Sheriff wins mixed victory at Ga. Supreme Court

Mon, 05/08/2006 - 1:03pm
By: Cal Beverly

By CAL BEVERLY
editor@TheCitizen.com

The Georgia Supreme Court today (May 8) handed the Fayette County Commission a setback and Fayette County Sheriff Randall Johnson a partial victory in a dispute over the status of the county marshals’ powers.

The court sent the case back to trial here to determine if the dozen-man marshal’s department was actually operating as a county police department in 1992, when a state law required a voter referendum before empowering a county police force.

However, the court ruled that the county commission in 1989 did legally create a county police department, even though the officers retained the title of marshals and no announcement was ever made by the county of the creation of such a force.

The only question to be decided now, the high court said, is whether the marshals were acting like a county police force in 1992, a key element in whether the sheriff or the county will win the lawsuit.

The commission in 1989 “intended to create within the [Fayette County Marshal’s Department] a county police force with full police powers,” the high court ruled.

“Johnson contends that there remain factual issues regarding whether the FCMD was in operation and existence as a county police force on Jan. 1, 1992,” the ruled stated. “Construing the facts and inferences most favorably to Johnson, as the non-moving party, we agree.”

The court ruling stated, “In opposition to the County’s summary judgment motion, Johnson relied on the affidavit testimony of Billy Beckett, the county administrator from 1985 through 2000, and Daniel Lakly, a Fayette County Commissioner from January 1989 until December 1992, both of whom averred that during their tenure the FCMD was only authorized to monitor county property, assist with internal investigations involving county employees and enforce county ordinances.”

The ruling continued, “More specifically, both men stated in their affidavits that during the relevant time period FCMD marshals did not patrol traffic or operate radar devices, did not conduct criminal investigations other than in relation to violations of county ordinances, did not serve warrants or civil process, did not make felony arrests, with the possible exception of one involving a county employee, and the FCMD did not operate as a county police force."

The ruling continued, “This evidence authorizes an inference that the FCMD, although authorized to operate as a county police force on Jan. 1,1992, was not in operation and existence as such police force as of Jan. 1, 1992. Accordingly, we find the trial court erred in granting summary judgment as to these factual issues.”

The dispute between the sheriff and the county commission came to a head in August 2003, when the sheriff notified the county that the jail would no longer accept prisoners arrested by marshals, since the sheriff believed the marshals had no police power to make arrests.

“After attempts to resolve the dispute proved unsuccessful, Fayette County filed suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, contending that the FCMD is a county police force and that the Sheriff was acting illegally by not accepting prisoners arrested by FCMD marshals,” the high court said. “The trial court granted summary judgment to Fayette County, finding that on Jan. 1, 1992 the FCMD was an established, operational, and functional county law enforcement agency with full arrest powers.”

It is that issue that the Supreme Court sent back to Fayette County Superior Court for a trial.

The full ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court follows:

