Could Shreveport let deputies who were not POST-certified drive marshal vehicles home every day?

Plain-English summary

Shreveport's city marshal asked whether deputies without POST certification could drive office vehicles between work and home each day. The 2013 opinion gave a conditional answer: the office had to show a public purpose and a reasonable expectation of receiving at least equivalent value for the vehicle benefit. Without that showing, take-home use would be a prohibited donation of public property.

The AG distinguished earlier opinions allowing commutes for personnel who were on call or on duty around the clock. The question described deputies who did not have that status, so the AG did not treat take-home use as automatically justified.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2013. 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

City marshal's office

The opinion placed the burden of showing a public purpose and reciprocal value on the office. It did not make the factual value determination for the specific vehicle arrangement.

Deputy marshals

The AG said the proposed commute benefit for deputies not continuously on call could violate the public-property restriction without a reasonable expectation of receiving at least equivalent value.

Common questions

Could these deputies automatically take marshal cars home?

No. The AG required a showing of public purpose and a reasonable expectation of at least equivalent value for the office.

Did lack of POST certification alone settle the issue?

The opinion examined the public-property value exchange in the setting described, including that these deputies were not on call or on duty around the clock. It did not announce an automatic rule based solely on certification.

What if the marshal's office received no matching value?

The AG said the arrangement would then be a prohibited donation of public property.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion applied Louisiana's constitutional restriction on gratuitous transfers of public property and the reciprocal-value standard from the case it discussed. It cited La. R.S. 40:2405 for POST certification requirements, while the dispositive issue was whether the commute benefit served a public purpose and returned equivalent value.

Citations

• La. R.S. 40:2405: POST certification provision referenced in the opinion.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/13-0117

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

~tate of Ifiouisiana
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. BOX 94005
BATON ROUGE

JAMES D. "BUDDY" ULDWELL
70804·9005
ATTORNEY GENERAL

OCT 23 2013
OPINION 13-0117

90~A-2 PUBLIC FUNDS-Loan, Pledge or Grants

La. Const art VII. § 14 La. R.S. 40:2405

Mr. Charlie Caldwell, Jr.
Whether the Shreveport City Marshal's Office can allow its non­
City Marshal
POST certified deputy marshals to drive vehicles owned by the
Marshal's Office home on a daily basis depends on if it can be
City Court Building
shown that the Marshal's Office is likely to receive an equivalent
1244 Texas Avenue
value for the benefit given 10 its deputies If such a determination
cannot be proven, then allowing the deputies to take home
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
vehicles would be a prohibited donation of public property In
vtolatron of La. Canst. Art. VII, § 14.

Dear Marshal Caldwell:

Our office received your opinion request regarding the Shreveport City Marshal's Office ("Marshal's Office") deputy marshals. Specifically, you have asked: Whether non-POST certified' deputy marshals can drive vehicles of the Marshal's Office home on a daily basis.

As your request deals with the use of public property, it is necessary to address it in light of Article VII, § 14 of the Louisiana Constitution which prohibits the donation, loan or pledge of public funds or property. It provides, in pertinent part:

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 ....

La. Const. art. VII, § 14(A).

In Board of Directors of the Industrial Development Board of the City of Gonzales, Louisiana, Inc. v. All Taxpayers, Properly Owners, Citizens of the City of Gonzales, et al., 2005-2298 (La. 9/6/06), 938 SO.2d 11 ("Cabela's" case), the Louisiana Supreme Court abandoned its prior analysis in City of Port Allen. v. Louisiana Mun. Risk Mgmt.
Agency, Inc., 439 SO.2d 399 (La.1983), and articulated a new standard of review governing La. Const. art. VII, § 14(A) The court in the Cabela's case stated that La.

La. R.S. 40:2405 details the requirements for post certification for peace officers.

Page 2

OPINION 13-0117
Marshal Charlie Caldwell, Jr.
Page 2

Const. art. VII, § 14(A) "is violated when public funds or property are gratuitously alienated." Cabela's, 938 SO.2d at 20.

In light of the Cabela's case, it is the opinion of this office that in order for an expenditure or transfer of public funds or property to be permissible under Article VII, § 14(A), the public entity must have the legal authority to make the expenditure or transfer and must show: (i) a public purpose for the expenditure or transfer that comports with the governmental purpose for which the public entity has legal authority to pursue; (ii) that the expenditure or transfer, taken as a whole, does not appear to be gratuitous; and (iii) that the public entity has a demonstrable, objective, and reasonable expectation of receiving at least equivalent value in exchange for the expenditure or transfer of public funds. The Cabela's standard places a strong emphasis on the reciprocal obligations between the parties to ensure that there is not a gratuitous donation of public funds.

The vehicles in question, according to the information you provided, are owned and maintained by the Marshal's Office. Our Office has previously opined that employees who are on call or considered on duty 24 hours a day may use public vehicles to travel to and from work without violating Article VII, §14 of the Louisiana Constitution. La. Atty. Gen. Op. Nos.10-0250 and 07-0180.

Your request asks whether deputy marshals, who are not considered on duty or on call 24 hours a day, can utilize marshal vehicles to travel to and from work. Allowing these non-POST certified deputy marshals to use these vehicles would be tantamount to a prohibited public donation if the deputy marshals are given a benefit at a cost to the Marshal's Office without an equal benefit in value returned. In order for such a benefit to not be in violation of Article VII, § 14 of the Louisiana Constitution, it would require the Marshal's Office to show that the use of the public vehicle is for a public purpose and that the Office has a reasonable expectation of getting at least the equivalent value in exchange for this benefit. Without such a showing, allowing the non-POST certified deputy marshals to travel to and from work in the Marshal's Office vehicles would be a violation of the Louisiana Constitution.

We hope that this opinion has adequately addressed the legal issues you have raised. If our office can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

With best regards,

JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: ~ffi) J(2/fh(fWlLl
JSiCaMPThOrnhill
Assistant Attorney General