Following is the verbal order handed down Tuesday afternoon by Senior Superior Court Judge William H. Ison in the lawsuit between Fayette County Sheriff Randall Johnson and the Fayette County Board of Commissioners. The judge lifted a temporary injunction that had forced the sheriff to comply with county purchasing procedures and property disposal rules and use the county’s fleet maintenance for sheriff’s vehicles.

Judge Ison also ordered the sheriff and the county to work together to dispose of property the sheriff no longer uses, with proceeds from the sale of items purchased by drug seizure money going back into the drug seizure funds and all other items’ proceeds going back into the county’s general fund.

This does not end the lawsuit, however, as a trial will be pending unless both parties agree to drop their claims.
— John Munford

The Court has heard the testimony for the last two days presented by both of the parties here, and previously, the Court heard one day of testimony presented on behalf of the County, at the end of which time the Court entered a temporary restraining order requiring the Sheriff to purchase and sell through the County purchasing procedures and selling procedures the County property.

After hearing all the testimony presented here today and yesterday, the Court finds that the issue of harassment is not an issue before the Court. The acts complained of how the service of process [sic] did not constitute harassment. It’s legal to serve someone at home. It’s legal to have more than two — one or two persons go serve those papers. They did not threaten anybody at any time when these papers were served, and comments later on at a budget meeting by some other officer who didn’t serve the papers do not serve to constitute harassment at the time service was made.

As to the issue of the vehicles being inspected, the Court finds that that had become moot at the last hearing. The Sheriff, when he recognized that the vehicles could not be titled until that information was put on the MV-1s, agreed to and the Court understood that they could come over and get the information necessary and see the vehicles to be able to title them, get them insured and whatever was necessary to protect the assets of the County, along with the Sheriff. And the Sheriff has a duty also to protect them, and apparently, he recognized that during the hearing, and that’s now being complied with. As long as it’s being complied with, there’s no need for an injunction.

As to the buying and selling of property, the Court has heard the evidence of how the Sheriff has bought property and how he’s — the procedures that he goes through, and the Court first establishes, as set forth at Griffis versus Coweta County and other cases following that, once the budget is set for the sheriff, he can buy from that budget in his discretion so long as he doesn’t abuse that discretion. The County cannot dictate to him how he can buy and what he can buy from that budget.

The Court finds that it cannot find that it is likely to be a substantial chance that the County could prevail on the purchase of property at trial as he is substantially complying with the local act requiring him to purchase property in accordance with procedures similar to or in line with the County. And the information and testimony is he’s getting bids, using County — the State bid process and fairly looking after the property. This is not to say at a final trial some other judgment may not be issues, but I find there’s no chance — no likelihood of irreparable damage to the County in the meantime as it seems to be reasonable that the Sheriff is acting in the way he acts.

The Court at this time denies the temporary injunction and dissolves the restraining order previously put into effect on the — all except property, once it’s purchased and in the use of the Sheriff, once the Sheriff decides it’s no longer to be used, the disposition of that property shall be as — in cooperation with the County procedures for the disposition of the property. In other words, the vehicles should be — the Sheriff should say I no longer need this property and it shouldn’t be used. We need to decide how to dispose of the property. Like the federal property, if it’s disposed of, the money has got to be put back in the federal funds. The State fund seizure [sic], if it’s disposed of, it’s got to be put back in the State funds. The other property disposed of could be put into the general fund of the County’s general fund.

So I urge the parties to work together as to the disposition of property, and I deny the injunction as to all the other matters in the case. You can prepare an order to that effect.

login to post comments