A teenage girl was arrested for a city ordinance violation and a delinquency petition was filed in county court. Because the county jail had no facilities for females, the county judge ordered her held in the city jail with a police matron for the week before her hearing. After the hearing, the matron's bill bounced between the county sheriff (who refused to approve it) and the city council (who refused to pay it). Who pays the bill?
Plain-English summary
A female juvenile (under 18, over 15) was arrested in Flandreau for violating a city ordinance. The city did not prosecute her under municipal procedures. Instead, a delinquency petition was filed in Moody County Court alleging that she was a delinquent child. The petition recited the city ordinance violation as the predicate.
Two practical problems followed.
First, the girl's parents lived out of state, so giving them the required notice under SDC chapter 43.03 (1939, as amended) took longer than usual. That meant the girl had to be held in custody for a week or so before the delinquency hearing could be held.
Second, the Moody County jail did not have separate facilities for female prisoners. The county sheriff's usual practice when he had to detain a woman was to drive her to the Minnehaha County jail in Sioux Falls. But the girl was a juvenile, and SDC 43.0309 (as amended by Chapter 213 of the 1961 Session Laws) imposed special restrictions on juvenile detention: under-15 juveniles could not be held in a common jail or lockup under any circumstances, and for 15-and-over juveniles the court had discretion to order detention outside the common jail.
The county judge ordered the girl held in the new Flandreau City Jail, which had separate women's facilities and a police matron available. Chapter 212 of the 1961 Session Laws (last sentence) had authorized such arrangements. The girl was held there for a week.
After the disposition of the case, the matron submitted a bill for her week of services to the county sheriff, who refused to approve it (apparently on the theory that the girl had been held in city facilities, so the city should pay). The bill then went to the Flandreau City Council, which also refused to pay (apparently on the theory that the proceeding was a county court matter, so the county should pay). The matron, presumably, was caught in the middle and wanted to get paid.
The AG ruled that the county had to pay.
The reasoning drew on a 1949-50 AGR 376 opinion that had addressed a similar question: who pays the cost of serving warrants, summons, and subpoenas in juvenile proceedings, and who pays witness fees. The 1949-50 opinion had concluded that even though juvenile delinquency proceedings were not technically criminal in character, they were proceedings in a constituted court of the state. The expenses of serving process under SDC 43.0306 and 43.0308 were payable by the county from money budgeted for the court, and witness fees were also payable by the county from money budgeted for witness fees.
The 1968 AG applied the same reasoning to pre-hearing custody costs. The county judge had authority to set the delinquency matter for hearing and to order the child held in custody. The matron, in caring for the girl during that week, was acting at the direction of the county court, not as a city employee performing city business. The location of the custody (city jail facilities) was a function of where suitable facilities existed, not of who legally controlled the proceeding.
The 1961 amendment to SDC 43.0309 had made it mandatory for counties over 30,000 population to make arrangements (by contract or otherwise) for the care and detention of juveniles. The same duty was discretionary in Moody County because its population was below the threshold. The AG noted that Moody County's failure to exercise its discretionary power to contract for juvenile detention did not deprive the county court of its authority to order custody on a case-by-case basis. The county court's authority was inherent, and the cost was a court expense.
SDC 13.4609 and SDC 13.4621 required female prisoners to be segregated from male prisoners. SDC 13.4602 (as amended by Chapter 57 of the 1963 Session Laws) provided additional protections for female juveniles. The county judge had honored all these requirements by placing the girl in city jail women's facilities under the supervision of an older woman (the police matron). The fact that the facilities were physically under city control did not change the legal incidence of the cost.
The bottom line: the matron's reasonable and proper bill was payable by Moody County out of funds budgeted for the operation of the County Court.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1968. 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. South Dakota's juvenile justice system has been substantially modernized since 1968. Juvenile court jurisdiction now lives in modern SDCL chapter 26-8 (Juvenile Court) and related chapters, with significantly updated provisions on pre-hearing detention, secure facilities, fiscal responsibility, and the rights of juveniles. The county-pays-for-juvenile-court-expenses framework analyzed here has been refined by later legislation and intergovernmental agreements. Modern questions should be addressed under current law and Unified Judicial System guidance.
What the opinion meant at the time
For county courts handling juvenile delinquency cases, the opinion confirmed that pre-hearing custody costs were court expenses, just like process service and witness fees. The court could order custody in whatever appropriate facility was available (county, city, contract facility) without shifting the financial obligation to the host jurisdiction.
For Moody County (and other smaller South Dakota counties) without their own juvenile detention facilities, the opinion was both relief and warning. Relief because the county was not constitutionally responsible for building separate juvenile facilities; the county court could use existing city facilities under arrangement. Warning because the county was financially responsible for the resulting custody costs, which could mount over time. The discretionary power to contract for juvenile detention (under the 1961 amendment) was a tool the county could use to manage these costs, but the opinion did not require its use.
For cities with police matrons and women's jail facilities, the opinion clarified that hosting juvenile detention for the county did not commit the city to absorbing the cost. The matron's services in juvenile cases were billable to the county. Cities could budget for the visible facility upkeep (lighting, plumbing, etc.) but they were not on the hook for the variable cost of the actual juvenile detentions.
