Request By:
Honorable Bert T. Combs
Division Counsel
Southern Railway System
Tarrant, Combs & Bullitt
26th Floor Citizens Plaza
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
As Division Counsel of Southern Railway System, you request our opinion as to whether railroad policemen employed by Southern and commissioned pursuant to KRS 277.270 and 277.280 may be regulated by Jefferson County under its recently enacted ordinance.
The ordinance purports to establish a county private security commission and to provide a means for licensing and regulating armed security officers for nongovernmental entities of private enterprise. It purports to cover any company or corporation which employs armed security officers to protect its property. Jefferson County and Louisville policemen in good standing are exempted from the ordinance. Agencies furnishing security officers to companies are required to be licensed by the county director of the public protection cabinet. The ordinance sets forth detailed standards required of agency and security officer licensees. It describes circumstances under which licenses for armed security officers and agencies may be suspended or revoked. There are provisions for submitting applications as an agent or security officer, and for wearing uniforms. Penalties are provided for certain violations of the ordinance.
Under KRS 277.270, et seq. , any company owning or operating a railroad in Kentucky may apply to the Governor to appoint and commission as railroad policement such persons as the company designates. KRS 277.280 contains provisions relating to the bond, oath, powers and compensation of railroad policemen. The matter of badges and uniforms is covered in KRS 277.290.
The regulatory scheme of the Jefferson County ordinance is in direct conflict with the statutory treatment of railroad policemen. Specifically KRS 277.270 leaves it to the railroad to designate specific persons to be commissioned by the Governor, but the Jefferson County ordinance contains a somewhat elaborate scheme of standards and qualifications for armed security officers. See
Walker v. Rosser, Ky., 309 S.W.2d 754 (1958); and 52 K.L.J. 118.
Undoubtedly, the Jefferson Fiscal Court, in enacting the ordinance, relied upon the Home Rule statute, KRS 67.083. However, Subsection (3) of that statute provides in part:
"(3) The fiscal court shall have the power to carry out governmental functions necessary for the operation of the county. Except as otherwise provided by statute or the Kentucky constitution, the fiscal court of any county may enact ordinances, issue regulations, levy taxes, issue bonds, appropriate funds and employ personnel in performance of the following public functions: . . . ."
It is clear from reading KRS 67.083(3) that county ordinances must not be in conflict with existing or future statutes. Here, in view of the direct and specific conflict between the ordinance and KRS 277.270, et seq. , it is our opinion that the statutes preempt the field of railroad policemen. Thus the ordinance can have no valid application to railroad policemen.
In addition, KRS 277.270, et seq. , is more specific in nature than KRS 67.083, and KRS 277.280 was last amended in 1978 [Ch. 384, Sec. 456, signed by the Governor March 30, 1978]. The amending of KRS 67.083 in 1978 was by way of Chapter 118, Sec. 3, signed by the Governor on March 28, 1978. Thus the legislation dealing with railroad policemen is more specific and later in time, and should control. The court, in