In a Lawrason Act town, can the board of aldermen tell the elected chief of police where to park patrol cars after shifts, and can they impose line-item limits on the police budget?

Plain-English summary

Chief Nathaniel Roy Williams of the Delhi Police Department asked the Louisiana AG two related questions about the limits of the town's board of aldermen over his elected office. The AG answered both in favor of the chief.

Question 1: Who decides where patrol vehicles get parked after shifts?

The Town of Delhi is incorporated under the Lawrason Act (La. R.S. 33:321 et seq.) and operates under a mayor-board of aldermen form of government with an elected chief of police. La. R.S. 33:423 gives the chief "general responsibility for law enforcement in the municipality" and the duty to enforce all ordinances and applicable state laws.

The Louisiana Supreme Court in Lentini v. City of Kenner (1968) and the Second Circuit in Cogswell v. Town of Logansport (1975) read that statutory language as giving the chief power to supervise the operation of the police department, subject to the statutory authority that the mayor and board of aldermen also hold. Crucially, those decisions confirm that the elected chief has the authority to control city police property and to assign personnel.

The AG's own 1987 opinion (La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 87-682) said the same thing: the chief of police has the inherent authority to supervise and control his office, office equipment, and office personnel.

So the question of where police vehicles get parked at the end of a shift is an operational question about department property and personnel deployment. That falls within the chief's authority, not the aldermen's.

Question 2: Can the aldermen impose line-item restrictions on the police budget?

No. The AG distinguished the act of appropriating money to the department (which is the board's job) from the act of allocating those appropriated funds within the department (which is the chief's job).

The supporting cases are McCaig v. Gueydan (La. App. 3 Cir. 2001) and Doyle v. City of Harahan (La. App. 5 Cir. 1992). In Doyle, the Fifth Circuit said that the chief of police is in the best position to determine whether the department needs police cars or roof repairs, radio equipment, or parking lots. McCaig makes the same point: once the governing authority has appropriated money for the police department, the authority to allocate those funds rests with the elected chief.

The Delhi Town Council moved the police department from a "functional budget" (a single appropriation the chief allocates internally) to a "line-item budget" (caps on each spending category) in February 2024. The result: the department went over budget on the fuel-and-oil line item but stayed under budget on every other line. The AG concluded that the line-item restrictions impinge on the chief's inherent authority to manage personnel, control department property, and decide how to allocate appropriated funds. They are improper.

What this means for you

If you are a police chief in a Lawrason Act town facing line-item budget restrictions. This opinion gives you direct AG authority for asserting that line-item caps imposed after appropriation are improper. The cleanest way to use it is in writing: send the mayor and board a memo that cites La. R.S. 33:423, the cases (Cogswell, Lentini, McCaig, Doyle), this AG opinion, and 1987's Op. No. 87-682. Ask the board to restore a functional appropriation. Keep an audit trail showing where the line-item caps prevented operationally necessary spending.

If you are a mayor or board member in a Lawrason Act town. Your authority over the police budget is to decide the total annual appropriation, not to micromanage how the chief spends it. You also retain the authority to require reports, audits, and accountability on how the money is being used. But once the total is set, the chief allocates.

If you are a municipal clerk or finance officer setting up the chart of accounts. A functional budget that records actual expenditures by category (personnel, fuel, equipment, capital) is fine and useful for transparency. The legal problem starts when those category lines become hard caps that prevent the chief from moving funds within the appropriation. Treat them as informational ledger entries, not budget controls.

If you are evaluating where to park patrol vehicles. This is the chief's call, not the board's. The opinion's broader point applies to similar operational questions: vehicle assignment, equipment purchases within the appropriation, personnel scheduling, and use of department facilities are all within the chief's authority.

If you are a Louisiana Municipal Association attorney or municipal counsel. This opinion adds to the consistent line of Louisiana cases on the elected police chief's autonomy. The Lawrason Act gives the chief functional independence from the board even though the board appropriates the budget. Disputes typically arise when a council tries to use budgeting as a back-door control on operations; this opinion closes that door for line-item caps specifically.

Common questions

Q: What is the Lawrason Act?
A: La. R.S. 33:321 et seq. is the default statutory framework for Louisiana municipalities that are not organized under a home rule charter or special legislative act. It establishes a mayor, board of aldermen, and (in towns and cities) other elected officers including the chief of police. Most of Louisiana's small towns and villages operate under it.

