Could a Louisiana hospital district reimburse an employee’s criminal bail-bond premium after charges were declined?

Plain-English summary

A parish hospital district's former director had paid a surety-bond premium to obtain release after an arrest involving allegations tied to her official duties. The district attorney later declined prosecution. The AG said the district could reimburse the premium on those facts: the charge arose from the employee's official duties and prosecution was declined. It viewed reimbursement of an expense incurred through official work as outside the constitutional prohibition on public donations.

The AG distinguished the district, a political subdivision, from state employers. It said a statute limiting reimbursements for state officers and employees to legal fees and expenses did not impose the same limit on the district. Prior opinions had addressed defense costs; this opinion specifically addressed the bond premium.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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

Could the district repay a premium paid to obtain release from detention?

The AG said yes where the arrest charge arose from the employee's official duties and the district attorney declined prosecution.

Was this an across-the-board rule for all bail costs?

No. The opinion addressed one surety-bond premium under the stated duty-related and declined-prosecution conditions.

Did state employee reimbursement limits control the hospital district?

The AG said no. It identified those statutory limits for state personnel and said no equivalent limitation applied to political subdivision employees in this situation.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion reviewed prior AG positions allowing reimbursement of reasonable defense expenses after favorable resolution of duty-related charges. It then considered the state-personnel reimbursement statute and Article VII, Section 14's public-donation restriction. It concluded that the district could reimburse this bond premium because the expense arose from official functions and prosecution was declined.

Citations

• La. R.S. 13:5108.3 and R.S. 13:5108.1 (state employee reimbursement provisions discussed by the AG).
• Article VII, Section 14 (public-donation restriction).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/06-0149

Original opinion text

September 1, 2006
OPINION NUMBER 06-0149

90-A POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS – Officers, Agents & Employees
92-A-2 PUBLIC FUNDS – Loan, Pledge or Grants La. R.S. 13:5108.3
Mr. Christian C. Creed
Creed & Creed
A political subdivision may reimburse its officer/employee for the
P.O. Drawer 14136
premium she paid for a surety bond, which was posted to procure
her release from pre-trial detention after her arrest, provided the Monroe, Louisiana 71207-4136 charge arose from her official duties, and the prosecution of the charge for which she was arrested has been declined by the
Dear Mr. Creed: District Attorney.

On behalf of the G. B. Cooley Hospital Service District of Ouachita Parish (“District”), you requested an Attorney General’s opinion regarding the reimbursement of certain costs incurred by an employee in the defense of criminal charges. You indicate that the District’s former CEO/Hospital Director was arrested on or about November 11, 2004, for alleged cruelty to the infirmed. The allegations submitted by affidavit to procure an arrest warrant clearly arose out of the employee’s official duties as CEO/Hospital Director. The employee incurred costs in defending this action, including the premium the employee paid for a surety bond, which was posted to procure her release from pre- trial detention after the arrest. The Fourth Judicial District Attorney, Jerry L. Jones, has recently declined prosecution of the charge against the employee.

You state that you are aware of opinions of our office stating that it is permissible for a public body to reimburse an officer of that body for costs of defense in connection with a criminal charge, arising out of the officer’s official duty, when the charge is resolved in that officer’s favor. You question whether the District may reimburse its employee for the premium she paid for a surety bond, which was posted to procure her release from pre-trial detention, after her arrest on a charge arising from her official duties, when prosecution of the charge for which she was arrested has been declined by the District Attorney.

This office has consistently opined that if a public official or employee has been the subject of an investigation and/or prosecution of criminal charges arising out of the performance of the official functions of his office or employment, and the employee is exonerated, or the prosecution results in acquittal or dismissal or is quashed, then the public body that employs that person may pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses that result from the defense against the charges. Attorney General Opinion Nos. 04-0133, 99-180, 97-117, 96-95, 94-384, 93-376, 91-474, 89-110, 85-822 and 79- 349.

Page 2

Mr. Christian C. Creed
Opinion Number 06-0149
Page -2-

None of our prior opinions have addressed the question of repayment of surety bonds. We note that R.S. 13:5108.1, et seq. limits the reimbursements to only legal fees and expenses for state officers and employees. However, there is no such limitation with respect to officers and employees of political subdivisions. The only limitation on reimbursements paid by the District is Article VII, Section 14 of the Louisiana Constitution, which provides, in pertinent part, the following:

“Section 14. (A) Prohibited Uses. Except as otherwise provided by this constitution, the funds, credit, property, or things of value of the state or of any political subdivision shall not be loaned, pledged, or donated to or for any person, association, or corporation, public or private…”

The reimbursement of expenses incurred by an officer or employee, due to the performance of the official functions of his office or employment, does not appear to be a donation of public funds. Therefore, it is the opinion of our office that the District may reimburse its employee for the premium she paid for a surety bond, which was posted to procure her release from pre-trial detention after her arrest, provided the charge arose from her official duties, and the prosecution of the charge for which she was arrested has been declined by the District Attorney.

Trusting this adequately responds to your request, we remain

Yours very truly,

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: _________
KENNETH L. ROCHE, III
Assistant Attorney General

CCF, JR/KLR, III/jv

Page 3

Opinion Number 06-0149

90-A POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS – Officers, Agents & Employees 92-A-2 PUBLIC FUNDS – Loan, Pledge or Grants

La. R.S. 13:5108.3

A political subdivision may reimburse its officer/employee for the premium she paid for a surety bond, which was posted to procure her release from pre-trial detention after her arrest, provided the charge arose from her official duties, and the prosecution of the charge for which she was arrested has been declined by the District Attorney.

Mr. Christian C. Creed
Creed & Creed
P.O. Drawer 14136
Monroe, Louisiana 71207-4136

Date Received:

Date Released: September 1, 2006

Kenneth L. Roche, III
Assistant Attorney General