|
|
| |
| Thu, Dec. 4, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
County jail inmate responsibility case before Supreme Court Thursday, May 31, 2007 By Rob Moritz Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - LITTLE ROCK - A case before the state Supreme Court could affect all cities and counties in the state struggling with jail overcrowding and who pays to house the inmates, attorneys for both sides said Wednesday. At issue in the case to be argued today is a Jefferson County circuit judge's definition of "prisoners of municipalities." Burt Newell, who represents Jefferson County and former County Judge Jack Jones, said Special Judge John Plegge was correct when he ruled last year that felons arrested by city officers are the responsibility of the city until a prosecutor files formal charges against them. Only at that point do inmates become the responsibility of the county, Newell said, citing Plegge's definition of the term in question. However, Arkansas Municipal League attorney Mark Hayes, who represents the city of Pine Bluff in the case, said Plegge's definition was incorrect. "We think the state statute says municipal prisoners, as related to financial responsibility in jail settings, are those arrested and convicted of a municipal ordinance violation," Hayes said. "Otherwise, they are county responsibility." All cities and counties in the state have a vested interest in the high court's ruling in the case, Hayes said. "This will clearly define once and for all what the law is in Arkansas as to what constitutes a municipal prisoner," he said. Newell acknowledged the importance of the case. "A major problem facing all cities and counties is what to do with the increasing need for jail space, without (building) more and more jails," he said. "The problem of financial accountability has to be solved before they can move forward with this. It has to be resolved. There needs to be some uniformity of interpretation." The definition of "prisoners of municipalities" is a key part of a settlement reached last year between Pine Bluff and Jefferson County. The agreement resolved a lawsuit filed by the county against the city in 2004. The county had claimed the city owed it about $430,000 in unpaid county jail bills under a 1993 contract. Along with the city and county coming to financial terms, the lawsuit settlement included reworking the 1993 contract. Hayes said the definition of "prisoners of municipalities" is needed to complete last year's settlement agreement as well as the new contract "and any other financial issues that may have arisen since we settled but before the Supreme Court issues the opinion." "We need the Supreme Court to tell us what the definition of a municipal prisoner is so that in turn we can finalize an agreement between the parties," Hayes said. |
