Big Sandy Regional Jail Authority v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government
2016 SC 000008
| Ky. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- Big Sandy Regional Jail Authority (Authority) operates a regional jail for several counties under contracts; it billed Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (Urban County) for housing detainees arrested on Fayette County warrants but held at the Authority's facility.
- The Authority accepted those prisoners (arrested by officers from the Authority’s founding counties) pending transfer to Fayette facilities, then sought per-diem payment from Urban County, which refused.
- Authority sued in district court seeking reimbursement; Urban County moved to dismiss asserting sovereign immunity and that the arresting county (not the warrant-issuing county) bears incarceration costs.
- District court dismissed, finding Urban County immune and immunity not waived; circuit court affirmed on the alternative ground that the arresting counties (Johnson, Lawrence, Magoffin, Martin) were responsible for costs and deemed immunity moot.
- Supreme Court of Kentucky granted discretionary review and affirmed the circuit court, holding that custody/possession determines which county bears incarceration costs and that Authority must seek payment from the arresting counties under its contracts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears cost of incarcerating detainees arrested on another county's warrants? | Authority: KRS 441.025 requires the county that issued the warrant (Fayette) to pay incarceration costs. | Urban County: statute read with related law assigns responsibility to the arresting county (county in possession). | Court: Held cost follows possession/control — arresting counties (Johnson, Lawrence, Magoffin, Martin) are responsible once they arrested and had custody; if Fayette later assumes custody, Fayette becomes responsible. |
| Does KRS 441.025 unambiguously assign responsibility to warrant-issuing county? | Authority: plain reading supports warrant-issuing county responsibility. | Urban County: statute ambiguous; context and practice support arresting county responsibility. | Court: Statute unclear; interpreted via possession/control, criminal procedure rules, and statutory scheme — not an automatic obligation of warrant county. |
| Does Urban County have sovereign immunity from suit by Authority? | Authority: immunity waived by implication under KRS 441.025. | Urban County: sovereign immunity applies; no waiver. | Court: Affirmed circuit court but on different grounds (possession rule); circuit court had found immunity moot and district court found immunity not waived. Majority did not rely on immunity as basis for affirmance. |
| Contractual remedies for Authority to collect per-diem | Authority: entitled to per-diem from county responsible for incarceration. | Urban County: not liable absent contract; Authority cannot force payment by a non-contracting county. | Court: Authority’s entitlement arises from contracts — it may enforce contracts against counties that are contractually obligated (here, the arresting counties), but not against non-contracting Fayette/Urban County. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bob Hook Chevrolet Isuzu, Inc. v. Com. Transp. Cabinet, 983 S.W.2d 488 (Ky. 1998) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Cinelli v. Ward, 997 S.W.2d 474 (Ky. App. 1998) (interpretation of statutes receives no deference on appeal)
- Louisville Edible Oil Prods., Inc. v. Revenue Cabinet, 957 S.W.2d 272 (Ky. App. 1997) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Stinson v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 900 (Ky. 2013) (plain-meaning rule in statutory interpretation)
- Wheeler & Clevenger Oil Co., Inc. v. Washburn, 127 S.W.3d 609 (Ky. 2004) (use of legislative directions in interpreting statutes)
- Shawnee Telecom Res., Inc. v. Brown, 354 S.W.3d 542 (Ky. 2011) (resort to extrinsic aids only when statute is ambiguous)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (48-hour rule regarding unreasonable pretrial detention)
- Porter v. Commonwealth, 841 S.W.2d 166 (Ky. 1992) (specific statutory provisions control over general ones)
- Kenton & Campbell Benev. Burial Ass'n v. Goodpaster, 200 S.W.2d 120 (Ky. 1946) (in absence of statute, common law principles apply)