Q: Can the board reduce the total police appropriation?
A: Yes. The board has the appropriation power. It can vote on the total dollar amount given to the police department each fiscal year. What it cannot do, under this opinion, is dictate how that total is then allocated among categories.

Q: What if the chief is overspending or wasting money?
A: The board's remedies are political and procedural: scrutinize the budget request, require reports and audits, work with the chief to identify causes of overspending, and adjust the next year's appropriation. Imposing line-item caps mid-year is not a permissible remedy under this opinion.

Q: Does this apply to home rule cities like New Orleans or Shreveport?
A: Not directly. Home rule charters can structure the relationship between the chief of police and the governing authority differently. The opinion's analysis turns on the Lawrason Act and La. R.S. 33:423, which apply to Lawrason municipalities. Home rule cities should check their charters.

Q: What about appointed (not elected) police chiefs?
A: The opinion is about an elected chief. The cited cases and statute address the special status of an elected chief of police as a constitutional-officer-equivalent within the municipality. An appointed chief generally has narrower autonomy and answers more directly to the appointing authority.

Background and statutory framework

Lawrason Act structure. La. R.S. 33:321 et seq. provides the basic framework for most Louisiana municipalities. The Act establishes the mayor-board of aldermen form of government and the elected offices that operate within that structure, including the chief of police.

Chief of police authority. La. R.S. 33:423 provides that the chief of police "shall have general responsibility for law enforcement in the municipality, and shall be charged with the enforcement of all ordinances within the municipality and all applicable state laws. He shall perform all other duties required of him by ordinance."

Case law.
- Lentini v. City of Kenner (La. 1968) is the Supreme Court's foundational statement that "general responsibility for law enforcement" gives the chief the power to supervise police operations, subject to the statutory authority of the mayor and board of aldermen.
- Cogswell v. Town of Logansport (La. App. 2 Cir. 1975) extends that to control of city police property and assignment of personnel.
- McCaig v. Gueydan (La. App. 3 Cir. 2001) and Doyle v. City of Harahan (La. App. 5 Cir. 1992) both hold that once the board appropriates funds, the chief allocates them.

AG opinions in the same line. La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 87-682 confirmed the chief's inherent authority to supervise and control office, equipment, and personnel. The 2024 opinion analyzed here applies that line of authority to the two specific Delhi disputes.

Delhi factual context. The Delhi Town Council moved the police department from a functional budget to a line-item budget in February 2024. The department then exceeded the fuel-and-oil line item but stayed within budget on other line items. The AG concluded the line-item restrictions improperly limited the chief's allocation authority.

Liz Murrill is the Attorney General of Louisiana. Amanda M. LaGroue authored the opinion as Assistant Attorney General.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- La. R.S. 33:321 et seq. (Lawrason Act)
- La. R.S. 33:423 (chief of police authority)

Cases:
- Cogswell v. Town of Logansport, 321 So.2d 774, 781 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1975)
- Lentini v. City of Kenner, 252 La. 413, 211 So.2d 311 (1968)
- McCaig v. Gueydan, 01-0140 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/27/01), 788 So.2d 1283
- Doyle v. City of Harahan, 610 So.2d 272 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1992)

Prior AG opinions:
- La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 87-682 (chief's authority over office, equipment, personnel)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/24-0088

Original opinion text

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

STATE OF LOUISIANA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 94005
BATON ROUGE, LA 70804-9005

LIZ MURRILL
ATTORNEY GENERAL

September 24, 2024

OPINION 24-0088

77 OFFICERS — Local & Municipal; Selection, Qualifications & Tenure; Vacancies
La. R.S. 33:321, et seq.
La. R.S. 33:423

Chief Nathaniel Roy Williams
Chief of Police
Delhi Police Department
Post Office Box 277
Delhi, LA 71232

It is the opinion of this office that the chief of police, rather than the board of aldermen, has the authority to decide whether police vehicles must be parked in the Delhi Police Department parking lot at the end of an officer's shift. It is further the opinion of this office that the board of aldermen have improperly applied line item restrictions to the budget of the chief of police.

