Request By:
Mr. Elmer Cunnagin, Jr.
Laurel County Attorney
Courthouse
London, Kentucky 40741
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
The Laurel County Sheriff's Office has asked you to obtain an opinion from this office concerning the sheriff's authority to contract pertaining to one of his regular deputies.
Your letter reads in part:
"Woods Creek Water District wants to contract with the Laurel County Sheriff's Office or with the Laurel County Fiscal Court whereby the Sheriff can place a full time deputy sheriff at the Woods Creek Lake, a water treatment facility located in Laurel County, Kentucky.
"The water district has agreed to pay the salary of a full time deputy sheriff to provide enforcement on the water district property and surrounding area.
"My question is can the Laurel County Fiscal Court or the Laurel County Sheriff's Office enter into a contract with the Woods Creek Water District whereby a legally appointed deputy sheriff can provide law enforcement services on the Woods Creek Lake property, and under the contract the Woods Creek Water District pay the deputy's salary either directly to the deputy or through the sheriff's office."
The fiscal court establishes the number of regular deputies. KRS 64.530. The sheriff makes the appointments to those positions. KRS 70.030. However, neither the fiscal court nor the sheriff has the statutory authority to engage in a contract with a water district, which contract would provide for a regular deputy's providing law enforcement services on the Woods Creek Lake property.
The General Assembly has enacted statutes dealing with the law enforcement duties of sheriffs in Kentucky. See, for example, KRS 70.150 and 70.160. Thus the General Assembly has preempted the field of the law enforcement duties of sheriffs and their regular deputies. See §§ 27, 28, 228, Kentucky Constitution, and 80 C.J.S., Sheriffs and Constables, § 35, pages 203-204.
As a general rule a deputy sheriff has only the powers given to the sheriff. 80 C.J.S., Sheriffs and Constables, § 37, pages 206-207.
Thus it is up to the sheriff, under his own scheduling, to employ his deputy staff to the best of his ability in order to meet his statutory responsibilities and duties. KRS 70.030. This general responsibility cannot be modified by such contracts for special projects. The question as to the salary under this analysis is academic. In any event, salaries of deputies are fixed uniformly by fiscal court pursuant to KRS 64.530. Funk v. Milliken, Ky., 317 S.W.2d 499 (1958). The court wrote in Daniel v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 301 Ky. 536, 192 S.W.2d 483 (1946), that the purpose of KRS 70.030 is to permit the sheriff at all times to have full control of his office and deputies. Indeed, the court said, a contract, between a candidate for sheriff and his supporter providing that if elected he would appoint the supporter as a deputy for a specified district at a specified compensation for collection of taxes, and the supporter to have tenure of a full term, was in violation of KRS 70.030. The statute was designed to prevent such contracts which would interfere with the sheriff's duties to the public.
Since a water district is a unit of government (a special district), it may apply to the Secretary of the Justice Cabinet for the commissioning of a special law enforcement officer to protect and enforce the law on the public property of the water district. See KRS 61.900 and 61.902 et seq.