Can a North Carolina county manager put a county Criminal Intake Center (jail detention cells) under someone other than the sheriff?

Plain-English summary

In the late 1980s Mecklenburg County was designing a Criminal Intake Center: a central facility where arrested persons could be brought in, identified, booked, screened for pretrial release, and held overnight if necessary. The center was to include at least 48 detention cells plus space for magistrates, the pretrial release program, defense attorneys, the District Attorney, and breathalyzer testing. Judge Snepp asked the AG whether the County Manager could place this facility under someone other than the Sheriff.

The AG said no. Senior Deputy Attorney General William W. Melvin walked through the statutes governing the sheriff's relationship to the county jail.

A jail, in the statutory sense, is any place used to confine persons charged with crime. A facility with 48 detention cells used to hold arrestees overnight and to hold "disruptive persons, drunks, etc." is unambiguously a jail. The statutory label "Criminal Intake Center" does not change that.

N.C.G.S. § 162-22 puts the care and custody of the county jail in the sheriff. The sheriff may either personally serve as the jail's keeper or appoint a jailer. Either way the sheriff is accountable for the facility's operation.

N.C.G.S. § 162-24 then closes a loophole that might otherwise let the sheriff (or a politically motivated county board) hand off the responsibility. The sheriff "may not delegate to another person the final responsibility for discharging his official duties." If the sheriff cannot delegate the jail responsibility, then the County Manager (whose authority is derivative of the county board, not the sheriff's own statutory authority) certainly cannot reassign it either. The opinion finds no statutory authority for a county manager to move jail care and custody from the sheriff to another county agency.

Operating a jail is not merely opening and closing cell doors. Dunn v. Swanson and Foust v. Hughes both treat safekeeping of prisoners, receiving committed persons, and discharging them when authorized as core jailer duties. The AG identifies a list of functions necessarily attached to "care and custody" of the jail: positive identification (including fingerprinting and photographing where appropriate), search for weapons and contraband, safeguarding personal effects, and managing intake and release. All of these stay under the sheriff.

§ 162-56 reinforces the conclusion from the other side. Persons committed to the sheriff's custody must be held in either the county jail or a facility approved by the N.C. Department of Human Resources (the predecessor of today's DHHS in this context). Other holding arrangements are unauthorized. A county cannot bypass the sheriff by inventing a non-jail confinement category.

The opinion also addresses the planned "centralized depository for criminal process" inside the Intake Center. Under § 162-14, the sheriff and the sheriff's deputies execute writs and other process. Under § 162-50, the sheriff can be penalized for willfully neglecting these Chapter 162 duties. And under § 162-24 the sheriff cannot delegate the final responsibility. The conclusion: any depository for criminal process directed to the sheriff must be under the sheriff's control. (Process directed to other officers, by contrast, can be housed elsewhere; the sheriff has no claim over process not directed to the sheriff's office.)

Finally, the AG distinguishes the parts of the Intake Center that are not within the sheriff's office: magistrate space, the Mecklenburg County Pretrial Release Program offices, defense attorney workrooms, District Attorney offices, and breathalyzer-administration rooms. Those functions belong to other branches of government (the judiciary, the DA, county pretrial services). N.C.G.S. § 153A-169 places the assignment and use of county office space in the County Board of Commissioners, who can consult the County Manager. So the same building can house both sheriff-controlled jail space and commissioner-assigned non-jail space; what cannot happen is moving the jail itself out from under the sheriff.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988. 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. The core proposition that sheriffs hold non-delegable statutory authority over county jails has been reinforced by later cases and remains a structural feature of North Carolina county government. The cited statutes have been amended over time (§ 162-22 and § 162-24 in particular have been revised, and the agency formerly known as the N.C. Department of Human Resources is now the Department of Health and Human Services). Modern county intake-center design typically follows this opinion's framework even where the specific citations have shifted.

