Can a Florida sheriff use Contraband Forfeiture Act proceeds to pay the contractual share of school resource officer salaries each year?

Plain-English summary

Florida's Contraband Forfeiture Act (§§ 932.701-.7062) channels seized proceeds into special law-enforcement trust funds, with §§ 932.7055(5)(a) listing the permissible uses: school resource officer programs, crime prevention, safe neighborhood programs, drug-abuse education and prevention, and "other law enforcement purposes" beyond the agency's normal operating expenses. The closing sentence of (5)(a) says the proceeds may not be used to meet "normal operating expenses of the law enforcement agency."

Sheriff Morgan's office in Escambia County had been splitting school resource officer (SRO) personnel costs 50/50 with the Escambia County School Board. The Sheriff asked whether the Contraband Forfeiture Act let him use forfeiture money for the Sheriff's share of those costs even though they recurred year after year, and what about the times when school was not in session.

The AG's answer ran three different ways:

1. Yes for SRO program costs, even when recurring. Section 932.7055(5)(a) lists "school resource officer … programs" as a specific authorized use. The AG read the closing "normal operating expenses" sentence as descriptive of the "other law enforcement purposes" category, not as a limitation that overrides the specific listed programs. Statutory construction canons (ejusdem generis, noscitur a sociis) support that reading. AGO 91-69 already concluded the same.

2. No for the deputy's non-SRO time. When school is out and the deputy is performing ordinary patrol duties, those duties are normal operating expenses. Forfeiture funds can't pay for that time.

3. No for officers merely designated SROs but not assigned. The statute funds programs, not certifications. An officer who has completed the Basic School Resource Officer Course but is performing regular patrol duties cannot have his or her salary paid from forfeiture proceeds.

The AG built the case for SROs being more than ordinary law-enforcement officers by relying on the courts' description of the SRO's "unique" mission and "triad" model (law enforcer, counselor, and law-related educator). The legislative imprimatur in § 932.7055(5)(a) reflects a deliberate choice to fund programs that, even when administratively recurring, deliver something other than core day-to-day law enforcement.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2017. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could forfeiture funds pay for recurring SRO program costs?
A: Yes. Section 932.7055(5)(a) lists school resource officer programs as a specifically authorized use. The fact that the costs recur from year to year did not convert the program into a "normal operating expense."

Q: Did "normal operating expenses" limit the recurring SRO funding?
A: The AG read the "normal operating expenses" sentence as descriptive of the "other law enforcement purposes" category (the catchall), not as a limitation on the specific listed programs. Ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis supported that reading.

Q: Could forfeiture funds pay an SRO during the summer?
A: Generally no, if the deputy was performing patrol or other non-SRO duties when school was out of session. Those hours fall back into normal operations.

Q: What about an officer who completed the SRO course but isn't assigned to the program?
A: No. The statute funds programs, not credentials. AGO 91-69 considered a similar question; the AG declined to extend forfeiture funding to certified-but-not-assigned officers.

Q: What does the SRO "triad" mean in Florida?
A: Florida case law (e.g., C.M.M. v. State, 983 So. 2d 704; M.D. v. State, 65 So. 3d 563) and AG materials describe SROs as filling three roles: law enforcer, counselor, and law-related educator. That distinct mission distinguishes SRO duties from regular patrol.

Q: Were forfeiture funds ever appropriate for normal duties of law enforcement?
A: No. The same line of opinions (AGO 89-78, AGO 91-84, AGO 93-18, AGO 97-31) repeatedly distinguished extraordinary programs (eligible) from routine recruitment, hiring, and core-mission duties (ineligible).

Background and statutory framework

The Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act creates law-enforcement trust funds at the seizing-agency level (county or municipal). Section 932.7055(5)(a) caps how those trust fund dollars may be spent. The statute lists specific categories (school resource officer, crime prevention, safe neighborhood, drug abuse education and prevention) and a broader "other law enforcement purposes" basket with illustrative examples (protracted investigations, additional equipment, federal-grant matching). The "normal operating expenses" closing sentence operates as a guardrail on the catchall.

Section 1006.12 governs school safety officer programs. Subsection (1) requires a cooperative agreement between the district school board and the law enforcement agency. Subsection (1)(b) puts the SRO under district policy and principal coordination for instructional duties, but under the law-enforcement agency for employment matters. The statutory architecture mirrors the SRO's hybrid identity.