Dear Chief Williams:

You requested the opinion of this office regarding whether the elected chief of police or the board of aldermen has the authority to decide whether police vehicles must be parked in the Delhi Police Department parking lot at the end of a police officer's shift. You also requested an opinion of this office regarding whether is it permissible for the board of aldermen to place line item limitations on the police department budget. We respond to your inquiries as follows:

Question 1: Whether the elected chief of police or the board of aldermen has the authority to decide whether police vehicles must be parked in the Delhi Police Department parking lot at the end of a police officer's shift.

Conclusion: It is the opinion of this office that the elected chief of police has the authority to decide whether police vehicles must be parked in the parking lot at the end of a police officer's shift, rather than the board of aldermen.

The Town of Delhi was incorporated under the Lawrason Act, La. R.S. 33:321, et seq., and operates under a mayor-board of aldermen form of government with an elected chief of police. Louisiana Revised Statute 33:423 provides, in pertinent part, that the chief of police "shall have general responsibility for law enforcement in the municipality, and shall be charged with the enforcement of all ordinances within the municipality and all applicable state laws. He shall perform all other duties required of him by ordinance."

In Cogswell v. Town of Logansport, 321 So.2d 774, 781 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1975), the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal, citing the Louisiana Supreme Court in Lentini v. City of Kenner, 252 La. 413, 211 So.2d 311, 314, stated that the general responsibility for law enforcement granted to a chief of police means the power to supervise the operation of the police department subject to the statutory authority exercisable by the mayor and board of aldermen. The court further recognized that the elected chief of police has the authority to control city police property and assign personnel. Id. Likewise, in La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 87-682, our office opined that "the chief of police has the inherent authority to supervise and control his office, office equipment and office personnel."

OPINION 24-0088
Chief Nathaniel Roy Williams
Page 2

Other Louisiana appellate courts have also found that, once the governing authority has appropriated money for the police department, the authority to allocate these funds rests with the elected chief of police. See McCaig v. Gueydan, 01-0140 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/27/01), 788 So.2d 1283, 1286; Doyle v. City of Harahan, 610 So.2d 272, 273 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1992). In so finding, the Fifth Circuit noted that the chief of police is in the best position to determine whether or not the department needs police cars or roof repairs, radio equipment, or parking lots. Doyle, at 273.

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the elected chief of police holds the primary authority in supervising the city's police department, which includes managing personnel, controlling department property, and making decisions about how to allocate funds that have been appropriated to the department. This authority allows the chief of police to determine the department's operational needs, such as prioritizing expenditures on equipment or facilities, and to ensure that the department functions effectively. It follows that the chief of police's authority over the management and supervision of the police department encompasses decisions regarding the use and placement of police vehicles. Since the parking location of police vehicles after a shift directly affects these operational aspects of the department, the decision to require that police vehicles be parked in the department's lot at the end of an officer's shift falls within the chief of police's authority.

Question 2: Is it permissible for the board of aldermen to place line item limitations on the police department budget?

Conclusion: No. Line item restrictions on the police department budget impinges on the police chief's inherent authority to manage personnel, control department property, and make decisions about how to allocate funds appropriated to the department.

By placing line-item limitations on the budget of the elected chief of police, the board of aldermen have severely limited the authority of the chief of police to allocate funds that have been appropriated to the department. According to your opinion request, the Delhi Town Council voted to move the Delhi Police Department from a functional budget to a line-item budget in February 2024. With a line-item budget, the police chief is unable to allocate funds to the specific areas that the department needs and risks going over budget in certain areas, while remaining under budget in others. Based on the information you provided this office, it appears that the department has gone over budget on the line item for fuel and oil, while remaining within the budget for every other line item. It is the opinion of this office that the line-item restrictions placed on your budget by the board of aldermen impinge on the inherent authority of the chief of police to supervise the police department, which includes the ability to manage personnel, to control department property, and to make decisions about how to allocate funds that have been appropriated to the department.

OPINION 24-0088
Chief Nathaniel Roy Williams
Page 3

Considering the foregoing, it is the opinion of this office that the chief of police has the authority to decide whether police vehicles must be parked in the Delhi Police Department parking lot at the end of an officer's shift rather than the board of aldermen. In addition, it is further the opinion of this office that the board of aldermen have improperly applied line item restrictions to your budget.

We trust this adequately responds to your request. However, if our office can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

With best regards,

LIZ MURRILL
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:
Amanda M. LaGroue
Assistant Attorney General

LM:AML