For police matrons, the opinion ensured they would get paid for their work. The bill had to be submitted through whatever process the county used (probably an application to the county auditor for approval and then a payment from the county treasurer), but the legal entity responsible for paying was identified.
For juveniles and their families, the opinion meant that the cost of pre-hearing detention was a public expense (paid by the county), not a private one chargeable to the juvenile or the parents. The opinion did not address whether costs could ultimately be assessed against parents in egregious cases under separate authority.
Common questions
Q: What if the juvenile was held for a longer period (e.g., several weeks because of an out-of-state guardian search)?
A: The county's obligation continued throughout the period of pre-hearing detention. A longer detention would mean a larger matron bill, but the county was on the hook for the whole amount as long as the court had ordered the detention and the matron was reasonably providing the services.
Q: What if the city refused to make its facilities available?
A: The opinion did not address that scenario. Cities had no general obligation to host county juvenile detentions. The county would have had to find a different arrangement, potentially contracting with another county that had facilities. The 1961 amendment to SDC 43.0309 contemplated counties making arrangements "by contract or otherwise," which suggested intergovernmental cooperation was the expected mode.
Q: What if the underlying offense was a state crime rather than a city ordinance violation?
A: The opinion's reasoning would have been the same. The juvenile delinquency proceeding was a county court matter regardless of the underlying allegation. Pre-hearing custody costs would still have been payable by the county.
Q: What if the juvenile was male and the county had male detention facilities?
A: The county would have detained the juvenile in its own facilities (subject to the SDC 43.0309 prohibition on common jail/lockup detention of under-15 juveniles, and the discretionary application of the prohibition for 15-and-over juveniles). The cost would have been an internal county expense rather than a city-billed expense, but it was still a county expense.
Q: Why was Moody County exempt from the mandatory-detention-arrangement provision?
A: Chapter 213 of the 1961 Session Laws had made it mandatory only for counties over 30,000 population to arrange juvenile detention by contract or otherwise. Smaller counties (Moody had a population well under 30,000) had discretion to do so, but were not required. The drafters' apparent reasoning was that smaller counties had fewer juvenile cases and could handle them ad hoc through county court orders.
Q: Did the SDC 13.4609 and SDC 13.4621 segregation requirements apply to juveniles specifically?
A: Those provisions addressed female prisoner segregation generally. SDC 43.0309 and SDC 13.4602 added juvenile-specific protections. The framework was that female juveniles had to be segregated from both male prisoners (under the general statutes) and from common jail/lockup detention (under the juvenile statutes), which together required a separate-women's-facility solution like the one the Moody County judge had ordered.
Q: Could the county recover the cost from the juvenile's parents?
A: The opinion did not address parental cost recovery. Some other South Dakota provisions on juvenile court costs may have addressed it. The county's payment obligation to the matron was direct and unconditional; whether the county could later recover from a parent was a separate question.
Background and statutory framework
South Dakota's juvenile justice system in 1968 was a hybrid: separate juvenile proceedings (SDC chapter 43.03 and related provisions) but with significant overlap with the general criminal procedure framework. Juvenile delinquency proceedings were not technically criminal, but they were court proceedings, with court costs, court records, and the full apparatus of judicial process.
The detention provisions in SDC 43.0309 (as amended by Chapter 213 of the 1961 Session Laws) reflected the era's policy of keeping juveniles out of common jails and lockups when possible. Children under 15 could not be held in common jails at all. Children 15 and over could be held in common jails at the court's discretion, but the preferred approach was still to find a non-jail alternative (sheriff's custody, police officer's custody, probation officer's custody, suitable place provided by the city or county).
Chapter 212 of the 1961 Session Laws had authorized the use of city jail facilities for juvenile custody when ordered by the court. That provision was the legal hook for the Moody County judge's order placing the girl in the Flandreau City Jail.
The SDC 13 segregation provisions (13.4609, 13.4621) were broader prison administration rules requiring male-female segregation. SDC 13.4602 (as amended in 1963) added protections for female juveniles, including the preference for older-woman custody. These rules constrained the judge's choice of where to place the girl, but they did not control who paid.
The AG's 1949-50 AGR 376 opinion had set the framework for thinking about juvenile proceeding costs as county court expenses. The 1968 opinion was an extension of that framework to a new context (pre-hearing custody in city facilities), but the underlying principle was unchanged: a county court proceeding generates county court expenses, regardless of which facility actually performs the service.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- SDC chapter 43.03 (1939, as amended) (juvenile proceedings; notice to parents)
- SDC 43.0306 (service of process in juvenile proceedings, payable by county)
- SDC 43.0308 (service of process in juvenile proceedings, payable by county)
- SDC 43.0309 (as amended by Chapter 213 of the 1961 Session Laws) (juvenile detention; under-15 mandatory non-jail; 15-and-over discretionary; counties over 30,000 must arrange detention)
- SDC 13.4602 (as amended by Chapter 57 of the 1963 Session Laws) (female juvenile protections)
- SDC 13.4609 (female-male segregation in confinement)
- SDC 13.4621 (female-male segregation in confinement)
- Chapter 212 of the 1961 Session Laws (authorizing use of city jail facilities for juvenile custody when ordered by court)
Prior AG opinions:
- 1949-50 AGR 376 (service-of-process and witness-fee costs in juvenile proceedings are county court expenses, payable from county court budget)
Source
Original opinion text
Minors. Expenses of safekeeping of minor child pending juvenile delinquency hearing are payable by the county rather than the city.
