Can two Arkansas constables enter into an interlocal cooperation agreement for mutual law-enforcement aid?

Plain-English summary

Two Sharp County constables asked the Attorney General to approve a proposed “Interlocal Cooperative Action for Mutual Assistance in Law Enforcement.” Their proposed agreement described helping one another in the other's district with patrol and Neighborhood Watch duties.

The AG declined approval because the Interlocal Cooperation Act permits agreements between “public agencies,” and individual elected constables are not among the entities in that definition. The opinion's footnote 8 distinguishes an earlier approved agreement between two cities: cities are political subdivisions, which the Act includes. The AG did not decide whether the constables could provide aid or exercise authority outside their own districts under any other law.

What this means for you

Constables proposing an interlocal agreement

An agreement between individual constables does not meet the Act's public-agency threshold identified in this opinion. The AG therefore could not approve the proposed agreement. The opinion does not say what other authority, if any, could support the activities described in it.

Public agencies reviewing agreement parties

The opinion applies A.C.A. § 25-20-103(1)'s list of eligible entities to the actual parties named in the agreement. It distinguishes two cities from two individual elected officials. Its conclusion is about the proposed agreement's eligibility for approval under the Interlocal Cooperation Act.

Common questions

Can two Arkansas constables sign an interlocal agreement under this Act?
The AG said these two individual constables do not qualify as public agencies under the Act and declined to approve their proposed agreement.

Why was the cities' agreement in Opinion 2008-070 different?
The opinion's footnote 8 says that agreement was between two cities, which are political subdivisions included in the Act's public-agency definition.

Does this opinion forbid all cooperation between constables?
It makes no such ruling. The AG decided only whether this particular agreement qualified for approval under the Interlocal Cooperation Act.

Background and statutory framework

The Interlocal Cooperation Act states a purpose of helping local governmental units make efficient use of their powers through cooperation. A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f) requires AG review of a proposed interlocal agreement. A.C.A. § 25-20-103(1) defines “public agency” by listing schools, political subdivisions, state and federal agencies, water districts, municipal electric utility governing bodies, and fire departments. The AG found individual constables outside that list.

Citations

• A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 et seq. (Interlocal Cooperation Act)
• A.C.A. § 25-20-103(1) (public-agency definition)
• A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f)(1) and (2) (AG review)
• Arkansas Attorney General Opinion No. 2008-070 (cities' agreement, cited in footnote 8)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

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

1 A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 et seq. (Repl. 2014 and Supp. 2021).

2 A.C.A. § 25-20-102 (Repl. 2014).

3 A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f)(1) (Repl. 2014).

4 Id.

5 A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f)(2).

6 Id.

7 A.C.A. § 25-20-103(1) (Supp. 2021).

8 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.”