The opinion's statutory-construction work is the interesting move. Reading "normal operating expenses" as a stand-alone limitation would have effectively negated the specifically authorized program funding, because every recurring program eventually becomes administratively routine. The AG read the limitation in pari materia with the immediately preceding catchall to preserve both texts.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- § 932.7055, Fla. Stat. (Use of forfeiture proceeds)
- §§ 932.701-932.7062, Fla. Stat. (Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act)
- § 1006.12, Fla. Stat. (Safe-school officer programs)

Cases:
- C.M.M. v. State, 983 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- M.D. v. State, 65 So. 3d 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Kasischke v. State, 991 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2008)
- State v. Weeks, 202 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016)
- State v. Hearns, 961 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2007)

Prior AG opinions:
- Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 91-69 (1991)
- Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 89-78
- Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 91-84
- Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 93-18
- Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 95-29
- Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 97-31
- Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 98-32
- Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 02-35

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/contraband-forfeiture-fund
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/1493

Original opinion text

The Honorable David Morgan

Sheriff, Escambia County

Post Office Box 18770

Pensacola, Florida 32523

RE: FLORIDA CONTRABAND FORFEITURE ACT – contraband forfeiture trust funds may be used to pay Sheriff's recurring contractually allocated share of school resource officer program personnel costs, but not to defray personnel costs for certified school resource officers incurred apart from their participation in the program. § 932.7055(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017).

Dear Sheriff Morgan:

On behalf of the Escambia County Sheriff's Office, you have requested an opinion addressing the following questions:

1. Whether the Sheriff of Escambia County ("Sheriff") may use funds obtained pursuant to Florida's Contraband Forfeiture Act ("Act"), sections 932.701-.7062, Florida Statutes:

(a) to pay the pro rata costs of salary and benefits for deputies regularly assigned to perform school resource officer duties throughout the school year, even if such costs recur from year to year; and

(b) to pay the personnel costs incurred for such officers when they are not performing school resource officer duties because school is not in session?

2. Whether the Sheriff may use these funds to pay or reimburse the County for the salary and benefits of a deputy based on his or her designation as a "school resource officer," regardless of the amount of time such deputy is performing school resource officer duties?

In sum:

1. Section 932.7055(5)(a) of the Act specifically provides that contraband forfeiture proceeds may be used for school resource officer programs; therefore, such funds may be used to pay the Sheriff's contractual share of personnel costs resulting from assignment of school resource officers to schools throughout the school year, even if such costs recur from year to year. Such funds may not be used to pay for the personnel costs of such officers during periods when they are not performing school resource officer program duties (e.g., when school is not in session).

2. Section 932.7055(5)(a) of the Act specifies that trust fund proceeds may be used for school resource officer programs; therefore, such funds may not be used to offset personnel costs of certified school resource officers who are not regularly assigned to perform school resource officer duties pursuant to the Escambia County program.

Question One

Section 932.7055, Florida Statutes, indicates the purposes for which Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act trust fund monies may be used. In general, a law enforcement agency may use these funds for the specific purposes set forth in section 932.7055(5)(a), and for other extraordinary law enforcement programs and purposes, "beyond what is usual, normal or established." The former comprise "school resource officer, crime prevention, safe neighborhood, [and] drug abuse education and prevention programs[.]" By way of illustration, the latter may "include defraying the cost of protracted or complex investigations, providing additional equipment or expertise, purchasing automated external defibrillators for use in law enforcement vehicles, and providing matching funds to obtain federal grants." In authorizing the use of funds for these purposes, the Act vests discretion in the county or municipal governing body to permit funds to be expended for any of the enumerated purposes. While funds may, thus, be used to defray costs that recur in connection with the identified programs or purposes, in allocating trust fund monies to pay for "other law enforcement purposes," the funds must "not be used to meet normal operating expenses of the law enforcement agency."

Consistent with these principles, in Attorney General Opinion 93-18, this office opined that contraband forfeiture trust funds could be used to pay current city police officers overtime to work on a new task force directed to preventing crimes involving tourists and drug trafficking. Later, in AGO 98-32, this office opined that contraband forfeiture trust funds could be used to provide tuition for Bay County Sheriff's Office personnel for training and education. In AGO 89-78, in contrast, the City of North Bay Village had asked whether contraband forfeiture trust funds could be used to provide supplements to tuition for recruits trained by the police academy, and to augment salaries to attract more qualified persons for employment with the City's police department. Because the recruitment of potential employees with enhanced skills appeared to be a "recurring and routine activity" related to the City's normal operating need to hire new personnel to perform regular, day-to-day law enforcement duties, this office opined that contraband forfeiture trust funds could not be used for such purpose.