You have requested my official opinion based upon the following factual situation:
"A female child under the age of eighteen years but over the age of fifteen years was arrested in the City of Flandreau for violation of a City Ordinance and a petition was filed in County Court, Moody County, South Dakota to have said child declared a delinquent child. Because the child's parents resided outside the state, a considerable delay was encountered in order to give official notice to the parents as required by Chapter 43.03 SDC 1939, as amended.
"Because the offense was a violation of City Ordinance, which said ordinance was recited in the petition to find the child delinquent, the Moody County Judge ordered the child held, pending the hearing, in the new City Jail, City of Flandreau, as authorized by Chapter 212, 1961 South Dakota Session Laws, the last sentence thereof. The City of Flandreau has women's facilities available in its city jail and a matron also available. The Moody County jail has no facilities for women and it has been the practice of the Moody County Sheriff to deliver women prisoners to the County Jail of Minnehaha County, South Dakota.
"The alleged delinquent was held in the Flandreau City Jail for a period of a week or thereabouts and following disposition of her case, the police matron submitted a bill to the Moody Co. Sheriff for approval, for her services in acting as matron for the girl. The Sheriff disallowed approval and the bill was thereupon submitted to the City Council, City of Flandreau for payment, and said council denied the bill for payment."
Based upon such factual situation, you have asked the following question:
"Assuming that the bill of the matron is reasonable and proper, which governmental subdivision of the State of South Dakota should pay the bill in the instant case, the City of Flandreau or the County of Moody?"
It is my opinion that in the situation presented the obligation to pay the reasonable and proper bill of the matron rests upon the County, rather than the City.
My predecessor, in an opinion reported in 1949-50 AGR 376 dealt with the problem of who was liable to pay the costs of serving warrants, summons, subpoenas and such in juvenile proceedings, as well as who should pay witnesses, fees for witnesses appearing at such proceedings. My predecessor rules that in such case, and because a juvenile delinquency proceeding, while not criminal in character was a proceeding in a constituted court of the state, the expenses of serving process, as provided by SDC 43.0306 and 43.0308 was payable by the county from moneys budgeted for the court, and the county was also liable to pay witness fees which should be paid from the moneys budgeted for witness fees.
In my opinion, the reasoning in such opinion is applicable to the question here presented. The county judge had authority to set the delinquency matter for hearing and likewise he had the authority to order the child held in custody. SDC 43.0309 provides as follows:
"No child within the provisions of this chapter, under fifteen years of age, shall under any circumstances be incarcerated in any common jail or lockup, and no court or magistrate shall commit a child under fifteen years of age to a jail or police station, but if such child is unable to give bail it may be committed to the care of the sheriff, police officer, or probation officer, who shall keep such child in some suitable place provided by the city or county outside of the enclosure of any jail or police station; and in case such child be fifteen years of age or more, it shall be discretionary with the Court to order or commit such child to the care of the sheriff, police officer, or probation officer, who shall keep such child outside of the enclosure of any jail or lockup if the Court so orders."
(The amendment to this section shown in Chapter 213 of the Session Laws of 1961 makes it mandatory for counties over 30,000 population to make arrangements by contract or otherwise for the care and detention of children, and makes such duty discretionary in Moody County because of its population.)
The fact that Moody County has not exercised such discretionary power to provide by contract for care and safekeeping of juveniles is immaterial to the authority of the court as exercised. In the factual situation given the Court had the authority to require the girl be kept in a suitable place outside a common jail or lockup. SDC 13.4609 and SDC 13.4621 provide that females should be kept segregated from males when under confinement. Whenever possible, female children should be in the custody and care of an older woman. Certainly the statute does not require that the Court order such confinement to be made within the confines of the courthouse. The facts show that Moody County had no separate quarters for females, prisoners, or minors; the only facilities for females being at the city jail. The judge ordered the minor female to be placed in detention in a place segregated from the common jail or lockup and segregated from male prisoners. He placed her in the custody of a woman, a police matron. It is true that this place of confinement was in facilities under the control of the City of Flandreau.
From the standpoint of the city, certainly it had more than a casual interest in the matter, as such was a juvenile proceeding held by the County Court. From the standpoint of the police matron she was acting at the direction of the County Court in furnishing custody and control of the alleged delinquent juvenile pending the disposition of the delinquency hearing. See SDC 13.4602, as amended by Chapter 57, Session Laws of 1963.
The expenses of such custody and confinement as incurred by the matron are properly payable by the County of Moody from the funds budgeted for the operation of the County Court.