Can two Arkansas constables enter into an interlocal cooperation agreement for mutual law-enforcement aid?
Plain-English summary
Two Sharp County constables submitted a proposed mutual-aid agreement to the AG for review and approval. The agreement would let each constable enter the other's district to assist with patrol duties and Neighborhood Watch programs. They cited the Arkansas Interlocal Cooperation Act (A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 et seq.) as the legal basis.
The AG declined to approve. The threshold problem is that individual elected officials are not "public agencies" under the Interlocal Cooperation Act. The Act defines a "public agency" by listing specific categories:
- (A) School district
- (B) Political subdivision of the state
- (C) Agency of state government or of the United States
- (D) Political subdivision of another state
- (E) Water district
- (F) Governing body of a municipal electric utility
- (G) Fire department
Individual constables are not on the list. The Act lets governmental units cooperate with each other; it does not create a vehicle for individual elected officials to formalize working relationships.
The 2008 opinion they cited. Op. 2008-070 had approved an interlocal agreement between two Arkansas cities. Cities are political subdivisions (category B), so they qualified as public agencies. The constables tried to use the same template, but the parties to their agreement were the wrong entity type.
What constables actually have to work with. The opinion does not directly address what mechanism constables can use for cooperation, but a few practical paths exist:
- The county or municipality (each a public agency) can enter an interlocal agreement on behalf of the constables under their authority.
- Informal cooperation between constables is not legally barred; what is barred is dressing it up as a formal interlocal agreement under the Cooperation Act.
- Mutual-aid statutes for law enforcement officers may apply separately (Arkansas has provisions allowing officers from one jurisdiction to act in another in defined circumstances).
The deeper takeaway: the Interlocal Cooperation Act is a tool for governmental units, not for individual officials. Constables who want formal cooperation should work through the county quorum court or the municipality.
What this means for you
Constables in Arkansas
If you want a formal cooperative arrangement with another constable, the Interlocal Cooperation Act is not your tool. Practical alternatives:
-
Work through the county. Have the county quorum court adopt a policy or pass a resolution authorizing cooperation among constables in the county. The quorum court has broader authority over county functions.
-
Work through the municipalities. If both constables are in incorporated towns, the towns can enter an interlocal agreement that addresses mutual aid by their constables.
-
Operate under existing mutual-aid law. Arkansas law allows law enforcement officers from one jurisdiction to operate in another in some circumstances (hot pursuit, mutual aid requests, specific statutory authorities). Talk to the county prosecutor or the AG's office for the operative framework.
-
Coordinate informally. Day-to-day cooperation, communication, and shared training do not require a formal agreement. The Cooperation Act framework is for binding contractual arrangements; informal cooperation is just policing.
If you put yourself in the other constable's district and exercise law enforcement powers there without proper legal authority, you may face issues with arrest validity, civil liability, and personal exposure. The legal authority question is not just paperwork.
Sheriffs and county judges
If your constables ask about formal cooperation, this opinion is the answer to "no, the Interlocal Cooperation Act is not the right vehicle." Direct them to either work informally, or come to the quorum court for a county-level policy or agreement.
The county itself, as a political subdivision, can enter interlocal agreements with neighboring counties or municipalities for broader cooperation. If your county has constable-specific cooperation needs, the county is the right party to the agreement.
Law enforcement attorneys
The Interlocal Cooperation Act has a defined-list approach to "public agency." Individual officials and individual elected positions are not included. When advising clients about cross-jurisdictional cooperation, identify the correct governmental unit before drafting.
The case law and AG opinions on the Cooperation Act have largely involved cities, counties, school districts, and similar entities. Individual-official agreements outside the Act's framework are addressed through other doctrines (mutual aid statutes, joint powers agreements through the underlying entities, common-law cooperation).
State legislators considering reform
If you believe individual elected officials (constables, sheriffs, etc.) should be able to enter their own interlocal agreements, that requires amending § 25-20-103(1) to add categories. The current list is closed; reading additional categories in is not within the AG's power.
Alternatively, the General Assembly could enact specific mutual-aid statutes for constables, similar to provisions for other law enforcement officers.
Citizens served by constables
This opinion clarifies the legal framework, not the practical reality. Constables who cooperate informally do so without formal interlocal authority. If you have concerns about a constable acting in a district they are not elected to, the legal questions are about the underlying enforcement authority, not the cooperation paperwork.
Common questions
Can constables enforce the law outside their district at all?
