Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1979.02.01 - 12305• February 1, 1979 Miscellaneous Resolution # BY: Alexander C. Perinoff, District #21 IN RE: Oakland County Organized Crime Strike Force TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: WHEREAS the Oakland County Prosecutor has formed within his department a county police force performing police functions and duties of the Oakland County Sheriff, under the style name of "Oakland County Organized Crime Strike Force"; and WHEREAS the Oakland County Board of Commissioners did fund such strike force operation in the Prosecutor's budget for the year 1979; and WHEREAS by such funding the Oakland County Board of Commissioners did thereby acquiesce and effectually did establish such police force within the Prosecutor's department which is separate and independent of the Oakland County Sheriff; and WHEREAS Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General for the State of Michigan, did an opinion #5304 dated April 27th, 1978, declare that a county board of commissioners are without authority to create a police force, a copy of said opinion being attached hereto: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that all further funding of the Organized Crime Strike Force within the Prosecutor's department be and is hereby terminated and any remaining funds budgeted in that area be placed in the contingency fund; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if it is the desire of the Board of Commissioners to carry on with the activities of said Organized Crime Strike Force then and in that event, all of its activities be transferred to the Sheriff's department subject to the aegis, direction and control of the Sheriff who legally has the responsibility of police activities as indicated in the attached opinion; `1n • 8807 Miscellaneous Resolution #_ February 1, 1979 Oakland County Organized Strike Force Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if it is the decision of the Board of Commissioners to allow the Organized Crime Strike Force to be under the complete control of the Prosecutor's Office, then and in that event a letter be directed to Oakland County's liability insurer requesting their opinion as to whether they would defend the County in any law suits and/or pay any claims submitted or judgments rendered against the County resulting from the acts of the Organized Crime Strike Force while such strike force is under the control and direction of the Prosecutor, in light of Section 5.751 of the Michigan Statutes Annotated which states that the Prosecutor's responsibilities are simply to prosecute or defend in all the courts of the county, all prosecutions...whether civil or criminal in which the state or county may be party or interested; and in further light of the attached opinion. I, Alexander C. Perinoff, move the adoption of the foregoing resolution. Alexander C. Perinoff District #21 STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL SHERIFFS: Establishment of a county police force by board of county commissioners COUNTIES: Establishment of a county police force by board of county commissioners BOARDS & COMMISSIONS: Establishment of a county police force by board of county commissioners The county board of commissioners is without authority to create a police department within the county which would perform functions that are the responsibility of the sheriff. Opinion No. 5304 April 27, 1978 The Honorable Claude A. Trim State Representative Capitol Building Lansing, Michigan 48901 You have requested my opinion as to whether a county board of commissioners may establish a county police or security force that is independent of the county sheriff; presumably members of such a police force are to exercise the powers of a peace - officer. The principal enumeration of the powers of a county board of commissioners is contained in 1851 PA 156, S 11; MCLA 46.11; NSA 5.331. Subsection 13 of this section confers general legislative power upon the board, but it limits that power as follows: "A county board of commissioners, at any meeting thereof lawfully held, may: . . . •nn "Thirteenth, pass laws, regulations, and ordinances relating to purely county affairs as they may see fit, but which shall not contravene the general laws of this state . . . amend any local act of the legislature in force in their county and referring to matters within the jurisdiction of the county board of commissioners or touching the Opinion No. 5304 local powers and duties of county officers, but the county board of commissioners shall not increase or extend its own powers, duties, or jurisdiction and shall not have jurisdic- tion over the circuit court; . . ." (Emphasis supplied) A county board of commissioners has only those powers which are prescribed by law, or which are incident and necessary to the performance of their express powers and duties. 'Washtenaw Abstract Co v Mayer, 347 Mich 228; 79 NW2d 480 (1957), Wright v Bartz, 339 Mich 55; 62 NW2d 458 (1954). Examination of the law prescribing the powers of the board of commissioners discloses no authorization for the creation of a police force which would perform functions already within the authority of the county sheriff. On the contrary, the emphasized language in 1851 PA 156, S 11, subsection 13, supra, indicates that the board is expressly prohibited from contravening state law and from expanding its own powers. — The county sheriff is charged by state law with the responsibilities which the "county police force" would be expected to assume. The powers of the sheriff are detailed in chapter 14, RS 1846; MCLA 51.68 et sea; NSA 5.861 et seq, and more specifi- cally, MCLA 51.221; NSA 5.881 which provides that the sheriff should exercise all the powers and duties of a constable. The sheriff is also invested with duties under common law so that, "It is the duty of the sheriff and police officers generally to enforce those laws which the people have enacted for the protec- tion of their lives, persons, property, health, and morals . . .". Scougale v Sweet, 124 Mich 311, 323; 82 NW 1061 (1900). It has been recognized that a county board of commissioners may not directly interfere with the exercise of the authority conferred upon the sheriff. OAG 1947-48 No 755, p665 (June 2, 1948). In Brown v Hill, 216 Mich 520; 185 NW 751 (1921) the Opinion No. 5304 Court considered the attempt of a county board to adopt an ordinance transferring the responsibilities of the county board of auditors to the board of supervisors. The Court discussed the provision of 1851 PA 156, § 11, subsection 13, supra, and concluded that: • . The action of the board of supervisors in adopting said ordinance was repugnant to, and violated and infringed the plain terms of the statute, which provides, in clear language, that the board of supervisors shall not have power to increase or extend its own powers, duties or jurisdiction. . . . Whatever other power the board of supervisors possessed, there certainly has not been conferred upon that body the power to increase or extend its .own powers, duties or jurisdiction, and that was sought to be done here." 216 Mich at 526, -527 The creation of a county fire department was the subject of two prior formal opinions of the Attorney General. In OAG 1941-42 No 24062, p 629 (June 24, 1942) it was determined that a county which did not meet the population requirements of 1942 PA 15; MCLA 46.301 et seq; MSA 5.2586(1) et seq, had no authority to provide fire protection. Similarly, in OAG 1957-58, Vol II, No 3110, p 125 (May 14,1958) it was determined that a county could not purchase fire fighting equipment. Thug, it is clear that the delegation of law enforcement responsibilities to any entity other than the sheriff would contra- vene general state laws. In addition, such a delegation would tend to increase the powers, duties and jurisdiction of the county board of commissioners by transferring a measure of the sheriff's authority to an organization responsibile to the board and not to the sheriff. Therefore, a county board of commissioners is prohibited from creating such a police force. The foregoing reasoning and conclusions are equally applicable to a county organized under the unified form of county Opinion No. 5304 government pursuant to 1973 PA 139; MCLA 45.551 et seq; NSA 5.302(51) et seq. Section 4 of the act, MCLA 45.554; NSA 5.302(54) provides in part: "(4) The power vested in the office of county prosecuting attorney, county sheriff, county register of deeds, county clerk, county treasurer, county drain commissioner, or the board of county road commissioners and elected county auditor shall not be minimized or divested by. any provision of this act." (Emphasis supplied) In summary, it is my opinion that a county board of commissioners is without authority to create a police department within the county which would perform functions that are the responsibility of the sheriff. Lei& iNK JA/LLEY 4ttorney Gener'g #8807 February 1, 1979 The Chairperson referred the resolution to the Public Service Committee and the Finance Committee. There were no objections.