Opinion No.
Background
- Question presented whether a reserve sheriff's deputy (as defined by Arkansas law) may simultaneously serve as a justice of the peace.
- Question also asks whether the non-profit status of the reserve deputy program and lack of county funding affects the compatibility of holding both offices.
- Attorney General concludes that concurrent service as justice of the peace and reserve deputy sheriff is not permitted, regardless of payment source or program status.
- Authorities cited include Arkansas statute provisions on deputy sheriffs (A.C.A. §§ 12-9-301 to -308, 12-9-303) and broader incompatibility principles under constitutional and statutory law.
- The analysis relies on precedent that the power exercised by a deputy is co-extensive with the sheriff and that the prohibition targets the exercise of power across branches, not the mere existence of dual offices.
- Key older authorities cited: StateBank v. Curran (1849) and State v. Hutt (1839), supporting that concurrent service in sheriff/deputy roles violates dual-office restrictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a reserve deputy sheriff serve as justice of the peace at the same time? | Baker: dual service may be permissible depending on payment structure. | McDaniel: dual service prohibited; power exercised by deputy is the issue, not payment. | Not permissible; concurrent service prohibited. |
| Does the reserve deputy program being a non-profit and county-funding difference affect the rule? | Payment/source should affect conflict rules. | Conflict rules focus on dual service itself, not funding source. | Not relevant; rule applies regardless of nonprofit status or funding. |
Key Cases Cited
- StateBank v. Curran, 10 Ark. 142 (Ark. 1849) (power of deputy co-extensive with sheriff; prohibition on cross-branch exercise)
- State v. Hutt, 2 Ark. 282 (Ark. 1839) (duality of sheriff/deputy roles implicated in earlier decisions)