Can a Mississippi constable handle the squatter-removal affidavit under the Real Property Owners Protection Act, or must landlords go to a sheriff or police department?

Plain-English summary

Mississippi's Real Property Owners Protection Act took effect July 1, 2025 (House Bill 1200, 2025 Regular Session). It gives property owners a fast-track procedure to remove squatters: file a sworn affidavit with "the law enforcement agency of the municipality, county or political subdivision in which the property is located," and the agency removes the squatter without requiring the owner to file a full eviction case in court.

The Harrison County Constable, Alan Weatherford, asked the AG whether the constable's office counts as "the law enforcement agency" for that purpose. Some landlords had been routed to the constable for these affidavits, and he wanted to know whether he had the authority to receive them.

The AG's answer is: not clearly. The Act does not define "law enforcement agency" and does not specifically authorize constable enforcement. The AG declined to fill the gap by interpretation for two reasons.

First, in Mississippi, a constable is not automatically a law-enforcement officer just by being elected. Section 19-19-5(2)(a) conditions a constable's law-enforcement function on completing the required training: "[a]ny constable who does not complete the required training when required . . . shall not be allowed to exercise any law enforcement functions or to carry a firearm in the performance of his duties until he has completed such training." So whether a particular constable's office qualifies as a law-enforcement agency depends on the constable's individual training, which is a fact question.

Second, even when the constable is properly trained, the Act says "the law enforcement agency" of the county, not "any law enforcement agency" of the county. The AG reads that language as pointing to a specific designated agency, not to the constable as a free-standing alternative. With the statute silent on constable enforcement and a fact-specific qualification problem, the AG simply declines to put constables in the affidavit-receipt role.

The practical takeaway is that the AG won't bless constables as the receiving officer for these squatter affidavits. Property owners should file with the sheriff's office or municipal police, and counties that don't have clear allocation should sort it out at the county-attorney level.

What this means for you

If you are a landlord or property owner trying to remove a squatter

File the sworn affidavit with the sheriff's office (for unincorporated areas) or the municipal police department (within city limits). Don't take it to the constable, even if someone tells you to; the AG has now declined to confirm that constables qualify as the receiving agency under the Act. If the agency you go to refuses to take the affidavit on jurisdictional grounds, escalate to the county attorney or city attorney rather than re-routing to the constable.

If you are a constable

You should not be receiving Real Property Owners Protection Act affidavits as a primary intake point. The AG's opinion declines to put you in that role and points out two problems: the Act does not name constables as a receiving agency, and your law-enforcement status depends on whether you have completed Section 19-19-5 training. Even if your office is fully trained, the AG won't confirm you are "the law enforcement agency." If landlords keep showing up at your office, refer them to the sheriff or municipal police.

If you are a sheriff or municipal police chief

The Act is putting these affidavits in your queue. Make sure your civil process / eviction unit (or whichever unit handles related work) has a documented intake procedure for the sworn affidavit and a clear chain of custody. The Act sets up an administrative process that bypasses the standard eviction court flow, so the sheriff or police department becomes the gatekeeper for whether the squatter actually gets removed.

If you are a justice court clerk

The AG's opinion declines to answer the secondary question of whether the affidavit should be filed with the justice court clerk. Practically, the affidavit is a sworn document, not a court filing, so it doesn't initiate a case. But if landlords show up at your counter trying to file these, point them to the appropriate sheriff or police agency rather than docketing it.

If you are a real-property attorney advising landlords

The Act is procedurally novel and the AG opinion shows the legislature did not finish working out the operational mechanics. Counsel landlords to use the sheriff's office as the default receiving agency unless local practice clearly designates someone else. Document everything carefully because, until case law or further AG opinions clarify, there is litigation risk on whether the affidavit was properly filed. Also note that constables can serve civil process in ordinary eviction actions; that role is unaffected by this opinion. The opinion is specifically about the new affidavit procedure, not about civil-process service generally.

