Request By:
Kyle W. Williamson
LaRue County Attorney
Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;James M. Herrick,Assistant Attorney General
Opinion of the Attorney General LaRue County Attorney Kyle W. Williamson has requested an opinion from this office concerning the interpretation of KRS 441.135. Specifically, he asks whether funds derived from a jail canteen may be used "to purchase securi-ty cameras within the jail for the safety and protection of the inmates. " Finding no published cases or opinions on point, we approach this as an issue of first impression.
KRS 441.135 provides, in pertinent, part, as follows:
(1) The jailer may maintain a canteen for the benefit of prisoners lodged in the jail and may assign such jail employees and pris-oners to operate the canteen as are necessary for efficient opera-tion.
(2) All profits from the canteen shall be used for the benefit and to enhance the well-being of the prisoners . The jailer shall keep books of ac-counts of all receipts and disbursements from the canteen and shall annually report to the county treasurer on the canteen ac-count.
(3) Allowable expenditures from a canteen account shall include but not be limited to recreational, vocational, and medical purposes .
(Emphasis added). Mr. Williamson proposes that security cameras in the jail would benefit and enhance the well-being of the inmates by facilitating their safety and protection.
"The fundamental rule in construing statutes is to 'ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature.'" OAG 04-001, n.7 (quoting Adams v. Greene, 182 Ky. 504, 206 S.W. 759, 760 (1918)). In this instance, we must interpret the "allowable expenditures" clause according to the examples it provides of "recreactional, vocational, and medical purposes," which, while not exclusive, serve as illustrations of the legislative intent. Here we have recourse to the basic rules of statutory construction. According to the rule of ejusdem generis ("of the same kind"):
[W]here, in a statute, general words follow or precede a designa-tion of particular subjects or classes of persons, the meaning of the general words ordinarily will be presumed to be restricted by the particular designation, and to include only things or persons of the same kind, class, or nature as those specifically enumerated, unless there is a clear manifestation of a contrary purpose.
Steinfeld v. Jefferson Cnty. Fiscal Ct., 312 Ky. 614, 229 S.W.2d 319, 320 (1950). Thus, the import of the phrase "shall include but not be limited to" in KRS 441.135(3) is not universally inclusive, but is to some degree restricted by the specific exam-ples enumerated.
In determining what types of canteen account expenditures are "of the same kind, class, or nature" as those enumerated in the statute, we must ascer-tain what common characteristic can be found in "recreational, vocational, and medical purposes." In our opinion, these purposes share the characteristic of being oriented to the benefit or well-being of individual inmates.
While installing security cameras in a jail might be said to "enhance the well-being" of inmates in a general and collective sense by providing for their safety, we believe that ensuring a safe environment is within the scope of a jail's basic obligation to all inmates. As such, it is our opinion that security cameras are an item which should properly be funded from the facility's operating budg-et, and not a proper subject for expenditure of canteen account funds under KRS 441.135.