|
|
| |
| Thu, Dec. 4, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Court hears city, county arguments in jail costs dispute Friday, Jun 1, 2007 By Rob Moritz Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - A lawyer for Jefferson County and a former county judge urged the state Supreme Court on Thursday to affirm a lower court's definition of the term "prisoners of municipalities" in determining who pays to house inmates in crowded jails. A circuit judge's ruling in a dispute between Jefferson County and the city of Pine Bluff represents the system that has been used for years by cities and counties struggling with jail overcrowding and who foots the bill for inmates' keep. "This is not new stuff," Burt Newell, who represents Jefferson County and former County Judge Jack Jones, said in oral arguments before the high court. "The way its always been done in Arkansas is the way Judge (John) Plegge ruled." Arkansas Municipal League attorney Mark Hayes, who represents the city of Pine Bluff in the case, told the justices that Plegge's definition was incorrect. "We vehemently disagree" with Plegge's definition, Hayes said. Last year, Plegge ruled 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, the judge said. Hayes told justices Thursday that state statute says municipal prisoners are those arrested and convicted of municipal ordinance violations. 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 and Newell both said Thursday that the definition of "prisoners of municipalities" is needed to complete last year's settlement agreement as well as the new contract and other financial issues. During oral arguments, justices questioned whether the case should even be before the state's highest court. "Do we have jurisdiction to hear this?" Justice Donald Corbin asked, nothing that the justices were being asked to rule on a definition that would then change a settlement that has already been reached. Hayes said much of the settlement has been finalized, but the definition would be used to address future financial issues. Justice Robert Brown suggested the Supreme Court was "precariously close to legislating" by hearing the case. Brown said he thought the issue was probably more suited for the Legislature, and not the court. Hayes disagreed, saying part of the settlement agreement reached last year between the county and the city was to allow the city to appeal Plegge's definition to the high court. After oral arguments, Hayes said he was surprised that the justices expressed concerns about jurisdiction. "I think it's real clear," he said. "We have an agreement, parts of which are definitive, and parts of which we have to use Judge Plegge's order, and I think that debate over ... how we're going to do those calculations, that's why we need them (the justices) to tell us whether Judge Plegge is right or wrong so we'll know exactly what to do." Newell said cities and counties across the state should be paying close attention to the case before the Supreme Court because it could affect their relationships when it comes to housing jail inmates. "If they render an opinion on the definition here, then it would certainly affect all 75 counties," Newell said. "Virtually all counties run the jail for themselves and the cities and they have to pay, it's terribly expensive. You've got to have a cost sharing situation between police and sheriffs, or else things will break down." Newell said discarding Plegge's definition would "throw everything on its ear." "Under (Pine Bluff's) argument today, the only detainees that cities would have the responsibility for are persons who have actually been sentenced to jail time for violating a city ordinance ... which is incredibly rare," Newell said. |