In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: May 8, 2006
S06A0160. JOHNSON v. FAYETTE COUNTY.
HUNSTEIN, Presiding Justice.
The Fayette County Marshal’s Department (“FCMD”) was created in 1983 when the county, acting through its Board of Commissioners, adopted Section 2-4 of the Fayette County Code of Ordinances. In August 2003, the Fayette County Sheriff, appellant Richard Johnson, notified the Board that he would no longer jail persons detained by FCMD marshals based on his belief that the Department was not an authorized county police force. After attempts to resolve the dispute proved unsuccessful, Fayette County filed suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, contending that the FCMD is a county police force and that the Sheriff was acting illegally by not accepting prisoners arrested by FCMD marshals. The trial court granted summary judgment to Fayette County, finding that on January 1, 1992 the FCMD was an established, operational, and functional county law enforcement agency with full arrest powers.
The Fayette County Marshal’s Department (“FCMD”) was created in 1983 when the county, acting through its Board of Commissioners, adopted Section 2-4 of the Fayette County Code of Ordinances. In August 2003, the Fayette County Sheriff, appellant Richard Johnson, notified the Board that he would no longer jail persons detained by FCMD marshals based on his belief that the Department was not an authorized county police force. After attempts to resolve the dispute proved unsuccessful, Fayette County filed suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, contending that the FCMD is a county police force and that the Sheriff was acting illegally by not accepting prisoners arrested by FCMD marshals. The trial court granted summary judgment to Fayette County, finding that on January 1, 1992 the FCMD was an established, operational, and functional county law enforcement agency with full arrest powers.
The Fayette County Marshal’s Department (“FCMD”) was created in 1983 when the county, acting through its Board of Commissioners, adopted Section 2-4 of the Fayette County Code of Ordinances. In August 2003, the Fayette County Sheriff, appellant Richard Johnson, notified the Board that he would no longer jail persons detained by FCMD marshals based on his belief that the Department was not an authorized county police force. After attempts to resolve the dispute proved unsuccessful, Fayette County filed suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, contending that the FCMD is a county police force and that the Sheriff was acting illegally by not accepting prisoners arrested by FCMD marshals. The trial court granted summary judgment to Fayette County, finding that on January 1, 1992 the FCMD was an established, operational, and functional county law enforcement agency with full arrest powers. Johnson appeals from that order, and for the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
1. OCGA § 36-8-1 (b) grants to each county the power to create a county police force. Pursuant to this authority, prior to 1992 any county could create a county police force by electing or appointing a county police force. Ga. L. 1914, p. 142 § 1. See OCGA § 36-8-1 (a). The General Assembly amended OCGA § 36-8-1 in 1992, however, to require voter approval of a resolution or ordinance creating a county police force before it can become effective. Ga. L. 1992, p. 324 § 1; OCGA § 36-8-1 (b) (1). OCGA § 36-8-1 (c) includes a “grandfather” clause rendering the referendum requirement of subsection (b) (1) inapplicable “to any county which has created a county police force prior to January 1, 1992, which county police force remains in existence and operational.” Id. at (c).
Johnson contends that the FCMD is not a valid county police force because there was no referendum approving its creation. The County asserts that no referendum was required because the FCMD is a county police force created prior to January 1, 1992. To prevail on summary judgment, therefore, Fayette County was required to demonstrate that there was no genuine issue of appeals from that order, and for the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
1. OCGA § 36-8-1 (b) grants to each county the power to create a county police force. Pursuant to this authority, prior to 1992 any county could create a county police force by electing or appointing a county police force. Ga. L. 1914, p. 142 § 1. See OCGA § 36-8-1 (a). The General Assembly amended OCGA § 36-8-1 in 1992, however, to require voter approval of a resolution or ordinance creating a county police force before it can become effective. Ga. L. 1992, p. 324 § 1; OCGA § 36-8-1 (b) (1). OCGA § 36-8-1 (c) includes a “grandfather” clause rendering the referendum requirement of subsection (b) (1) inapplicable “to any county which has created a county police force prior to January 1, 1992, which county police force remains in existence and operational.” Id. at (c).
Johnson contends that the FCMD is not a valid county police force because there was no referendum approving its creation. The County asserts that no referendum was required because the FCMD is a county police force created prior to January 1, 1992. To prevail on summary judgment, therefore, Fayette County was required to demonstrate that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts established that the FCMD is a county police force created prior to January 1, 1992, which remains in existence and operational. OCGA § 36-87-1 (c). See OCGA § 9-11-56; Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (405 SE2d 474) (1991). It is undisputed that the County, acting by and through its board of commissioners and pursuant to the authority of OCGA § 36-8-1, established the FCMD in 1983. At that time, a FCMD marshal was responsible for the enforcement of the laws and ordinances of the county, including but not limited to, county zoning, environmental, and business ordinances. In 1989, the Board adopted Resolution No. 89-07, which by its express language expanded the duties of the previously established FCMD by granting to it the powers of county police generally, including the power of arrest and the power to execute and return warrants and processes, as wells as “all the powers of the Sheriff as peace officers in Fayette County.”
The plain language of this resolution, which tracks the language in OCGA § 36-8-5 (general powers of county police), demonstrates that by its adoption the Board intended to create within the FCMD a county police force with full police powers. Although Johnson presented evidence that one Board member material fact and that the undisputed facts established that the FCMD is a county police force created prior to January 1, 1992, which remains in existence and operational. OCGA § 36-87-1 (c). See OCGA § 9-11-56; Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (405 SE2d 474) (1991). It is undisputed that the County, acting by and through its board of commissioners and pursuant to the authority of OCGA § 36-8-1, established the FCMD in 1983. At that time, a FCMD marshal was responsible for the enforcement of the laws and ordinances of the county, including but not limited to, county zoning, environmental, and business ordinances. In 1989, the Board adopted Resolution No. 89-07, which by its express language expanded the duties of the previously established FCMD by granting to it the powers of county police generally, including the power of arrest and the power to execute and return warrants and processes, as wells as “all the powers of the Sheriff as peace officers in Fayette County.”
The plain language of this resolution, which tracks the language in OCGA § 36-8-5 (general powers of county police), demonstrates that by its adoption the Board intended to create within the FCMD a county police force with full police powers. Although Johnson presented evidence that one Board member may have possessed a contrary intent, he points to no language or ambiguity in the resolution in support of an alternative construction. Where the language of a statute, or as in this case, an ordinance, is clear and does not lead to an unreasonable or absurd result, “’it is the sole evidence of the ultimate legislative intent.’” (Footnote omitted.) Ray v. Barber, 273 Ga. 856 (1) (548 SE2d 283) (2001). See Risser v. Thomasville, 248 Ga. 866 (286 SE2d 727) (1982) (applying rules of statutory construction to municipal ordinances). We therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment on the issue of whether the FCMD is a county police force created prior to January 1,1992. 2. Johnson contends that there remain factual issues regarding whether the FCMD was in operation and existence as a county police force on January 1, 1992. Construing the facts and inferences most favorably to Johnson, as the non-moving party, we agree. See Lau’s, supra, 261 Ga. at 491. In opposition to the County’s summary judgment motion, Johnson relied on the affidavit testimony of Billy Beckett, the county administrator from 1985 through 2000, and Daniel Lakly, a Fayette County Commissioner from January 1989 until December 1992, both of whom averred that during their tenure the FCMD was only authorized to monitor county property, assist with internal may have possessed a contrary intent, he points to no language or ambiguity in the resolution in support of an alternative construction. Where the language of a statute, or as in this case, an ordinance, is clear and does not lead to an unreasonable or absurd result, “’it is the sole evidence of the ultimate legislative intent.’” (Footnote omitted.) Ray v. Barber, 273 Ga. 856 (1) (548 SE2d 283) (2001). See Risser v. Thomasville, 248 Ga. 866 (286 SE2d 727) (1982) (applying rules of statutory construction to municipal ordinances). We therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment on the issue of whether the FCMD is a county police force created prior to January 1,1992. 2. Johnson contends that there remain factual issues regarding whether the FCMD was in operation and existence as a county police force on January 1, 1992. Construing the facts and inferences most favorably to Johnson, as the non-moving party, we agree. See Lau’s, supra, 261 Ga. at 491. In opposition to the County’s summary judgment motion, Johnson relied on the affidavit testimony of Billy Beckett, the county administrator from 1985 through 2000, and Daniel Lakly, a Fayette County Commissioner from January 1989 until December 1992, both of whom averred that during their tenure the FCMD was only authorized to monitor county property, assist with internal investigations involving county employees and enforce county ordinances. More specifically, both men stated in their affidavits that during the relevant time period FCMD marshals did not patrol traffic or operate radar devices, did not conduct criminal investigations other than in relation to violations of county ordinances, did not serve warrants or civil process, did not make felony arrests, with the possible exception of one involving a county employee, and the FCMD did not operate as a county police force. This evidence authorizes an inference that the FCMD, although authorized to operate as a county police force on January 1,1992, was not in operation and existence as such police force as of January 1, 1992. Accordingly, we find the trial court erred in granting summary judgment as to these factual issues.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. All the Justices concur, except Melton, J., who concurs in part and dissents in part.

