Request By:
Mr. David H. Bland
Executive Director
Kentucky Jailers Association
Route #2, McCowans Ferry Pike
Versailles, Kentucky 40383
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Your letter, relating to jailer problems, reads:
"Several questions have been raised regarding the responsibility of a jailer whose jail has been closed and who functions as transportation officer.
"Question No. 1: When a prisoner has been arrested and lodged in another county on a warrant issued by a county whose jail is closed, is it not the sheriff's responsibility to transport that prisoner back to the county holding the warrant rather than the jailer?
"Question No. 2: Can a district judge order a jailer/ transportation officer to transport an arrestee to a treatment facility? OAG 82-578 seems to support that this would not be an appropriate order to the jailer. "
Under the current law, in the event that a county contracts with another county for the incarceration of its prisoners, the jailer of the county where the trial is to be held is responsible for transporting such prisoners to and from the county where prisoners are incarcerated, except as otherwise agreed by contract. KRS 441.500(3) and 441.006(2)(b). However, assuming the prisoner is not being held in the city or urban-county facility, and is not being held in the contract jail, then under KRS 441.500(1)(c), the sheriff of the county where the prisoner is incarcerated is responsible for transporting the prisoner back to the court of the county holding the warrant.
House Bill 310 (1984 session) amends KRS 441.500 (effective July 13, 1984) by providing that in any county where there is no jail or the county operates a holdover jail, the fiscal court must adopt a transportation plan which establishes a party responsible for transporting prisoners as necessary: (a) The fiscal court may require the jailer to serve as transportation officer, responsible for transporting prisoners as necessary; or (b) The fiscal court may require the sheriff to serve as transportation officer, responsible for transporting prisoners as necessary; or (c) The fiscal court may adopt any reasonable transportation plan so long as the party responsible for transporting prisoners is specified. In any county where there is no jail and the jailer does not transport prisoners, the jailer shall serve as a bailiff to the circuit and district courts of the county, as provided in KRS 71.050, as amended by the bill. The fiscal court may also require the jailer to serve as custodian of county buildings and grounds, as provided for in KRS 67.130. On and after July 13, 1984, where there is no jail (or the county operates a holdover jail) , the transportation officer established by the fiscal court would have the responsibility of returning the particular prisoner mentioned to the court of jurisdiction.
As concerns question no. 2, KRS 441.500(3) currently governs, assuming that the county has contracted with another county for incarceration of its prisoners, and assuming the sick prisoner is in the contract jail. If the prisoner is not in the contract jail, but is detained in another county, then the sheriff of the county where the prisoner is detained would have the responsibility to transport the prisoner to a medical facility. On and after July 13, 1984, the transportation officer established by the fiscal court would have that responsibility. Under that subsection (KRS 441.500(3)) the jailer/ transportation officer of the county where the trial is to be held is currently responsible for transporting the prisoner to a medical treatment facility, assuming the prisoner is in the contract jail. The district judge's ordering this done by the jailer/ transportation officer is properly based upon the application of KRS 441.500(3), under the facts you have given, assuming the prisoner is in the contract jail.