Common questions

Q: What is the Real Property Owners Protection Act?
A: It's House Bill 1200 from the 2025 Regular Legislative Session, codified in part at Miss. Code Ann. § 89-10-3, effective July 1, 2025. It creates a procedure for property owners to remove squatters by filing a sworn affidavit with a law-enforcement agency, instead of going through full eviction proceedings.

Q: Who is supposed to receive the affidavit?
A: The Act says "the law enforcement agency of the municipality, county or political subdivision in which the property is located." It does not define "law enforcement agency." For unincorporated areas, this most naturally means the sheriff's office; for incorporated areas, the municipal police department. The AG declines to confirm constables fit.

Q: Why did the AG decline to give a clean answer about constables?
A: Two reasons. First, constables in Mississippi are not automatically law-enforcement officers; their authority requires completing Section 19-19-5 training. Whether a particular constable has done that is a fact question outside the AG's opinion authority. Second, the Act says "the law enforcement agency" of the county, suggesting a specific designated agency, not constables as a generic alternative. The AG read those two factors together and declined.

Q: Can a constable refuse to accept an affidavit if a landlord brings one?
A: The AG's opinion strongly suggests yes. The Act does not give constables a defined role in the affidavit procedure, and there is no obligation in Section 19-19-5 to receive these affidavits. A constable who declines and refers the landlord to the sheriff is acting consistently with this opinion.

Q: Does this affect a constable's general authority to serve civil process?
A: No. Constables continue to serve civil process under their existing statutory authority. This opinion is narrowly about whether constables qualify as the "law enforcement agency" that receives the affidavit under the new Act. Service of summons in a regular eviction lawsuit is a different function.

Q: Could the legislature fix this by amendment?
A: Yes, easily. A one-line amendment to Section 89-10-3 saying "law enforcement agency includes the office of the constable in counties where the constable has met the training requirements of Section 19-19-5" would settle the question. Until that happens, the rule from this opinion stands.

Background and statutory framework

Mississippi's eviction process historically required landlords to bring an unlawful entry and detainer action in justice court. That process can be slow when the occupant is a squatter (someone with no lease or color of right) rather than a holdover tenant.

The 2025 Real Property Owners Protection Act, codified in part at Miss. Code Ann. § 89-10-3, created a fast-track administrative procedure: the owner files a sworn affidavit with a local law-enforcement agency, the agency verifies the basic facts, and the squatter can be removed without a full court case. The statute went into effect July 1, 2025.

The statute's drafting left "law enforcement agency" undefined, which is how the question reached the AG's office. Mississippi has multiple categories of law-enforcement actors: sheriff's deputies, municipal police, state police (Department of Public Safety), MDOT enforcement officers, and constables. Constables are the most ambiguous of the bunch because their authority is conditioned on training under Section 19-19-5.

The AG applied two interpretive rules. First, where a statute does not define a phrase, the Mississippi Supreme Court (most recently in Taylor Construction Co. v. Superior Mat Co., Inc., 298 So. 3d 956 (Miss. 2020)) instructs courts to give the phrase its "common and ordinary meaning." Section 1-3-65 codifies the same rule. Second, the AG noted that neither Merriam-Webster nor Black's Law Dictionary defines "law enforcement agency": which means the common-and-ordinary-meaning test does not produce a clean answer and the question becomes substantially fact-driven.

Combined with Section 7-5-25's restriction on the AG opining on factual determinations and on past actions, that gave the AG a path to decline. The opinion is properly read as a non-decision: the AG is not blessing constable enforcement and is not banning it, but is signaling that constables should not assume they are the affidavit's receiving agency.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- House Bill 1200, 2025 Regular Legislative Session (Real Property Owners Protection Act)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 89-10-3 (squatter-removal affidavit procedure)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 19-19-5 (constable powers and required training)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 1-3-65 (statutory construction by common and ordinary meaning)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25 (AG opinion authority)

Cases:
- Taylor Constr. Co. v. Superior Mat Co., 298 So. 3d 956 (Miss. 2020) (undefined statutory phrases get their common and ordinary meaning)
- Buffington v. Miss. State Tax Comm'n, 43 So. 3d 450 (Miss. 2010) (same)

