3 3 8 [8 5 O p
. A tt ’y
SHE RI FFS
C ODE H OM E R ULE C OUNTI ES

– S HE RI FF ’ S A UT HORI T Y W I TH R ESPEC T T O C ONS T RU CT I ON OF N E W D E T E NT I ON C E N TER AN D T RA I NI NG OF E MP LOYEES

D ece m ber19, 2000

W i l l i am M

. R udd, Es q. C o u n ty A tto rn e

y fo r A lleg a ny C o u n ty O n behal f of t he B oar d of C ount y C om m i s s i oner s of A l l egany C ount y ( t he “C ount yC om m i s s i oner s ”) , y ou have a s ked ouropi ni on conce r ni ng the author i t yof t he Sher i ff of A l l eganyC ount y( t he

“ S h e rif f ” ) in re g a rd to p lan n in g a n d c o n stru c tio n o f a n e w C o u n ty det ent i on cent er
. W e under s t and t haty ourr eq u est ar os e outof a di s put e betw een the C ount yC om m issi oner s and t he Sher i ff c o n c e rn in g th e s e rv ice s o f a c o n su ltan t re tain e d b yth e C o u n ty C om m i s s i oner s i n connec t i on w i t h t he des i gn and devel opm ent of t he new d eten ti on cent er
. A l t hough t he mat t erhas now been r es ol ved, y ou s eek gui dance conce r ni ng t he l egal fr amew or k t hat g o v e r n s th e re latio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e S h e rif f a n d th e C o u n ty C om m i s s i oner s
. I n par t i cul ar , y ou as k: ( 1) M ayt he Sher i ff make dec i s i ons conce r ni ng the new det ent i on cent erdur i ng i t s cons t ruct i on, befor e t he fa ci l i t yi s tur ned overt o t he Sher i ff? (2) M a y t he Sh eri ff decl i ne t o gi ve t he consult ant acce ss to t he curr entdet ent i on cent erfort he purpos e of tr ai ni ng d etent i on center em pl oy ees on cor r ect i onal m et hods t o be us ed att he new f a c i l i t y?
I n ouropi ni on, w hi l e t he Sher i ff l acks aut h o ri ty to make deci s i ons conce r ni ng t he cons t ruct i o n o f the new det ent i on cent er befor e he a s s um es r es pons i bi l i t yfori t s oper at i on, he may , and s houl d, par t i ci pat e i n pl ann ing rel at ed t o t he oper at i on of t hat fac i l i t y
. M or eover , as l ong as t he Sher i ff r et ai ns r es pons i bi l i t yfor oper at i ng t he C ou n tydet ent i on cent er , t he Sher i ff ne ed notus e a cons ul t ants el ect ed by t he C ount yC om m i s s i oner s t o t r ai n det ent i on centerem ploy ees on c orr ect i on al m at t ers
.G en. 338] 339

Th e ne w d e te nti on c e nter wi ll inc lud e po du lar l ivi ngun its . T his 1 de sign w il l allo w i nmate s w ith in a un it t o h avemore int e ra c tio n whil e the ir a c tiv iti e s arec on sta

ntly mon ito re d b y

a c or re c tional of

fi c e r who is s t at i o n e d w i th i nth e un i t

) a m et h od ref erred to as “ direc t supervision.” In contra st, the current detention center is of a tradit i o n al design that require s the use of “ indirect sup ervision”

) i.e., correctional of fice rs monitor inmate activity through intermittent surveillance . For a description of “new g eneration jails” using podula r units, see B aye ns , e t. al., J ail Ty pean d I nm ate B e ha v ior : A Longitud ina l A na ly

sis , 61 Fe d. Probation 54 (September

1997). I Backg r ound A
. A l legany Count

y D etenti on C enter T he exi s t i ng A l l egany C ount yD et ent i on C ent er , bui l ti n 1969 and l ocat ed behi nd t he C our tH ous e i n C um ber l and, i s oper at ed by t he Sher i ff. T he C ount yi s cur r ent l ycons t ruct i ng a new 190- bed d e ten tio n c e n ter o u tsid e C u m b e rla n d w ith a c o m b in a tio n o f S tate and l ocal fundi ng. T he C ou ntyC om m i ssi on ers hav e ret ai ned a c on sul t ant t o assi st in the d esig n an d d ev e lo p m e n t of the n ew d eten ti o n ce n ter. A ppar ent l y , both t he Sher i ff a nd the C ount yC om m i s s i oner s have a g re e d th a t th e n e w d e te n tio n c e n ter w ill b e d e sig n e d to acc om m odat e t he conc eptof “di r ect s uper vi s i on” of i nm at es
. T he 1 C o u n tyC o m m iss io n e rs h a v e a lso re tain e d th e sa m e c o n su ltan t to t r ai n cor r ect i onal empl oy ees i n t hat m et hod of s uper vi s i on. A m ong ot her t h i n g s , t h e c o n s u l t a n t d e v e l o p e d a j o b d e s c r i p t i o n f o r t he pos i t i on of det ent i on cent er admi ni s t r at or , w ho i s t o be hi r ed byt he S h e ri f f

