Could a Louisiana deputy sheriff own or direct a private security company?

Plain-English summary

A sheriff asked whether a deputy could own an interest in a firm providing security services, or serve as its director, stockholder, or member. In Opinion 03-0048, the Louisiana Attorney General answered no for a business performing services of a law-enforcement nature. He read R.S. 14:140 to allow a deputy to perform private security work as an employee only, off official duty and without conflict with regular deputy hours.

The opinion expressly recalled an earlier AG opinion, No. 97-80, because it was inconsistent with the statute. The official PDF includes copies of Opinions 81-612 and 97-528 after the signed 2003 letter. Those attachments explain the office's earlier distinction between ownership and employee work; Opinion 81-612 separately addressed municipal police officers.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. 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.

What the opinion meant at issuance

Deputy sheriffs

The AG treated ownership, stockholding, membership, and directorship in a law-enforcement service business as outside the statutory employee-only permission. He described private security work for a firm as permitted only when the deputy was an employee and the work did not conflict with regular deputy hours.

Sheriffs and security firms

The opinion's answer concerned a deputy's role in a business offering law-enforcement services. Its attached 1981 opinion drew a separate conclusion about a municipal police officer owning security-company stock, subject to its stated conflict and job-performance limits. The 2003 letter did not apply that municipal-officer result to deputies.

Common questions

Q: Could a deputy own stock in a private security firm? A: The AG said no if the firm performed services of a law-enforcement nature. He also ruled out serving as its director or member.

Q: Could the deputy take an off-duty security job?
A: The opinion said yes as an employee only, while not on official duty and without conflict with regularly assigned deputy hours.

Q: Did an older AG opinion allow a different answer?
A: The 2003 AG expressly recalled Opinion 97-80 as inconsistent with R.S. 14:140. The PDF also attaches Opinions 81-612 and 97-528, on which the office relied for its answer.

Background and statutory framework

The letter quoted the public-contract-fraud statute, including its exception for a deputy performing law-enforcement services as an employee while off duty. It cited earlier opinions saying a deputy could not own an interest in such a business. The appended 1981 and 1998 opinion copies appear after the signed 2003 letter in the official extract and are reproduced below as attachments.

Citations and references

Authority in the 2003 opinion: R.S. 14:140. AG opinions discussed: 97-528, 81-612, and recalled 97-80.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/03-0048

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF, including its attached older opinions. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
One American Place
301 Mare Street, Suite 600
(:l~/IL DI~’I$1ON
P O. Box 94005
BATON ROUGE
TEL." (225) 342-7013
RICHARD P. IEYOUB
FAX: (225) 342-2090
7O804-9O05
ATTORNEY GENERAL

February 28, 2003
OPINION 03-0048

Sheriffs - Constables & Marshals
Honorable J. Edward Layrisson
R.S. 14:140
Deputy sheriff may not operate or have an interest in any
Sheriff
business which performs any services of a law enforcement
P. O. Box 727
nature. This opinion RECALLS Attorney General Opinion
Amite, LA 70422
97-80.

Dear Sheriff Layrisson:

Your question to this office is restated herein:

Is it a violation of R.S. 14:140 for a deputy sheriff to own an interest in or be a director, stockholder or member of a firm providing security services?

Our response to your question is in the affirmative. R.S. 14:140 addresses this matter and provides:

§ 140. Public contract fraud

A. Public contract fraud is committed:

(1) When any public officer or public employee shall use his power or position as such officer or employee to secure any expenditure of public funds to himself, or to any partnership of which he is a member, or to any corporation of which he is an officer, stockholder, or director; or

(2) When any member of any public board, body, or commission charged with the custody, control, or expenditure of any public funds votes for or uses his influence to secure any expenditure of such funds to himself, or to any partnership of which he is a member, or to any corporation of which he is an officer, director, or stockholder.