Prior AG opinions referenced:
- MS AG Op., Magee (Aug. 29, 2008) (AG cannot validate or invalidate past actions)
- MS AG Op., Barton (May 17, 2021) (questions of fact are not within AG opinion scope)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/A.-Weatherford-January-12-2026-Real-Property-Owners-Protection-Act-Enforcement-Authority.pdf

Original opinion text

January 12, 2026

The Honorable Alan Weatherford
Constable, Harrison County
Post Office Box 792
Long Beach, Mississippi 39560

Re: Real Property Owners Protection Act Enforcement Authority

Dear Constable Weatherford:

The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.

Background

The Real Property Owners Protection Act ("Act"), Miss. House Bill No. 1200, 2025 Regular Legislative Session, took effect on July 1, 2025. Since that time, some landlords seeking enforcement of the Act have been referred to the Harrison County Constable's office.

Questions Presented

1. Is a constable included as a "law enforcement agency" for the purposes of the Act?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes," should the sworn affidavit be filed with the constable or the justice court clerk?

3. If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes," how would the constable be paid?

Brief Response

1. The Act does not define "law enforcement agency" nor does it specifically provide for constable enforcement of its provisions. A constable is only a law enforcement officer when he or she meets the requirements of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 19-19-5.

2. The response to question one renders this question moot.

3. The response to question one renders this question moot.

Applicable Law and Discussion

As an initial matter, this office can only opine on prospective questions of state law. Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25. We cannot validate or invalidate a past action. MS AG Op., Magee at *1 (Aug. 29, 2008). To the extent that your request asks about past action, we are unable to respond with an official opinion.

The language of the Act states that "[t]o commence the process to expel a squatter, the owner of the property or his or her agent shall file a sworn affidavit with the law enforcement agency of the municipality, county or political subdivision in which the property is located." Miss. Code Ann. § 89-10-3(3)(b) (emphasis added) (referring to the law enforcement agency of the county, not any law enforcement agency of the county). The Act does not define "law enforcement agency."

Where there is no statutory definition of a phrase, the Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that the phrase "must be given its common and ordinary meaning." Taylor Constr. Co., Inc. v. Superior Mat Co., Inc., 298 So. 3d 956, 958-59 (Miss. 2020) (quoting Buffington v. Miss. State Tax Comm'n, 43 So. 3d 450, 455 (Miss. 2010)); see also Miss. Code Ann. § 1-3-65 ("All words and phrases contained in the statutes are used according to their common and ordinary acceptation and meaning; but technical words and phrases according to their technical meaning."). Neither Merriam-Webster Dictionary nor Black's Law Dictionary defines the term "law enforcement agency."

Examining the authority of a constable, Section 19-19-5(1) establishes the general powers and duties of constables and tasks them with "keep[ing] and presserv[ing] the peace" and "faithfully aiding and assisting in executing the criminal laws of the state." However, whether a particular constable is a law enforcement officer is a determination of fact. A constable does not, by his or her elected position alone, qualify as a law enforcement officer. As provided in Section 19-19-5(2)(a), "[a]ny constable who does not complete the required training when required . . . shall not be allowed to exercise any law enforcement functions or to carry a firearm in the performance of his duties until he has completed such training." It follows that whether a constable qualifies as a "law enforcement agency" would depend on each constable's qualifications.

Given the Act's silence on the matter and the fact that constables must meet statutory requirements beyond their election in order to be law enforcement officers, an opinion as to whether constables fall within the definition of "law enforcement agency" under the Act would require determinations of fact beyond the scope of an official opinion. MS AG Op., Barton at *2 n.2 (May 17, 2021) (identifying questions of fact as one of various kinds of questions that cannot be addressed by official opinion). Because the Act fails to define "law enforcement agency," and based upon the text alone, there is no clear indication that the Act contemplates constable enforcement of its provisions.

As to your second and third questions, our response to question one renders these questions moot.

If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: /s/ Misty Monroe
Misty Monroe
Assistant Attorney General