Background and statutory framework

The sheriff is one of the few constitutional officers of North Carolina county government (see N.C. Const. art. VII, § 2). The sheriff's authority over the county jail is not delegated by the county commissioners; it is conferred directly by the General Assembly through Chapter 162. That makes the sheriff structurally different from a county department head, whose authority flows from the board through the county manager.

This structural distinction is what drives the AG's conclusion. A county manager has supervisory authority over the heads of county departments under the council-manager form of government. The sheriff, however, is not a county department head. The sheriff is independently elected and answerable directly to the voters and to the limits set by Chapter 162. The county manager has no authority to reassign the sheriff's statutory functions.

The opinion's treatment of the criminal-process depository deserves attention. The Mecklenburg plan apparently contemplated a single repository where deputies could pick up writs and warrants directed to the sheriff. The AG accepts that idea but insists the repository itself stay under sheriff supervision. The principle is that whoever has the duty to execute process must have control over how that process is received and tracked. Letting another county officer manage the depository would create a custody-of-evidence problem: if a writ is "lost" before it gets to the sheriff, who is accountable under § 162-50?

The opinion's allocation of non-sheriff space inside the same building is practical. North Carolina counties have routinely built courthouse-jail complexes where the jail occupies one wing and the courtroom, DA office, magistrate office, and clerk space occupy others. The Mecklenburg Criminal Intake Center fit that mold. The AG simply confirmed that the sheriff's authority did not extend beyond the sheriff's statutory duties.

Common questions

Does this mean a county cannot privatize jail services or contract them out?

The opinion does not address private jail contractors directly. It does say that confinement of persons committed to the sheriff must be in the county jail or in a facility approved by what was then DHR. A modern equivalent of a privately contracted jail facility would need to fit within that framework. The sheriff's final responsibility is non-delegable, but the day-to-day jail operations (food service, medical care, classification) can be contracted out under appropriate arrangements.

Can the sheriff give the county manager limited authority over the jail (for example, scheduling maintenance)?

The opinion focuses on "final responsibility for discharging official duties." Routine non-discretionary operations like building maintenance or HVAC service are not what § 162-24 protects. The sheriff cannot delegate the substantive jail authority (who is admitted, who is held, how prisoners are treated). The sheriff can certainly let the county manager coordinate facilities-maintenance contracts.

What about a regional jail shared by several counties?

This opinion does not address regional jails. The North Carolina statutory framework changed in later years to allow multi-county jail districts under separate authority. A modern researcher facing that question would look at the regional jail statutes (added after this 1988 opinion) rather than Chapter 162's single-county sheriff framework.

Who holds the keys, literally, to the Intake Center cell block?

Under § 162-22 the sheriff appoints the jailer. The jailer holds the keys, both literally and figuratively. If the County Manager wanted "his" person to have a key, that would conflict with the sheriff's care and custody authority. The county manager can have a key to non-jail spaces in the building.

Can the county commissioners refuse to fund the sheriff's jail operations?

The opinion does not address funding. Funding is governed by the county budget process and by the general principle that the commissioners must appropriate enough to enable constitutional officers to perform their constitutional and statutory duties. A commissioner board that tried to underfund the jail to the point of forcing the sheriff to release prisoners would be acting at its peril.

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/jails-sheriffs-supervision-of-local-confinement-facilities/

Citations

• N.C.G.S. § 162-14 (sheriff's duty to execute process)
• N.C.G.S. § 162-22 (sheriff has care and custody of county jail)
• N.C.G.S. § 162-24 (sheriff cannot delegate final responsibility)
• N.C.G.S. § 162-41 (jailer's duty to receive committed persons)
• N.C.G.S. § 162-50 (penalty for failure to perform Chapter 162 duties)
• N.C.G.S. § 162-56 (where committed persons must be confined)
• N.C.G.S. § 153A-169 (county commissioners' authority over county office space)
• Dunn v. Swanson, 217 N.C. 279, 7 S.E.2d 563 (1940)
• Foust v. Hughes, 21 N.C. App. 268, 204 S.E.2d 230 (1974), cert. denied, 285 N.C. 589, 205 S.E.2d 722 (1974)

Original opinion text

Requested By:

The Honorable Frank W. Snepp, Jr. Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Mecklenburg County

Question:

Must the County Manager place a Criminal Intake Center [a facility for the reception of persons charged with crime] under the care and custody of the Sheriff?