As applied here, counsel for the Sheriff's Office suggests that these distinctions appear to dictate that contraband forfeiture trust funds can only be used for school resource officer programs if such programs involve "unbudgeted, special, non-recurring school resource officer special events or programs," and may not be used "for the salary and benefits of such officers, because salary and benefits are included in the normal operating expenses of the Sheriff." This necessarily reflects a view that the Legislature has placed a limitation on the use of trust funds which may effectively vitiate the statute's authorization to use those funds for the purposes expressly enumerated in the statute.

Key to this analysis, section 932.7055(5)(a), Florida Statutes, provides:

"(5)(a) If the seizing agency is a county or municipal agency, the remaining proceeds shall be deposited in a special law enforcement trust fund established by the board of county commissioners or the governing body of the municipality. Such proceeds and interest earned therefrom shall be used for school resource officer, crime prevention, safe neighborhood, drug abuse education and prevention programs, or for other law enforcement purposes, which include defraying the cost of protracted or complex investigations, providing additional equipment or expertise, purchasing automated external defibrillators for use in law enforcement vehicles, and providing matching funds to obtain federal grants. The proceeds and interest may not be used to meet normal operating expenses of the law enforcement agency." (Emphasis added.)

To determine whether the Legislature intended the last sentence to be a further limitation (or, stated more accurately, a further description) applicable to the purposes specifically authorized in the prior sentence, we must look first "to the statute's plain language." If that language can be variously interpreted, then we "cannot rely solely on [the statute's] plain language to discover the legislative intent[,]" and must "look to canons of statutory construction."

Here, the doctrines of ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis provide insight into the Legislature's intent:

"An important canon is that of ejusdem generis, 'which states that when a general phrase follows a list of specifics, the general phrase will be interpreted to include only items of the same type as those listed.'…'Distilled to its essence, this rule provides that where general words follow an enumeration of specific words, the general words are construed as applying to the same kind or class as those that are specifically mentioned.'… A related canon of statutory construction is noscitur a sociis, which instructs that 'a word is known by the company it keeps.'"

Applying these principles, in section 932.7055(5)(a), the Legislature has described certain law enforcement purposes authorized for funding—some specified (i.e., school resource officer, crime prevention, safe neighborhood, and drug abuse education and prevention programs), and others illustrative (i.e., "defraying the cost of protracted or complex investigations, providing additional equipment or expertise, purchasing automated external defibrillators for use in law enforcement vehicles, and providing matching funds to obtain federal grants")—all of which are not part of the "normal operating expenses of the law enforcement agency." The fact that some of these programs may be funded annually does not change their status in the law. As stated in Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 91-69 (1991):

"The Legislature, in specifically authorizing the use of forfeiture funds for school resource officers, has made the determination that the expenditure of trust funds for such a purpose is appropriate and does not constitute a source of revenue to meet normal operating needs of the law enforcement agency. Thus, the expenditure of special law enforcement trust fund monies for school resource officers would appear to be authorized even when such officers have previously been funded from other sources."

Moreover, with respect to school resource officer programs, such interpretation would be at odds with both the statutory framework provided to enable school districts to establish such programs, and with the special duties performed by school resource officers, which are not part of the "normal" operations of the Sheriff's office. Pursuant to section 1006.12(1), Florida Statutes, district school boards may establish school resource programs "through a cooperative agreement" between the district school board and the law enforcement agency. In fact, you have provided a copy of one such agreement as an enclosure with your letter. It describes the myriad duties fulfilled by those school resource officers who are regularly assigned to schools, some of which are particular to such officers.

Further, pursuant to section 1006.12(1)(b), Florida Statutes, school resource officers "shall abide by district school board policies and shall consult with and coordinate activities through the school principal, but shall be responsible to the law enforcement agency in all matters relating to employment, subject to agreements between a district school board and a law enforcement agency. Activities conducted by the school resource officer which are part of the regular instructional program of the school shall be under the direction of the school principal."

