Could a Kentucky sheriff collect both the sheriff's and jailer's salaries after the offices merged?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1996. Ask about yours and see what current Kentucky law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Plain-English summary
In 1996, Kentucky's Attorney General answered a narrow county pay question: if the offices of sheriff and jailer were merged and the sheriff took on the jailer's duties, could that sheriff be paid for both offices? The AG said no. The opinion relied on Section 246 of the Kentucky Constitution, which capped compensation for public officers, and on a Kentucky court ruling that the cap applied to the person regardless of how many offices the person held.
The opinion did not calculate a particular salary or address how a county should structure pay after a merger. Its stated result was that the sheriff would not be eligible to receive compensation for both offices after their duties were combined.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1996. 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
Sheriffs assuming jailer duties
The AG concluded that merging the offices and assigning the jailer's responsibilities to the sheriff did not create eligibility to collect compensation for both offices. It treated compensation for multiple official duties as subject to one constitutional ceiling for the officer.
County officials considering merged offices
KRS 64.527 was cited as applying the constitutional compensation limits to several county officers, including sheriffs and jailers. The opinion addressed the dual compensation question on the assumed facts of a merger; it did not decide the mechanics or legality of a particular merger plan.
Common questions
Could the sheriff receive two salaries because the sheriff did the jailer's work too?
The AG said no after the offices and duties were merged. It concluded that the sheriff was not eligible for compensation for both positions.
Did holding two offices create two separate constitutional pay limits?
No. The opinion cited Funk v Milliken, Ky., 317 S.W. 2d 499, 504, (1958), for the point that Section 246's maximum applied to the person regardless of the number of offices held.
Did the AG specify what the sheriff's single salary should be?
No. The opinion addressed eligibility for compensation for both offices and did not set an amount after the assumed merger.
Background and statutory framework
The request assumed that the sheriff and jailer offices would be merged and that the sheriff would take over the jailer's duties. Section 246 supplied the constitutional ceiling for official compensation; KRS 64.527 was cited for applying it to named county offices. The AG also cited earlier opinions and cases on aggregating pay for more than one official duty.
Citations and references
- KRS 64.527: statute the AG cited for the county offices subject to Section 246's compensation limits.
- Coleman v Hurst, 226 Ky. 501, 11 S.W. 2d 133 (1928): cited for aggregating compensation across official duties.
- Funk v Milliken, Ky., 317 S.W. 2d 499, 504, (1958): cited for applying the ceiling to the person rather than each office separately.
Source
Original opinion text
OAG 96-41
November 1, 1996
Subject: Whether a sheriff is eligible to receive compensation for both the offices of sheriff and jailer, after the two offices and the official duties of each are merged into one.
Written by: James M. Ringo
Requested by: Raymond J. Sabbatine
Syllabus: The sheriff would not be eligible to receive compensation for both the offices of sheriff and jailer after they are merged, and the sheriff assumes the duties and responsibilities of the jailer.
OAGs cited: OAG 95-31; OAG 82-80
Statutes construed: KRS 64.527
Constitutional sections cited: Section 246
Opinion of the Attorney General
This is in response to a request for an opinion which asks if the offices of jailer and sheriff are merged and the sheriff assumes the duties and responsibilities of the jailer, is the sheriff eligible to receive compensation for both offices.
Section 246 of the Constitution of Kentucky states that no public officer or employee may receive compensation for official services in excess of certain stated amounts. Those dollar limits are relative, and have been adjusted upward on the authority of Matthews v Allen, Ky., 360 S.W. 2d 135 (1962). The maximum dollar limits of Section 246 apply to county judges executive, county clerks, sheriffs, justices of the peace, county commissioners, coroners and jailers, pursuant to KRS 64.527. OAG 82-80.
If an officer receives official compensation for more than one duty, the amounts cannot in the aggregate exceed the Section 246 limitation. Coleman v Hurst, 226 Ky. 501, 11 S.W. 2d 133 (1928); OAG 95-31. In Funk v Milliken, Ky., 317 S.W. 2d 499, 504, (1958), the Court of Appeals held that the maximum limit of Section 246 applies to the person, regardless of the number of offices he may hold.
Thus, it is the opinion of this office, based on the authorities set out above, that the Sheriff would not be eligible to receive compensation for both offices after the official duties of each are merged into one.
A. B. Chandler III
Attorney General
James M. Ringo
Assistant Attorney General
What does Kentucky law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1996. 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