[1995/oagheade.htm]

OAG 95-7

March 8, 1995

Subject: County Jail Prisoner Transportation Responsibility

Written by: Gerard Gerhard

Requested by: Hon. Mark Barger, Perry County Attorney

Syllabus: In accordance with the current language of KRS 441.510(1)(c), responsibility for transportation of county jail prisoners, in a county that has a jail, is not an urban county, and unless otherwise directed by the court, rests with the sheriff. OAG 82-166 has been rendered obsolete by legislative enactments subsequent to its issuance and is therefore overruled.

OAGs cited: 92-48, 82-166

Statutes construed: KRS 441.510, 441.510(1)(c)

OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The following question, in substance, has been presented:

Whose responsibility is it to transport prisoners lodged in the Perry County Jail on criminal charges, who must be transported to a regional psychiatric facility?

It is our understanding that Perry County has a county jail. Given the current language of KRS 441.510, in a county that has a jail, is not an urban-county, and unless otherwise ordered by the court, responsibility for transportation of prisoners held on criminal charges in the county jail, from the jail to a psychiatric facility, rests with the county sheriff. See KRS 441.510(1) and 441.510(1)(c). OAG 92-48.

The request to this office indicates that Opinion of the Attorney General (OAG) 92-48 is consistent with the view expressed above, but that such view seems to be in conflict with OAG 82-166. The answer to such point is that legislative enactments subsequent to issuance of OAG 82-166 have rendered that opinion obsolete in relation to current law regarding the responsibility for prisoner transportation. OAG 82-166 does not present a correct view in relation to current law regarding prisoner transportation, and is, therefore, overruled.

KRS 441.510 was amended subsequent to issuance of OAG 92-48 (Acts, 1992, ch. 89 � 2). A review of the amendment noted incident to preparation of this response indicated that the amendment did not affect the views expressed in OAG 92-48. Accordingly, we reaffirm or follow in this opinion, the views expressed in OAG 92-48.

CHRIS GORMAN

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Gerard R. Gerhard

Assistant Attorney General