|
|
| |
| Thu, Dec. 4, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Pine Bluff, Jefferson County dispute over inmates dismissed Friday, Jun 8, 2007 By Rob Moritz Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - The state Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the city of Pine Bluff's petition to overturn a lower court's definition of the term "prisoners of municipalities" in determining who pays to house inmates in crowded jails. In the 6-1 decision, the high court said it does not issue advisory opinions. The definition was a key component in a settlement reached last year between Pine Bluff and Jefferson County and could influence how local governments statewide share jail costs. The settlement was reached with the agreement that the city would appeal the definition Special Circuit Judge John Plegge used for "prisoners of municipalities." The judge said felons arrested by city officers are the responsibility of the city until a prosecutor files formal charges against them. Only after that do the inmates become the responsibility of the county, the judge said. A lawyer for the county argued last week before the high court that Plegge's definition 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. An Arkansas Municipal League lawyer who represented the city of Pine Bluff argued Plegge's definition was incorrect. He said inmates should become the responsibility of municipalities after they have been sentenced to jail for violating a city ordinance. Attorneys told the justices the dispute over how much money the city owes the county for jail use has been settled. However, they said the definition of "prisoners of municipalities" needed to be clarified so a new contract can be completed, along with other financial issues. The court said Thursday, in the majority opinion written by Justice Tom Glaze, that a settlement agreement has already been reached between the city and county, and that any decision handed down by the Supreme Court would not affect the agreement. "We have long held that courts do not sit for the purpose of determining speculative and abstract questions of law or laying down rules for future conduct," Glaze wrote. "Generally, a case becomes moot when any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon a then existing legal controversy." Because of the settlement, "there is no existing legal controversy," Glaze said, adding, "any decision we might render would merely be an advisory opinion. This we do not do." Municipal League lawyer Mark Hayes, said Thursday he was disappointed in the decision because some financial issues remain, as does a finalizing a new contract. "We came up with a temporary agreement using Judge Plegge's definition," Hayes said. "There is still potential disagreement for who is going to pay for what between January 1 and March 31" when the new jail opened. Hot Springs lawyer Burt Newell, who represented the county, said he was not surprised but pleased by a ruling he said would not affect the settlement between the city and county. "The definition the city wanted would have been financially catastrophic for the county because (the city) would not have responsibility for anybody," Newell said. In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Jim Hannah said Plegge "properly decided the issue of the meaning of the term 'prisoners of municipalities' in a declaratory judgment action, and the (Supreme Court) should review that decision on appeal." |
