Who transported prisoners from a Kentucky holdover jail when the county had no transport plan?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ask about yours and see what current Kentucky law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Plain-English summary
In 1994, Kentucky's Attorney General said a county with a holdover jail was to use a fiscal-court transportation plan to identify who would move prisoners when transport was necessary. The plan could designate the jailer or the sheriff, or specify another reasonable arrangement. If the plan designated the jailer, the AG said Anderson County's jailer should transport the juveniles and mental-health patients described in the request to the regional jail.
Anderson County's fiscal court had adopted no transport plan, according to the jailer. For that situation, the AG said the sheriff had responsibility for prisoner transportation, with the fiscal court providing for it from the jail budget under KRS 441.505(1). The same plan-based approach governed the requester's question about trips to circuit court.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1994. 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.
Historical summary
Fiscal courts in holdover-jail counties
The AG read KRS 441.510(3) as requiring the fiscal court to adopt a reasonable transportation plan identifying the responsible party. The statute, as quoted, let the court assign the jailer, assign the sheriff, or choose another reasonable plan with the responsible party specified.
Jailers and sheriffs
The AG said an Anderson County plan naming the jailer would make that official responsible for the described trips to the Franklin County Regional Jail. Because no plan had been adopted, it instead assigned responsibility to the sheriff. For circuit-court trips, it again pointed to the fiscal court's authority to choose the responsible transport officer by plan.
Common questions
Could the fiscal court name the jailer as transportation officer?
Yes. The AG said the holdover-jail statute expressly allowed that choice; if the fiscal court made it, the jailer would handle the described regional-jail trips.
Was the sheriff automatically responsible when there was no plan?
For Anderson County's stated no-plan situation, the AG said the sheriff had responsibility, citing KRS 441.505(1) and OAG 84-330.
Who decided whether the jailer or sheriff took prisoners to circuit court?
The AG said that, too, was for the fiscal court's transportation plan. It suggested that assigning one official for all prisoner trips could avoid conflicts.
Background and statutory framework
The Anderson County Jailer asked about transporting juveniles and mental-health patients to the Franklin County Regional Jail and about trips to circuit court. The AG quoted KRS 71.020 and KRS 71.040 on jailer custody duties, then relied primarily on KRS 441.510(3) for a holdover-jail county's transport plan. Where the fiscal court had made no plan, the office applied KRS 441.505(1) and its prior OAG 84-330 to assign transport responsibility to the sheriff.
Citations and references
- KRS 71.020 and KRS 71.040: jailer custody and jail-admission duties quoted by the AG.
- KRS 441.510(3): fiscal court transportation plan for a holdover-jail county.
- KRS 441.505(1): jail-budget transport provision applied when no plan existed.
- OAG 84-330: earlier opinion cited for the sheriff's responsibility in that situation.
Source
Original opinion text
OAG 94-10
February 25, 1994
Hon. Raymond Houp
Anderson County Jailer
197 E. Court Street
Lawrenceburg, Kentucky 40342
Dear Mr. Houp:
In your letter to this office dated January 14, 1994, you raise two questions:
-
May the Anderson County Jailer or his deputies transport juvenile and mental patients to the Franklin County Regional Jail? Your jail is a holdover jail.
-
Is the sheriff's office responsible for transportation of prisoners to circuit court?
To answer your questions, we need to consider the following statutes.
KRS 71.020 states as follows:
Each jailer shall have the custody, rule and charge of the jail in his county and of all persons in the jail and shall keep the same himself or by his deputy or deputies. Where the jail admits the residence of the same therein he or one!(1) of his deputies may reside in the jail.
KRS 71.040 states as follows:
At the time of booking, the jailer shall receive and keep in the jail all persons who are lawfully committed thereto, until they are lawfully discharged, unless the person is in need of emergency medical attention, in which case the arresting officer shall obtain medical attention for the person prior to delivery to the jail. The jailer shall treat them humanely and furnish them with proper food and lodging during their confinement. He shall deliver those who die in jail to their friends, if requested, or have them decently buried at the expense of the county.
KRS 441.510(3) states as follows:
(3) In any county where there is no jail or the county operates a holdover jail, the fiscal court shall adopt a transportation plan which establishes the party responsible for transporting prisoners as necessary.
(a) The fiscal court may require the jailer to serve as transportation officer to be responsible for transporting prisoners as necessary; or
(b) The fiscal court may require the sheriff to serve as transportation officer to be responsible for transporting prisoners as necessary; or
(c) The fiscal court may adopt any reasonable transportation plan so long as the party responsible for transporting prisoners is specified.
As to your first question, it is up to the Anderson Fiscal Court to adopt a transportation plan and designate either the jailer or sheriff as transportation officer. If Anderson Fiscal Court should designate the jailer as transportation officer, the Anderson Jailer should transport the juveniles and mental patients to the Franklin County Regional Jail. KRS 441.510(3)(c) is a very flexible statutory provision and allows the fiscal court great leeway when it comes to counties such as yours which operate a holdover jail.
In a telephone conversation, you stated that the Anderson Fiscal Court has not adopted any transportation plan whatsoever pursuant to KRS 441.510(3). In such a case we fall back on KRS 441.505(1) which states that the fiscal court must provide for the transportation of prisoners from the jail budget. The sheriff has the responsibility for transporting prisoners in that case. OAG 84-330.
As to your second question, once again it is up to the fiscal court to adopt a transportation plan. The simplest procedure would appear to be to designate either the jailer or sheriff to be responsible for transporting prisoners in all cases. This is no there would not be the inevitable conflicts which would arise when the sheriff or jailer would transport prisoners depending upon the situation. The statute was obviously designed to be very flexible so that the fiscal court could avoid these types of conflicts with a “reasonable transportation plan.” KRS 441.510(3)(c).
Sincerely,
CHRIS GORMAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Joseph R. Johnson
Assistant Attorney General
What does Kentucky law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1994. Ezel checks the current Kentucky statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace