When a Minnesota county sheriff and the county board of commissioners disagree about what color the sheriff's squad cars should be, who gets to decide?

Plain-English summary

The Blue Earth County Board of Commissioners wanted the sheriff to order white squad cars. The sheriff preferred brown. The sheriff threatened to appeal the budget under Minn. Stat. § 387.20 to force the issue. County Attorney Ross E. Arneson asked the AG who has the legal authority to decide.

The AG sided with the county board.

The starting point was Minn. Stat. § 169.98, subd. 1(c), which requires that county sheriff motor vehicles be predominantly brown or white. The statute did not say who picks. The AG looked elsewhere for the answer.

Section 375.18, subd. 2 gives each county board general authority to manage county property, funds, and business unless otherwise provided. The AG cited Curtis v. Lincoln County, 161 N.W. 210 (Minn. 1917), where the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the county board's duty to provide a jail included the duty to determine its construction and equipment. By analogy, deciding what facilities and equipment to acquire for use by county officials, including the sheriff, is the board's call.

More directly, § 387.29, subd. 2 says the board "may furnish to the sheriff of the county such necessary motor vehicles and supplies therefor as are needed to carry out the duties of office." A 1966 AG opinion (390a-11) had read this as broad county-board discretion over what vehicles and supplies to furnish. The AG read "what vehicles" as including the color of those vehicles.

The AG distinguished § 387.03, which says the sheriff may purchase boats and "other equipment" with county board authorization. Under that statute, the sheriff picks the specific item (including color) and the board approves. But § 387.29, subd. 2 is the controlling statute for motor vehicles, and it puts the choice in the board's hands.

The AG hedged with a soft recommendation: the board "should take into account the views of the sheriff when making this decision," because § 387.29 references vehicles "needed to carry out the duties of office," and the sheriff has the best operational perspective on what is needed. But the legal authority sits with the board.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. 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 context: what the AG concluded

The question turned on a careful read of three statutes:

• Minn. Stat. § 169.98, subd. 1(c): sets the color palette (brown or white) but is silent on who chooses.
• Minn. Stat. § 375.18, subd. 2: general county-board management authority.
• Minn. Stat. § 387.29, subd. 2: county board "may furnish to the sheriff" motor vehicles and supplies as needed for office duties.

The AG read § 387.29, subd. 2 as the controlling statute, with the general § 375.18, subd. 2 authority backing it up. Both vest the decision in the board.

The AG also pointed to a structural difference between § 387.29 (motor vehicles, board chooses what to furnish) and § 387.03 (boats and other equipment, sheriff purchases with board authorization). The legislature treated the two categories differently. For motor vehicles, the board is the furnishing authority. For boats and other equipment, the sheriff is the purchaser and the board approves. The AG did not collapse the two.

The result preserved the board's hierarchical authority over county expenditures and county equipment decisions while acknowledging that the sheriff has operational expertise the board should weigh.

The opinion is short and practical. The sheriff in Blue Earth County wanted brown. The board wanted white. The AG concluded the board would win the legal question, with a recommendation for deference to the sheriff's operational input.

Common questions

Q: Does this mean the county board can override the sheriff on any equipment decision?
A: Not on every category. The opinion distinguishes motor vehicles (§ 387.29, board decides) from boats and other equipment (§ 387.03, sheriff decides with board approval). And in either category, the substantive decisions tied to law enforcement function (training, deployment, investigation) are the sheriff's.

Q: What if the sheriff's choice would be cheaper than the board's choice?
A: Cost is one factor the board may consider, but it is not the only factor. The statute lets the board decide. Cost arguments may be persuasive but they do not override the legal allocation of authority.

Q: Could the sheriff get his preference through the budget appeal in § 387.20?
A: The opinion does not analyze § 387.20 in detail. The budget appeal mechanism lets the sheriff contest the budget appropriation. Whether it would reach the color question is a separate analysis the AG did not perform.

Q: What about counties that have a separate fleet manager?
A: The opinion is silent on this. A county that has delegated fleet management to a county administrator or fleet manager has presumably done so under the board's general authority. The board could re-delegate or retain the color decision.

Q: Has the legislature since changed § 387.29?
A: Possibly. Anyone applying this opinion today should check the current text of §§ 375.18 and 387.29, and any new statutes that may have changed the allocation of authority between county boards and sheriffs over vehicles and equipment.

Q: Did this opinion address whether the sheriff has any veto over the board's choice?
A: No. The opinion says the board has the ultimate authority and the sheriff has consultative input. There is no statutory veto power identified.

Background and statutory framework

Minnesota's county-government framework gives the county board of commissioners broad management authority over county property, funds, and business (Minn. Stat. § 375.18, subd. 2). Specific statutes for individual constitutional offices (sheriff, county attorney, county auditor) may carve out particular authority for those officers, but the residual authority sits with the board.

For sheriffs specifically:
- Minn. Stat. § 387.03 lets the sheriff purchase boats and other equipment with county-board authorization.
- Minn. Stat. § 387.20 governs the sheriff's budget appeal procedure.
- Minn. Stat. § 387.29, subd. 2 says the board may furnish necessary motor vehicles and supplies to the sheriff.

Section 169.98 is the broader Minnesota Highway Traffic Regulation Act provision on identification of police and other government vehicles. Subdivision 1(a) covers general identification requirements; subdivision 1(c) restricts county sheriff vehicles to brown or white.

The opinion is signed by Assistant Attorney General Theresa Meinholz Oray on behalf of AG Mike Hatch.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- Minn. Stat. § 169.98, subd. 1(a), (c) (1998)
- Minn. Stat. § 375.18, subd. 2 (1998)
- Minn. Stat. § 387.03 (1998)
- Minn. Stat. § 387.20
- Minn. Stat. § 387.29, subd. 2 (1998)

Cases:
- Curtis v. Lincoln County, 161 N.W. 210 (Minn. 1917)

Other AG opinions referenced:
- Op. Atty. Gen. 185, September 1, 1950 (radio broadcast equipment)
- Op. Atty. Gen. 390a-11, December 5, 1966 (broad county-board discretion over vehicles and supplies for sheriff)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/390a14-19990609.pdf

Original opinion text

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

SHERIFFS: MOTOR VEHICLES: County Board has authority to specify color of Sheriff's squad cars. Minn. Stat. §§ 169.98 subd. 1(a); 375.18 subd. 2; 387.29 subd. 2.

390a-14
June 9, 1999

Ross E. Arneson
Blue Earth County Attorney
Government Center
410 South Fifth Street
P.O. Box 3129
Mankato, MN 56002-3129

Dear Mr. Arneson:

In your letter to Attorney General Mike Hatch you submit the following:

FACTS

The Blue Earth County Board of Commissioners (hereinafter "county board") has informed the County Sheriff (hereinafter "sheriff") that it wants the sheriff to order white squad cars. The sheriff wants to order brown squad cars. The sheriff has threatened to appeal his budget under Minnesota Statutes section 387.20 unless he can order brown squad cars.

You ask the following:

QUESTION

Who has the authority to specify the color of the county squad cars, the county board or the sheriff?

OPINION

Minnesota Statutes § 169.98, subd. 1(c) (1998) requires that the motor vehicles of the county sheriff's office be predominantly brown or white, but does not specify who has the authority to choose the color. In our opinion the county board has the authority to specify the color of the county squad cars.

Each county board in the State of Minnesota has the general power to manage the county property, funds, and business unless it is otherwise provided for. Minn. Stat. § 375.18, subd. 2 (1998). This authority generally extends to making determinations concerning the facilities and equipment to be acquired for use by county officials. See e.g., Curtis v. Lincoln County, 161 N.W. 210 (Minn. 1917) (county board's duty to provide a jail includes the duty to determine its construction and equipment); Op. Atty. Gen. 185, September 1, 1950 (decision whether to furnish radio broadcast equipment).

On the specific subject of motor vehicles, Minn. Stat. § 387.29, subd. 2 (1998) provides that "the board of county commissioners... may furnish to the sheriff of the county such necessary motor vehicles and supplies therefor as are needed to carry out the duties of office." This language has been interpreted as recognizing broad discretion in the county board in the matter of deciding what "vehicles and supplies" will be furnished to the sheriff. See Op. Atty. Gen. 390a-11, Dec. 5, 1966. This broad discretion would seem to include authority to choose the color of the motor vehicles. That authority may be distinguished from Minn. Stat. § 387.03 (1998) which states that the sheriff can purchase boats and other equipment when authorized by the county board. That statute appears to give the sheriff the authority to decide which boats and "other equipment" to purchase, including the color, but requires the sheriff to obtain approval from the county board.

We were unable to find a Minnesota statute that provides that anyone other than the county board has the authority to decide the color of the county squad cars. There is language in section 387.29, subd. 2, however, that suggests that the county board might be expected to grant some deference to the views of the sheriff when deciding the particulars of the squad cars. The statute gives the county board authority to furnish the sheriff with "necessary motor vehicles... as are needed to carry out the duties of office." We would assume that the sheriff would have valuable input on what type of motor vehicles are needed to carry out his duties.

In summary, it is our opinion that the county board has the ultimate legal authority to decide the color of the sheriff's squad cars, but should take into account the views of the sheriff when making this decision.

Very truly yours,

MIKE HATCH
Attorney General

THERESA MEINHOLZ ORAY
Assistant Attorney General