Could Louisiana judges assess costs to reimburse sheriffs for bailiffs and courthouse security?

Plain-English summary

A judge in Louisiana's 16th Judicial District asked whether the district's judges could assess an additional court cost for bailiffs or security in each courthouse. According to the official opinion, the sheriffs of St. Mary, St. Martin and Iberia Parishes had lost eligibility for a $10 fee after population fell in the 2000 census. The AG said a court cost needed a basis in positive law, then identified statutes allowing a court to tax costs of a proceeding, including costs and expenses incurred by the sheriff.

The AG concluded that those statutes supplied a legal basis for charging litigants for a sheriff's costs related to a court proceeding. It did not describe a new fixed courthouse-security surcharge. The opinion cited separate cost provisions for criminal and child-support matters and for civil cases.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. 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

Why did the judges ask about a new bailiff or security charge?
The opinion said the three parishes' sheriffs no longer qualified for the $10 fee in La. R.S. 13:966.35 after the 2000 census population decline. One sheriff said the lost revenue could force a reduction in bailiff and courthouse security costs.

Could judges impose a court cost without statutory authority?
The AG said no. It stated that a cost assessed against a party in a proceeding had to be authorized by positive law, rather than by a court rule alone.

What costs did the AG say could be recovered?
The opinion identified statutes that, on their face, provided a basis to tax litigants for sheriff costs and expenses relating to a court proceeding. It did not calculate a particular fee amount.

Background and statutory framework

La. R.S. 13:4533 allowed the sheriff's costs and other costs allowed by the court to be taxed as costs. La. C.Cr.P. art. 887(A) addressed costs in criminal and child-support proceedings, while La. C.C.P. art. 1920 supplied the civil cost mechanism. The opinion applied those provisions after the sheriffs' population-based fee under La. R.S. 13:966.35 ceased to be available.

Citations and references

• La. R.S. 13:4533 (sheriff and other court costs)
• La. R.S. 13:966.35 (population-based fee discussed in the request)
• La. C.Cr.P. art. 887(A) (criminal and support proceeding costs)
• La. C.C.P. art. 1920 (civil costs)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/02-0004

Original opinion text

P O. BOX 94095
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BATON ROUGE, LA 70804-9095
RICHARD P. IEYOUB CRIMINAL DIVISION Telephone:
ATTORNEY GENERAL
{225) 342-7552
FAX:
~225) 342-7893
Dn~on ~ 02-000~

Honorable William D. Hunter 46-A Fees & Costs TH
Judge, 16 Judicial District 107 S heriffs

State of Louisiana
La. R.S 13:4533; La. C.Cr.P. art. 887(A)
P.O. Box 1029
There is a basis in positive law for the imposition of costs upon
Franklin, LA 70538
litigants to reimburse the sheriff of a parish for his costs and
expenses related to a court proceeding.

Dear Judge Hunter:

Our office has received your request for an Attorney General opinion for the following question:

Can we [the judges of the 16TM Judicial District] assess an additional court cost to furnish bailiffs and/or security in each courthouse?

This question was prompted by the reduction in population in St. Mary, St. Martin, and Iberia Parishes, as reflected by the 2000 census. Due to this population reduction, the sheriffs of these parishes no longer qualify for the additional $10.00 fee authorized by La. R.S. 13:966.35. At least one sheriff has contacted the court and represented that, without the funding previously provided by the $10.00 fee, he will have to cut back on the cost of bailiffs and courthouse security.

Attorney General Opinion #01-439 states the governing principle, namely that in order for a court cost to be assessed against any party in a proceeding, it must be authorized by positive law. See Gore v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 244 So.2d 894, 895 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1971), writ denied, 246 So.2d 683 (1971); Kommer v.
Assenheimer, 174 So.2d 197, 198 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1965). The applicable jurisprudence suggests that "positive law" in this context means statutory or constitutional law, and not rule of court.

Turning to the applicable statutory authorities, La. R.S. 13:4533 provides:

[t]he costs of the clerk, sheriff, witness’ fees, costs of taking depositions and copies of acts used on the trial, and all other costs allowed by the court, shall be taxed as costs.
(emphasis added)

In criminal and child support enforcement matters, La. C.Cr.P. art. 887(A) provides, in pertinent part:

Page 2

Honorable William D. Hunter
OPINION 02-0004
Page 2

[a] defendant who is convicted of an offense or is the person owing a duty of support in a support proceeding shall be liable for all costs of the prosecution or proceeding ....

In civil matters, La. C.C.P. art. 1920 provides the mechanism for the imposition of costs and specifies the trial court’s discretion in imposing costs.

These statutes, on their face, provide a basis in positive law for the imposition of costs upon litigants before the court to reimburse the sheriff of a parish for his costs and expenses relating to a court proceeding.

I hope this related opinion sufficiently answers your inquiry. If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. With warmest regards, I remain

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
Attorney General

PAUL LEBLANC
Assistant Attorney General
PL/jy