(3) When any sheriff charged with the duties of enforcing the laws of this state or any political subdivision thereof shall enter into a contract, either written or oral, individually or as a member or stockholder of any partnership, company, or corporation, with any such person whereby such sheriff or partnership, company, or corporation, of which he is a member or stockholder is to perform any services of a law enforcement nature; provided, however, a deputy sheriff may, as an employee only, perform

Page 2

ILIonorable J. Edward Layrisson
OPINION 03-0048
Page 2
services of a law enforcement nature for any person, partnership, company, or corporation, but only if said deputy sheriff fulfills his employee performance requirements while not on official duty.

The fact that an expenditure has been made to any party named in Paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Section, or to any partnership of which he is a member, or to any corporation of which he is an officer, stockholder, or director, shall be presumptive evidence that such person has used his power, position, or influence to secure such expenditure. (Emphasis added).

B. Whoever commits the crime of public contract fraud shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than two years, or both.

Our opinions issued from this office indicate that a deputy sheriff may not hold an ownership interest in any partnership, company, or corporation where the venture is to perform any services of a law enforcement nature. He may not be a stockholder or member of such an entity, nor may he serve as a director of a company which provides security services. See Attorney General Opinions 97-528 and 81-612.

A deputy sheriff may perform private security work for a firm where such work does not conflict with his regularly assigned hours as deputy sheriff. R.S. 14:140 specifically permits a deputy sheriff to perform this type of work while not on official duty.

Finally, Attorney General Opinion 97-80 is recalled as inconsistent with the language of R.S. 14:140.

Should you have other questions in which we may provide assistance, please contact this office.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY"
KILP~A~RI

KLK:ams

Page 3

r

DEPARTBIENT OF" JU.~I’ICE

708,04-

May 27, 1981

71-i-I...MUNICIPAL FIRE & POLJ;CE
CIVIL SERVICE
107...SHERIFFS, CONSTABLES & ~.~RSHALS,
Including Ex-Officio Tax
Collectors, rights, powers &
Mr. Mitchell M. Evans
duties - in general
Attorney at Law
P. O. Drawer 32
Police office~not prohibited from owning
DeRidder, Louisiana 70634 stock in security guard service.
R.S. 14:140 R.S. 1:4
Dear Mr. Evans: R.S. 33:2500 R.S. 33:2560

In your letter of May 12, 1981, you inquired as to the present application of R.S. 14:140. Specifically, you asked if the statute prohibits a full-time municipal police officer from owning or partially owning stock in a security guard service.
Public contract fraud is the subject of R.S.
14:140. Subsection A(3) of the statute provides:
"ho Public contract fraud is committed:
(3) When any sheriff charged with the duties of enforcing the laws of this state or any politicai subdivision thereof shall enter into a contract, either written or oral, individually or as a member, company, or corpora- tion, with any such person whereby such sheriff or partnership, company, or corporation, of which he is a member or stockholder is to perform any services of a law enforcement nature; provided however, a deputy sheriff may, as an emp!oyee only, perform services of a law enforcement nature for any person, partnership, company, or corporation, but only if said deputy sheriff fulfills his employee performance requirements while not on official duty." (Emphasis supplied)

Page 4

Mr. Mitchell M. Evans
OPINION NUMBER 81-612
May 27, 1981
Page Two

Act 562 of 1979 amended R.S. 15:150. The amend- ment deleted deputy sheriffs from the first sentence of Subsection A(3) and added the second sentence concerning off-duty employment of deputy sheriffs. The amendment has allowed for employment of deputy sheriffs in private law enforcement related positions. However, there is still, by implication, a prohibition against their holding more than a mere employee position.
Revised Statute 1:4 sets forth the general principle that, "when the wording of a Section is clear and free of ambiguity, the letter of it shall not be dis- regarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit." The statute in question, R.S. 14:140, mentions only sheriffs and their deputies. The statute does not refer to munici- pal employees, specifically, police officers. There are no statutes directly prohibiting a police officer from owning stock in a security guard service. The civil service laws, particularly R.S. 33:2500 and 33:2560, prohibit a policeman from committing an act contrary to public interest
or policy.
~
in conclusion, a police officer is not prohibited from owning stock in a security guard service unless a conflict of interest were shown, or unless the employee’s outside interest hampered the performance of his official duties.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM J. GUS~E, JR.
Attorney Genial

