MS 2026-03-Kirk-Taylor-March-10-2026-Municipal-Inmate-Expenses 2026-03-10

When a city arrests a person and that person is bound over to the grand jury, does the city or the county pay the jail housing bill?

Short answer: The county. Once a municipal prisoner is bound over to a grand jury after a preliminary hearing (or after the prisoner waives that hearing), the prisoner becomes a county prisoner for cost purposes. The county owes the housing bill from that moment forward, even if the grand jury ultimately fails to indict and the case is dropped. The county cannot back-bill the city for the housing costs.

Disclaimer: This is an official Mississippi Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Mississippi attorney for advice on your specific situation.

Plain-English summary

Montgomery County does not have its own jail, so it pays a daily fee to house both county and municipal prisoners in another facility. The City of Winona and Montgomery County jointly asked the AG who is on the hook for the housing fee when a prisoner originally arrested by the city has already been bound over to a grand jury for indictment.

The AG draws a clean line: at the moment a municipal prisoner is bound over to a grand jury (either after a preliminary hearing or after the prisoner waives that hearing), the prisoner becomes a county prisoner for cost purposes. From that point on, the county owes the housing bill. That has been the office's consistent position since at least 1992 (Birdsong), reaffirmed in 1994 (Wright), again in 2016 (Nowak), and most recently in August 2025 (Null).

The second question gets the same hard answer. Even if the grand jury never returns an indictment and the prisoner is released, the county is not entitled to send the city a back-bill for the housing costs that ran during the indictment process. The cost-shifting moment is the bind-over, not the indictment outcome. That holding traces back to MS AG Op., Richardson (Apr. 16, 1990).

The opinion notes there were earlier conflicting AG opinions on this issue, and announces that this 2026 opinion is now the controlling one for the questions presented.

There is also a footnote pointing out that S.B. 2432 was pending in the 2026 legislative session and would amend Miss. Code Ann. § 19-25-73 to address the cost question. So the rule could change by statute, but until and unless it does, the bind-over line stands.

What this means for you

If you are a city attorney or city budget director

When a person your police arrested moves through a preliminary hearing and gets bound over to the grand jury, the city's financial obligation for daily housing ends at the bind-over. You should not be paying the per-diem after that and should refuse county invoices that try to back-bill the city for the bind-over period. If your jail-services contract or memorandum of understanding with the county or sheriff is silent on this point, get this opinion in front of your county counterpart and update the document.

If you are a county attorney or supervisor

Once a prisoner is bound over, the housing bill belongs to the county. That is true even if the grand jury later no-bills the case. The county cannot recover the costs from the city by retroactive billing. Plan jail-cost budgets accordingly. Counties without their own jails (like Montgomery County) are paying contract per-diems out of county funds for these prisoners; the cost cannot be passed back upstream.

If you are a sheriff or jail administrator

The bind-over date is the cost-allocation date. When you do internal accounting between municipal and county prisoners, that is the line. If S.B. 2432 (referenced in the opinion's footnote 2) is enacted in the 2026 session, the rule may change; check the Mississippi Code annotations for any 2026-2027 amendments to Section 19-25-73 before relying on this opinion past the next session.

If you are running a municipal jail

If your city operates its own lockup and the prisoner is moved to a county facility upon bind-over, the cost transfer happens cleanly: your facility billing for that prisoner stops, and the county facility's billing begins. If the prisoner stays in your facility because of a contract or MOU between the city and county, the bind-over still shifts the cost responsibility to the county; the bill should be coming back to the county even if the body has not moved.

Common questions

Q: What's the trigger that shifts the cost from city to county?
A: A preliminary hearing where the prisoner is bound over to the grand jury, or the prisoner's waiver of the preliminary hearing followed by bind-over. Either way, the binding-over to grand jury is the trigger.

Q: What if the grand jury never indicts?
A: The county still pays. The cost shifts at bind-over, not at indictment. MS AG Op., Richardson (Apr. 16, 1990) settled that point and the 2026 opinion reaffirms it.

Q: Does it matter whether the underlying offense was state or municipal?
A: The opinion does not draw that distinction at the bind-over stage. Once bind-over happens, the prisoner is a county prisoner for cost purposes regardless of what got the prisoner there.

Q: Could the county and city work this out differently by contract?
A: The opinion does not address private cost-allocation agreements. Cities and counties sometimes write inter-local agreements that reallocate the formal default. But the default this opinion announces is binding absent such a contract, and the AG's footnote about pending S.B. 2432 shows the legislature, not local agreements, is the recognized path for changing it.

Q: How does the circuit court fit in?
A: After bind-over to the grand jury, jurisdiction over the defendant lies with the circuit court (the AG's footnote cites MS AG Ops., Miller (2009) and Mellon (2005) for that point). The cost rule and the jurisdiction rule track together: when authority over the case moves up, so does the housing bill.