MELTON, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the FCMD had been properly created prior to January 1, 1992. Because the evidence of record undisputedly shows, however, that the FCMD was also both in existence and performing certain police functions as of that date, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that a question of fact remains with regard to this issue.
A county police force created prior to January 1, 1992 is grandfathered and exempted from the procedural requirements of OCGA § 36-8-1 if it “remains in existence and operational” as of January 1, 1992. OCGA § 36-8-1 (c). An entity is operational when it works or is ready to use. In the simplest terms, something is operational if it functions when called upon to do so. Here, the only facts of record show undisputedly that the FCMD was not only capable of functioning when called upon to do so, but that it actually did function to monitor property, investigate County employees, enforce County ordinances, conduct criminal investigations regarding county ordinances, carry firearms, and make at least one felony arrest. In addition, budget excerpts, policy and procedure manuals, minutes of meetings of the Board, police incident reports, citations issued by the officers employed by the FCMD, and the unambiguous language of the resolution itself, all demonstrate that the FCMD existed on January 1, 1992, and remained in existence and in operation as a police force since that pivotal date. Therefore, the FCMD was both operational and operating at the time in question.
Certain unsupported and conclusory legal opinions given by two lay county officials in their affidavits do not alter this result. Both county officials averred that the FCMD did not engage in a number of police activities such as patrolling traffic or using radar. These officials also include the unauthorized legal opinion in their affidavits that the FCMD did not operate as a County Police Force at the time in question. The inaccuracy of these improper legal opinions, however, is proven by other facts provided in their own affidavits.
Both county officials averred that there were, in fact, a number of police functions that the FCMD was carrying out, including criminal investigations, felony arrests, and all of those powers listed in the preceding paragraph. It would be illogical to conclude that a police force cannot be considered operational because it performed some police powers but not others.
Thus, they admit that the FCMD, despite their erroneous opinion otherwise, was both in existence and performing police functions during their tenure as county officials. As a result, their unauthorized legal opinion cannot raise a question of fact where the evidence directly contradicts it. See OCGA § 36-8-1 (c); Southeast Reducing Co. v. Wasserman, 229 Ga. App. 1 (2) (493 SE2d 201) (1997).
Based on the undisputed evidence that the FCMD was authorized to operate as a county police force, and indeed was in operation and existence as such police force, I would hold that it was not error for the trial court to award summary judgment in favor of the County and against Sheriff Johnson in the Sheriff’s claim that the FCMD did not qualify for grandfather status.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by southerncooking2 on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 8:19pm.

