriff to execute that order.