Request By:
Mr. William D. Stephens
Supervisor
County Fee Systems
Department of Finance
Capitol Annex
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
You requested, in your letter, that this office prepare and issue an opinion on the question as to the jailer's release fee where the prisoner is being released daily from the county jail under a work release program.
Your question. Does the jailer's fee of 75 cents for imprisoning and releasing a prisoner charged with an offense or contempt, pursuant to KRS 64.150, apply to the work release program as set out in KRS 439.179?
Under KRS 439.179, any person sentenced to the county jail for a misdemeanor, nonpayment of a fine or forfeiture, or contempt of court, may be granted the privilege of leaving the jail during necessary and reasonable hours for certain purposes enumerated in that statute, including working at the prisoner's employment.
Thus in the morning a prisoner who is granted work release by the court would have to be released by the jailer; and at night the jailer would have to reincarcerate him. The imprisoning and releasing the prisoner on work release would be a daily task, which would, in our opinion, entitle the jailer to the fee of 75 cents for each instance of imprisonment and 75 cents for each instance of release.
Under KRS 439.179(4), every prisoner gainfully employed is liable for the cost of his board in the jail, at the amount established by law. See KRS 64.150. It seems reasonable to say that the phrase "board in jail" , as it appears in KRS 439.179(4), is broad enough to include this necessary maintenance fee of 75 cents. See KRS 64.150(2), which expressly adopts that concept.
Since KRS 64.150 provides that the government whose law has been violated is responsible for paying the fees of KRS 64.150(1), the proper procedure would be that where the work release prisoner has violated a state statute, the state should first pay the 75 cents fee. Then later the state should be reimbursed by the district court's making a proper disbursement of defendant's earned money, going into a trust account, to the state. See KRS 439.179(3).
Our construction is based upon the above statutes, which are clear and unambiguous.