So Randall wins a mixed victory. He seems to be on a roll over the last couple of weeks. Could it be that he has finally put a muzzle the mouth of the south? Don't bet on it.

Did anyone besides me notice that as soon as this drama with the King and his Court hit the Courts that the mouth of the south disappeared...not a peep out of him. Very strange.

Does anyone really believe that Randall can keep the mouth of the south on a short leash? No, he can't, at least for long.

Randall, for such a smart lawman, how come it is you don't realize what EVERYONE who works for you knows about the south? Hmmmmmmm

Maybe ghosts scare even lawmen.

As for old King Dunn and Old Queen Linda, well the days until January 1, 2008 are clicking off quite nicely. When are you going to give up and realize that you played the game badly and lost because you didn't play the game smartly.

Tic-Toc-Tic-Toc

By the way, what happened to the natural?

Submitted by uh oh on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 7:28pm.

Haven't you heard? The "mouth of the south" has been silenced for now...he's sure scared of ghosts and SKELETONS. He mixed a potion for commotion- personal and business. Funny thing how the ego can make you delusional. He's probably going down for this one- not sure how he's gonna get out of it- hope he's reading this... they're coming after you- the ghosts I mean. BOO!

uh oh

Submitted by snark on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 7:58pm.

that every time Greg Dunn's stuff hits the fan, his people are here trying to make it all about Bruce Jordan.

Submitted by wannabeme2 on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 9:02pm.

I agree with you Windy, I mean why are people always trying to pick on Bruce Jordan? He's always been a stand up kind of guy, right? Bruce is his name and law enforcement is his game (or at least one of them)
All this talk about ghosts is just plain silly. What in the world would Bruce Jordan have to hide? For goodness sake, he is always on call spending countless hours with his subordniates solving crime in Fayette County.
I wonder when his next book will be published. Most likely it will be called Tails of Fayette County.

Get Real's picture
Submitted by Get Real on Wed, 05/10/2006 - 5:59am.

Hey all. A little disclaimer here for wannabeme2. Wannabeme2 and uh oh are the same person. They both signed on within a couple of minutes of each other 2 weeks and 5 days ago this time. It's funny how their timing coincides with that of when Janet the Natural decided to depart the scene after that barage upon her senseless defense of hubby? Any connection now????? I can't verify for sure because I do not have the talent of the county police force at my fingertips.