BY:
KENNETH C
Assistant General
KCD:CDY:Ig

Page 5

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
P.O. Box 94005
A’rrORNEY GENERAL
TEL: (504) 342-7013
FAX: (504) 342-7335

March 26, 1998
OPINION 97-528

Honorable Freddie Pitre, Sr.
SHERIFFS - Constables & Marshals, including Ex-Officio Tax Collectors,
Sheriff, Parish of Iberville
rights, powers & duties, in general
Post Office Drawer 231
LSA-R.S. 42:61; LSA-R.S. 14:140
Deputy sheriff may not operate or have an interest in any business whtch
Plaquemine, LA 70765-0231
performs any services of a law enforcement nature.

Dear Sheriff Pitre:

Your opinion request directed to this office through Assistant District Attorney Dana Larpenteur has been assigned to me for response.

On November 18, 1997 Kenneth C. DeJean forwarded a copy of your request to R. Gray Sexton, Executive Secretary of the Board of Ethics for Elected Officials, as those issues are within the jurisdiction of that board. See correspondence, attached.

Your question is:

May a deputy sheriff continue as a commissioned Juvenile Officer for the Sheriff’s Office and participate in a joint venture to operate a juvenile facility within the 18th JDC?

We assume this deputy sheriff would in some manner be employed by contract with the Tri- Parish Juvenile Justice District Commission, authorized by LSA-R.S. 15:1096, et seq., to in general do "all things lawfully to provide temporary custodial care, supervision, and education of juveniles." See LSA-R.S. 15:1096.4(B)(3).

This office has previously observed that where an individual enters into a professional service contract, such is not considered to be a job compensated on a salary or a per diem basis, and thus there is no violation of the Louisiana Dual Officeholding and Dual Employment Laws, LSA-R.S. 42:61, et seq. See Attorney General Opinion 96-359. However, we call your attention to the Louisiana Public Contract Law, LSA-R.S. 14:140, which provides in pertinent part:

A. Public contract fraud is committed:

(1) When any public officer or public employee shall use his power or position as such officer or employee to secure any expenditure of public funds to

Page 6

"Sheriff Freddie Pitre, Sr.
OPINION 97-528
Page 2
himself, or to any partnership of which he is a member, or to any corporation of which is an officer, stockholder, or director, or ooo

(3) When any sheriff charged with the duties of enforcing the laws of this state or any political subdivision thereof shall enter into a contract, either written or oral, individually or as a member or stockholder of any partnership, company or corporation with any such person whereby such sheriff or partnership, company or corporation, of which he is a member or stockholder is to perform any services of a law enforcement nature; provided, however, a depu~ sheriff may, as an employee only, perform services of a law enforcement nature for any person, partnership, company, or corporation, but only if said depu_ty sheriff fulfills his employee performance requirements while not on official du_t’y.
(Emphasis added).

Act 562 of 1979 amended LSA-R.S. 14:140. The amendment in relevant part allowed for the employment of deputy sheriffs in private law enforcement related positions. Prior to that time deputy sheriffs had been included in the first sentence of A(3) which prohibits any contractual relationship between the sheriff and any entity performing any services of a law enforcement nature.

Our research indicates that Attorney General Opinions 81-612 and 78-620 (copies of which are attached) are pertinent to your inquiry. Both opinions stand for the proposition that a full or part-time deputy sheriff may not own or partly own stock in any business which performs any services of a law enforcement nature. LSA-R.S. 14:140 has not been legislatively changed since the issuance of these opinions, and we continue to adhere to the conclusions stated therein. Thus, the deputy sheriff referenced in your correspondence may not hold an ownership interest in the facility if the venture is structured to perform services of a law enforcement nature.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:

ASSISTAI~T ATTORNEY GENERAL

KLK:ams