These contractual and statutory responsibilities require additional skills and commitments which are not ordinarily part of a law enforcement officer's duties. For this reason, school resource officers are recognized as fulfilling a variety of roles: "Unlike police officers who respond to calls at schools, SROs traditionally adopt the 'triad model,' serving students and staff in three different roles: the law enforcer, the counselor, and the law-related educator." Their mission has been judicially described as "unique," and they are to be treated as "part of the school administrative team and not as outside police officers entering school grounds to conduct an investigation."

As the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal has observed:

"[School resource officers] are certified law enforcement officers who are assigned to work at schools under cooperative agreements between their law enforcement agencies and school boards. § 1006.12(1)(a), (b), Fla. Stat. (2007). They are statutorily bound to 'abide by district school board policies' and 'consult with and coordinate activities through the school principal....' Id. In this capacity, resource officers are called upon to perform many duties not traditional to the law enforcement function, such as instructing students, serving as mentors and assisting administrators in maintaining decorum and enforcing school board policy and rules."

Consistent with these observations, this office has long recognized the unique role of the school resource officer in Florida's school system. The fact that (as evidenced, in part, by the renewed agreements between the Sheriff's Office and the Escambia County School Board) the school resource program in Florida may be "flourishing"—which the Legislature appears to have intended, in specifically authorizing use of trust fund monies to support it—would not reasonably appear to justify a conclusion that this "dynamic, innovative" program has, thus, been converted into a "normal operating need" of the Sheriff's office, for which the specifically authorized use of trust fund monies is consequently prohibited.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act authorizes proceeds to be used for the Sheriff's share of personnel costs resulting from the school resource officer program in Escambia County, regardless of whether such program continues from year to year. However, such funds may not be used to pay for the personnel costs of such officers during periods when the officers are not performing school resource officer program duties (e.g., when school is not in session).

Question Two

In the second part of your inquiry, the Sheriff's Office asks not whether law enforcement trust funds can be used to defray the cost to enroll a deputy in the Basic School Resource Officer Course, but whether the Sheriff may use law enforcement trust funds "to pay or reimburse the County for the salary and benefits of a deputy based on his or her designation as a 'school resource officer,' regardless of the amount of time that such deputy is performing school resource officer duties." Citing Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 91-69 (1991)—which, in pertinent part, addressed "whether funds already awarded to the county under the contraband forfeiture act may be used to fund or reimburse the county for the costs of a school resource officer"—Sheriff's counsel states that "[i]t would seem that the exception that is suggested by the Attorney General in Attorney General Opinion [91-69] would permit the Sheriff to pay the Deputy or reimburse the County for the personnel cost of the Deputy [who has achieved a School Resource Officer designation] regardless of how much of the Deputy's time is devoted to school resource officer functions." But nothing in Attorney General Opinion 91-69 or section 932.7055(5)(a), itself, suggests or supports this surmise.

In posing the funding question involving school resource officers in AGO 91-69, the Volusia County Attorney did not indicate that the subject officers would not actually be serving as school resource officers. Nor has this office ever interpreted section 932.7055, Florida Statutes, to allow the personnel costs of officers who are not participating in a school resource officer program to be paid with contraband forfeiture funds. Instead, the statute specifies that school resource officer programs may be funded using such funds. While the enrollment cost for a deputy to complete the Basic School Resource Officer Course would appear to fall within the Legislature's description of "law enforcement purposes" that are not part of the "normal operating expenses of the law enforcement agency," the ongoing personnel costs of an officer who has achieved school resource officer certification, but does not serve in the school resource officer program do not. Because such officer, despite his or her certification, is performing regular, day-to-day law enforcement duties and not performing the unique mission of officers actively assigned to a school resource officer program, it follows that such officer's ongoing personnel costs may not be paid using contraband forfeiture trust funds.

Based on the foregoing, I am of the opinion that the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act authorizes proceeds to be used for the Sheriff's share of personnel costs (as allocated in the agreement between the Escambia County Sheriff's office and the School Board of Escambia County) resulting from the school resource officer program, regardless of whether such program continues from year to year. However, contraband forfeiture funds may not be used to offset the personnel costs of officers who are merely designated "school resource officers," but are not regularly assigned to perform duties as part of the Escambia County school resource officer program.

Sincerely,

Pam Bondi

Attorney General

PB/ttlm