Request By:
Mr. Dale Wright
Anderson County Attorney
Main and Court Place
Lawrenceburg, Kentucky 40342
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Several questions have been raised in your county regarding transportation of Anderson County prisoners. You tell us that Anderson County has a population of 13,500 and contains one city, Lawrenceburg (4th class). The Sheriff of Anderson County has a staff of three: a matron and two male deputies. The sheriff has requested the fiscal court to provide him and his two male deputies with automobiles in which to perform their duties and to pay for all expenses relating to such autos.
Question No. 1:
"Is the Fiscal Court of Anderson County, Kentucky, required by law to provide the sheriff and/or his deputies with an automobile and is the fiscal court responsible for all expenses related to said automobiles?"
Three major needs for an automobile in the sheriff's office arise out of the law enforcement function, the hauling of prisoners under KRS Chapter 441, and the tax collection function. See KRS 70.150 (patrolling of roads) and 70.160 (inspection of dance halls and roadhouses), KRS 441.500, and KRS 134.140 (tax collector). The financing of a car or cars for the sheriff's performance of statutory duties must come from: (1) the fees of his office; or (2) the county treasury; or (3) a combination of both. Especially in view of the fact that such automobiles would be titled in the county name, and considering that the sheriff's office must turn over excess fees to the county, thus intermeshing the sheriff's office with county government, the fiscal court has the responsibility of procuring the necessary automobiles for the sheriff's statutory functions where it appears that the sheriff's fees are not wholly sufficient for that purpose. Funk v. Milliken, Ky., 317 S.W.2d 499 (1958). Of course, such fiscal court appropriations for that purpose are subject to the usual budget procedure established in KRS Chapter 68. For performing the duties required under KRS 70.150 and 70.160, the sheriff is allowed an expense allowance of $3600 per year payable out of the state treasury. KRS 70.170. Thus, to the extent that the expense allowance and sheriff's fees are not wholly sufficient to fund the acquisition cost of automobiles and the cost of operation, the fiscal court has the responsibility of funding such costs out of the county treasury, under available budgeted county funds. See KRS Chapter 68. See Barkley v. Gatewood, 285 Ky. 179, 147 S.W.2d 373 (1941); and KRS 67.083(3)(u). The county revenue sharing money could be legally spent for this law enforcement purpose. See 31 U.S.C.A. § 1227. See also KRS 67.080(2)(b)(d), KRS 64.090 (sheriff fees), 64.092 (sheriff's compensation for attending court), 24A.170(5) (sheriff's fee for serving civil process), 23A.200(5) (sheriff's fee for serving civil process), 24A.140, and KRS 67.083(3)(p).
We held in OAG 62-432 that fiscal courts, in counties of 75,000 population or more, could finance or furnish sheriffs' automobiles in such counties as necessary official expenses of that office. That opinion rests largely upon § 106 of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 64.346. We are inclined to believe that such authority applies to fiscal courts in counties containing less than 75,000 population. The Court of Appeals, in construing KRS 67.080, has held the fiscal court responsible for furnishing certain supplies and equipment used by county officials in county buildings, such material being a practical necessity in the proper conduct of the business of the office. Barkley v. Gatewood, 285 Ky. 179, 147 S.W.2d 373 (1941). That case dealt with the furnishing of telephone service, for a county sheriff, used for the purpose of the apprehension of criminals. Also see Hollis v. Weissinger, 142 Ky. 129, 134 S.W. 176 [electric fans]; and Cain v. Burroughs Adding Mach. Co., 180 Ky. 567, 203 S.W. 315 (1918) [adding machines]. Also see KRS 64.530 relating to office expenses.
Your question no. 2 is academic in view of our answer to question no. 1. A second category of questions relate to transportation of county prisoners. When the Anderson County jail reaches capacity, the excess prisoners must be transported to other jails, although no formal contracts are in existence. You raise these additional questions:
"(1) Is the Sheriff of Anderson County primarily responsible for transporting jail prisoners (as opposed to penitentiary prisoners) to:
(a) local medical authorities when necessary?
(b) to and from jail facilities in other counties which other counties accommodate the Anderson County jailer by housing excess prisoners? and
(c) and/or is the Sheriff of Anderson County responsible pursuant to 441.500(1) (as a blanket rule and responsibility) for the transportation of jail prisoners as necessary?"
As against your factual background, KRS 441.500 (1)(c) requires the sheriff, unless otherwise ordered by the court, to transport prisoners in the Anderson County jail to local medical authorities when necessary. See OAG 82-578, published, Banks-Baldwin, page 2-593. KRS 441.500(1)(c) must be accepted as written. Manning v. Kentucky Bd. of Denistry, Ky.App., 657 S.W.2d 584 (1983) 587. See OAG 82-550, published, Banks-Baldwin, in which the transporting of prisoners to other county jails was not involved. See also OAG 83-51, published, Banks-Baldwin, page 2-72.
KRS 441.500(3) requires the jailer of Anderson County to transport prisoners, subject to the Anderson County courts, to and from jail facilities in other counties, which prisoners are in excess to the Anderson County jail space available, where Anderson County contracts with such other counties for jail space, except as otherwise agreed by contract. It is our opinion that the subsection does not require formal written contracts. It is sufficient that there is an oral or informal understanding relating to the contractual arrangement. We assume the space is not being furnished gratis. Further, the subsection does not distinguish between a contract for a county's excess prisoners and all of a county's prisoners. See OAG 82-437, published, Banks-Baldwin, page 2-467.
Generally, where transporting prisoners does not involve transporting such prisoners to and from jails outside the county, the Sheriff of Anderson County, under KRS 441.500(1)(c), has the responsibility of transporting the prisoners incarcerated in the Anderson County jail for any necessary and authorized purpose.