Conclusion:

Yes.

The Criminal Intake Center, as described in your letter, is designed to include detention cells for at least 48 persons. These detention cells will be used to detain certain prisoners overnight and to house disruptive persons, drunks, etc. Such confinement activities most assuredly bring the facility within the scope and definition of a jail.

N.C.G.S. § 162-22 makes it clear that the Sheriff "shall have the care and custody of the jail in his county; and shall be, or appoint, the keeper thereof." Although the Sheriff appoints the Jailer, N.C.G.S. § 162-24 provides that "The sheriff may not delegate to another person the final responsibility for discharging his official duties . . . ." Therefore, it follows that if the Sheriff cannot delegate to another his duties to supervise the care and custody of the jail, then certainly the County Manager is not empowered to do so. Additionally, our research reveals no authority for a County Manager to transfer the care and custody of a jail facility from the Sheriff to another county agency.

Properly maintaining the care and custody of a jail involves more than merely opening and closing cell doors. The Jailer's duties include the safekeeping of prisoners in his care. Dunn v. Swanson, 217 N.C. 279, 7 S.E.2d 563 (1940). The Jailer's duties also include receiving, incarcerating and retaining persons who are brought to the jail by a law enforcement officer.

N.C.G.S. § 162-41, and discussed in Foust v. Hughes, 21 N.C. App. 268, 204 S.E.2d 230 (1974), cert. denied, 285 N.C. 589, 205 S.E.2d 722 (1974). In order to properly maintain the care and custody of the jail, the Sheriff must implement reasonable measures to positively identify prisoners (to include, in appropriate cases, fingerprinting and photographs), to search arrestees for weapons and contraband, and to provide for the security of the personal effects of persons being confined. All of these functions are incidental to the normal operation of a jail and are necessary to properly maintain the care and custody of the jail. Therefore, such functions must remain under the supervision and control of the Sheriff.

Furthermore, the law requires persons committed to the custody of the Sheriff to be confined in the county jail, or in facilities approved by the N.C. Department of Human Resources. N.C.G.S. § 162-56. Therefore, confinement of prisoners is connected to the Sheriff's custody, and any other confinement would be unauthorized.

You also indicate that the Criminal Intake Center will include a "centralized depository for criminal process." N.C.G.S. § 162-14 provides that the "sheriff, by himself or his lawful deputies, shall execute and make due return of all writs and other process to him legally issued and directed . . . ." N.C.G.S. § 162-50 provides a penalty if a Sheriff willfully fails or neglects to perform any duty imposed upon him by Chapter 162, including the duty to execute process. As stated above, the Sheriff is prohibited by N.C.G.S. § 162-24 from delegating the final responsibility for discharging his official duties. Therefore, any depository for criminal process which has been legally issued and directed to the Sheriff must remain within the control and supervision of the Sheriff because it is the Sheriff who is responsible, by law, for its proper and timely service. There is no requirement that the Sheriff control and supervise any depository for criminal process when the process is legally directed to an agency other than the Sheriff.

You further indicate that the Criminal Intake Center will house space for magistrates, the Mecklenburg County Pretrial Release Program, attorneys, the District Attorney and facilities for the administration of breathalyzer tests. In that these functions are not within the purview of the office of the Sheriff, the assignment and use of office space for these functions is governed by

N.C.G.S. § 153A-169 which places this authority in the County Board of Commissioners who may wish to consult with the County Manager as they deem appropriate.

LACY H. THORNBURG Attorney General

William W. Melvin Senior Deputy Attorney General