The general rule under Arkansas law is that elected officials' authority is geographically limited to their elected district or jurisdiction. Mutual-aid statutes provide some exceptions (hot pursuit, formal mutual-aid requests, specific statutory authorities). Without a clear legal basis for extra-district action, an arrest or enforcement action may be challenged.
What's the difference between a constable and a deputy sheriff?
Constables are elected township-level officials in Arkansas with limited law enforcement authority. Deputy sheriffs are appointees of the county sheriff and operate under the sheriff's authority across the county. The legal frameworks are different.
Can the county sheriff enter into an interlocal agreement?
The county itself (through the quorum court) can. The sheriff personally cannot. The sheriff is an elected official; agreements involve the county as a political subdivision.
Can two cities enter an interlocal agreement for mutual police aid?
Yes. Cities are political subdivisions and qualify as public agencies. Op. 2008-070 (cited in this opinion) is an example.
What if our agreement is between a constable and a city?
Same problem. The constable is not a public agency. The city is. Without a public agency on each side, the AG cannot approve.
Does this affect our day-to-day cooperation?
No. Informal cooperation is not regulated by the Interlocal Cooperation Act. What is barred is formal contractual cooperation under the Act's framework when the parties are not public agencies.
Can we form an "association of constables" and have the association enter agreements?
A private association of officials may not qualify as a public agency either (it is not a political subdivision). Talk to a lawyer about specific structure.
Background and statutory framework
The Arkansas Interlocal Cooperation Act (A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 et seq.) was enacted to "permit local governmental units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities" (§ 25-20-102).
Key provisions:
- § 25-20-103(1): Defines "public agency" by listing specific entity types.
- § 25-20-104(f)(1): Requires interlocal agreements to be submitted to the AG for review before taking effect.
- § 25-20-104(f)(2): AG must approve agreements that are in proper form and consistent with state law; if deficient, the AG explains why in writing.
The AG's review function is structured: review for form and substantive consistency, approve if compliant, otherwise explain deficiencies. The AG does not have discretion to approve agreements that fail the threshold "public agency" requirement.
The closed-list approach to "public agency" is by legislative design. Adding categories requires statutory amendment. Op. 2023-021 is consistent with the AG's prior interpretations.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 25-20-101 et seq. (Arkansas Interlocal Cooperation Act)
- A.C.A. § 25-20-102 (purpose: cooperation among local governmental units)
- A.C.A. § 25-20-103(1) (definition of public agency)
- A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f)(1) (AG review requirement)
- A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f)(2) (AG approval or explanation)
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. 2008-070 (cities-only interlocal agreement, distinguished)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2023-021
May 12, 2023
Constable George Jackson, Sharp County, District 2
Constable David L. Gruger, Sharp County, District 3
115 East Lakeshore Drive
Cherokee Village, Arkansas 72529
Dear Constables Jackson and Gruger:
Citing the Interlocal Cooperation Act, you have requested my approval of a proposed interlocal agreement between "George Jackson, Sharp County Arkansas District 2 Constable and David L. Gruger, Sharp County Arkansas District 3 Constable."
You have submitted a copy of the agreement, entitled "Interlocal Cooperative Action for Mutual Assistance in Law Enforcement." Under its terms, Constables Jackson and Gruger "agree to reciprocating authority in order to provide a better and unified public service." You intend for the agreement "[t]o allow for either constable to enter and aid the other district to assist in performing the elected duties" and "[t]o provide mutual aid in assisting of the Neighborhood Watch Program and any other patrol and official duties."
The purpose of the Interlocal Cooperation Act is "to permit local governmental units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities…." Before an interlocal agreement can go into effect, it must first be submitted to the Attorney General for review. In reviewing the agreement, I determine whether it is in proper form and consistent with state law. If it is, I am required to approve it. But if the agreement is deficient in form or substance, I explain in writing why the agreement fails to meet the requirements of the law.
As an initial matter, I must determine whether the parties to the proposed agreement are indeed "public agencies" that may enter into an agreement for joint cooperative action.
Under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, a "public agency" means any:
(A) School district;
(B) Political subdivision of this state;
(C) Agency of the state government or of the United States;
(D) Political subdivision of another state;
(E) Water district […];
(F) Governing body of a municipal electric utility […]; and
(G) Fire department […].
Individual elected officials, such as constables, are not included on the list of entities that may enter into an agreement for joint cooperative action under A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 et seq. Because you have not met this initial threshold requirement, I cannot approve your proposed agreement.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General
You state that you modeled your proposed agreement after Arkansas Attorney General Opinion No. 2008-070. That agreement was between two cities, which are political subdivisions. Therefore, they meet § 25-20-103(1)'s definition of "public agency."