Submitted by uh oh on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 8:02pm.

Sorry Bruce, I mean Windy- I don't like Dunn either- sorry to burst your bubble but I'm not one of Dunn's people- you can't hide behind that pretense anymore-

uh oh!

Submitted by fayetteobservers on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 2:51pm.

Your readers enjoy the forum for open opinion. We also appreciate your opinions.

One of your earlier opinions suggested that the Sheriff and Commission attempt to work this out.....

What is your opinion now ?

Submitted by fran sheldon on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 4:16pm.

Mr. Beverly and the newspaper are most certainly appreciated by most of us. Thank you for this forum and thank you for taking the time to express and share your opinions.

Mrs. Fran Sheldon

mapleleaf's picture
Submitted by mapleleaf on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 2:08pm.

What an interesting decision by the Supreme Court of Georgia!

The first thing I don't get is why the court would call Randall Johnson Richard Johnson. Is that a message about their competence? Is Randall a nickname covering up for Richard (like Chipper substituting for Larry Jones, at the Atlanta Braves)?

The other thing I don't get is why the county commission would have called the county police force "marshals" if it intended to establish a county police force. Why not call it the Fayette County police? Was the commission being cute, trying not to upset the sheriff by using a euphemism?

Obviously, the marshals have proven to be an almost do-nothing police force since their creation, leaving Randall Johnson to do all the law enforcement heavy lifting. That seems to be have been on purpose.

Courts like the Supreme Court seem to a lot of people to be wise and all-knowing. In fact, they are committees of law-trained people who, like all committees, have all the flaws of committees. For each case, there is a lead justice, principally in charge of that case. He takes the initiative, proposes a decision, and sees how many votes he gets. So here we got six votes to have the whole mess thrown into the lap of twelve citizens (jurors) who will be selected for their lack of knowledge about any of this. That gives you an idea of the likelihood of their being competent.

One lesson here is that when the county commission intends to create a police force, it should name it "police force." Straight shooters call a spade a spade.

The most significant point, however, likely to be missed, is the isssue of whether it would be desirable for Fayette County to have a real police force. That's not what the jurors will be called upon to decide. But that is the real issue.


Submitted by iluvthebubble on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 1:32pm.

I wonder how Gregg Dunn is going to spin this one!

mudcat's picture
Submitted by mudcat on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 6:43pm.

All Greg can do is keep insisting that he was right and the courts are wrong and he is going to appeal the decision to continue the good fight for the citizens of Fayette County. Most of will see through that I hope, but you never know.
meow


Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 9:04am.

You can't appeal from the Highest Court in Georgia to any other court, so how do you propose he does that? Federal Courts must have some type of jurisidiction, and this case ain't one of 'em.

Now that I read the Surpreme Court's opinion, I'm dumbfounded again as to what and why this matter was litigated. The 1992 law went into effect to protect the many Sheriff offices from all over Georgia. It seems that many County Commissioners were getting tired of their sheriff's dept, so they took their policing powers away and hired their own police department. Then the Sheriffs got together and changed the law to prevent his from occurring. So, why and how this matter was to be litigated is again beyond my understanding. It didn't even seem like these issues were even close.


tortugaocho's picture
Submitted by tortugaocho on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 9:21am.

Good points by Mr. Hobbes...Many of us read this stuff where people say "another appeal"--- thanks for setting it straight. The other point--- how obvious this stuff looks---- apparently never dawned on anyone at the County commission level or at Stonewall. You see, if Greg Dunn was constantly litigating with people (Sheriff, Tyrone, etc) and WINNING it would be different. He is promoting all this wasteful litigation in our own county and LOSING. Either Dunn & Company are irrational and uncontrollable or they are getting consistently bad advice. Mr. Hobbes says "It didn't even seem like these issues were even close." Apparently Judge Ison felt the same way because he found it easy to just pull the trigger. How much have all these antics cost us ?


Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 6:55am.

And after 6 months and thousands of county dollars spent on attorney's fees - nothing. The county does not need a police force and the current law insists that the voters decide. What chance is there of a majority supporting something like that?

Dunn is way off base on this one and it might even cost him the election. I didn't think he could lose before this, but now? Who knows.

What a stupid issue to choose to fight about in an election year.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.