Background and statutory framework

Mississippi splits the criminal process between municipal and county institutions. Cities run their police forces, prosecute municipal-court offenses, and operate municipal jails (if they have them); counties run sheriffs' offices, host the circuit courts, and operate county jails. The cost question gets messy when a person is arrested by a city, processed through municipal court, then bound over to the county-level grand jury for felony indictment.

The bind-over moment is the recognized juncture where a case "leaves" municipal authority and becomes a circuit-court matter. AG opinions going back to 1990 (Richardson) have used that same juncture as the cost-allocation moment. The cluster of opinions cited in the 2026 opinion (Birdsong 1992, Wright 1994, Nowak 2016, Null 2025) all point the same direction.

The statutory hook is thin, which is part of why the AG opinion line exists. Section 19-25-73 governs county jail expenses, and Section 13-5-39 governs the impanelment of grand juries. Neither expressly says "the county pays from bind-over forward, even if no indictment issues." That rule has been built up through AG opinions over thirty-plus years, and the 2026 Kirk-Taylor opinion locks the rule in by acknowledging prior conflicting opinions and declaring this one controlling.

The pending S.B. 2432 referenced in the opinion's footnote would write the answer into the statute itself, removing the question from the AG-opinion line and putting it onto the legislature. Until the bill becomes law, the AG-opinion line is what counties and cities should rely on.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- Miss. Code Ann. § 13-5-39 (impanelment of grand juries)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 19-25-73 (county jail expenses; subject to pending S.B. 2432 amendment)

Prior AG opinions referenced:
- MS AG Op., Null (Aug. 21, 2025) (bind-over triggers transfer to county for cost purposes)
- MS AG Op., Wright (Apr. 13, 1994) (same)
- MS AG Op., Nowak (Apr. 15, 2016) (same)
- MS AG Op., Birdsong (May 7, 1992) (same)
- MS AG Op., Richardson (Apr. 16, 1990) (county pays even if grand jury fails to indict)
- MS AG Op., Miller (Feb. 20, 2009) (circuit court has jurisdiction after bind-over)
- MS AG Op., Mellon (July 1, 2005) (same)

Source

Original opinion text

March 10, 2026

R. Adam Kirk, Esq.
Attorney, City of Winona
J. Ryan Taylor, Esq.
Attorney, Montgomery County
Post Office Box 1069
Grenada, Mississippi 38901

Re: Municipal Inmate Expenses

Dear Mr. Kirk and Mr. Taylor:

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

Background

You have advised that Montgomery County does not have a jail. For this reason, all county and municipal prisoners are housed in other facilities for a daily fee. You have indicated that there is a question regarding whether Montgomery County ("County") or the City of Winona ("Municipality") is required to pay the expenses of municipal prisoners who have been bound over to a grand jury for indictment.

Questions Presented

Which entity is obligated to pay the expenses of municipal prisoners bound over to the grand jury for indictment?
If it is determined that the County is obligated to pay the expenses of a municipal prisoner bound over to the grand jury for indictment, is the County entitled to receive reimbursement from the Municipality if the prisoner is not indicted?

Brief Response

It is the responsibility of the County to pay for the upkeep and expenses of a municipal prisoner who has been bound over to a grand jury for indictment.
No. The County is obligated to pay for the upkeep and expenses of a municipal prisoner who has been bound over to a grand jury for indictment even if the grand jury fails to indict the municipal prisoner.

Applicable Law and Discussion

This office has "previously opined that a municipal prisoner becomes a county prisoner when said prisoner is either 1) bound over to the grand jury at a preliminary hearing or 2) waives said preliminary hearing." MS AG Op., Null at 1 (Aug. 21, 2025) (citing MS AG Op., Wright (Apr. 13, 1994)). That is to say, the County becomes responsible for the prisoner's expenses once a preliminary hearing has either been held or waived, and the prisoner has been bound over for grand jury indictment. MS AG Op., Null at 1; see also MS AG Op., Nowak at 1 (Apr. 15, 2016); MS AG Op., Birdsong at 1 (May 7, 1992).

With regard to your second question, this office has previously opined that even where the grand jury fails to indict the prisoner, the County is responsible for the upkeep of the prisoner once he has been bound over to the grand jury or waived his right to a preliminary hearing. See MS AG Op., Richardson at *1 (Apr. 16, 1990).

You note in your request that there are conflicting opinions of this office addressing this issue. To the extent such opinions conflict, this opinion is controlling on the issues presented in your request.

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/ Kristi D. Kennedy
Kristi D. Kennedy
Special Assistant Attorney General