. A ppar ent l y , as a r es ul t of l ack of comm uni cat i on bet w een the C ount yC om m i s s i oner s ’ offi ce a nd t he Sher i ff c oncerni ng t he dut i es of t he cons ul t ant , t he Sher i ff t empora r i l ybar r ed t he cons ul t antfr om t he curr entdet ent i on cent er a n d i ns t ruct ed empl oy ees of hi s offi ce nott o cooper at e w i t h t he cons ul t antr egar di ng t r ai ni ng ort he d e v e lo p m e n t o f

p o licie s a n d p ro c e d u re s f o r th e n e w f

a c il it y . T h is mi s u n d e r s t a n d i n g h a s s i n c e b e e n r e s o l v e d , a n d t h e c o n s u l t a n thas tr a in e d c o rr e c tio n a l e m p lo y e e s w ith th e a s s e n t o f th e S h e ri f

f

.3 4 0 [8 5 O p
. A tt ’y

We rec ogn ize that the United States Court of Appeals for the 2 F ourt h Ci rcuit , in

a c a se brou ght u

nd e r 4 2 U .S. C. § 19 83 , h a s h e ld t hat a sh e ri ff wa s “ fi na l po lic y

make r f or theCou nty” in o pe ra

tin gthec ounty jail. Dotson v. Chester , 9 37 F. 2d 92 0 (4 Cir . 1 99 1) . H ow e ve r, thi s th de c isi on do es not alte r t

hea llo c atio n o f re sp on sib ili ty be tw e e n c ounty commissioners and the she riff under State la w. See Pe nh ollow v . B oa rd of Cou nty Com mi

ssi on e rs for Ce c il Co un ty , 116 Md. App. 265, 695 A. 2d 1268 (1997). B
. O ffi ce o f t h e S h eriff
T h e S tate C o n stitu tio n p ro v id e s f o r th e e lec tio n o f

a sh e rif f in e a c h c o u n t ya n d Ba l t i mo r e Ci t y
. M a r y l a n d Co n s t i tu t i o n , Ar t i c l e I V, §44. T he s her i ff e xer ci s es t he pow er s and per for m s the dut i es p re sc rib e d b yth e c o m m o n law , ex c e p t as m o d if ied b ysta tu te o r, to t he extent t he m at t er i nv olves pr act i ce and proced ure i n the cou rt s, b yru le o f

th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls

. See P r i nce G eor ge' s C ount y v. Al ui si , 3 5 4 M d . 4 2 2 , 4 3 3 , 7 3 1 A .2 d 8 8 8 (1 9 9 9 ); Soperv. Mo n tg o m e ry C o u n ty , 294 M d. 331, 337, 449 A

. 2d 1158 ( 1982) ; 79 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al4 1 9 ( 1994) ; 84 O pi ni ons of

the A t t or ney G ener al15 8 (199 9). U nd er M ary l and l aw , a sheri ff i s a S ta te o f f i c i a l. R u c k e r v . H

a rfo rdC o u n ty , 316 M d. 275, 289- 290, 5 5 8 A . 2 d 3 9 9 (1 9 8 9 ). A lth o u g h a sh e r if f ’s o f f ice is s u b sta n tially funded byt he count y , “county offi ci al s m aynotdi r ect l yabr i dge t he funct i ons and dut i es o f a sher i ff unde rt he comm on l aw and enac t m ent s of t he G ener al A s s embl y
. ” I d. , 3 1 6 M d

. a t 2 8 8 . “[ O ]n ly t he G ener al A s s embl ycan c hange the dut i es and func t i ons of t he s her i ff. ” I

d. 2
A tcomm on l aw , t he pow er s of t he s her i ff i ncl uded “cons er vi ng publ i c pea ce, p rese r vi ng publ i c or der , pr event i ng and detect i ng c rim e , enforci ng cri m i nal l aw s by , am on g o t her t hings, r ai s i ng a pos s e and a r r es t i ng per s ons w ho comm i tcr i m es i n [t he s her i ff’ s ] prese n ce, pr ovi di ng s ecur i t yforcour t s , s er vi ng cr i m i nal w ar r ant s an d o t herw r i t s and s um m ons es , and t r ans por t i ng pr i s oner s
. ” Soper , 2 9 4 M d . a t 3 3 6 -3 7

. A m o n g th e c o m m o n law d u ties o f a sh e rif f w a s re sp o n sib ili ty f o r th e c a re a n d c o n tro l o f p r is o n e rs c o m m itt e d to th e c o u n tyjail. B ow i e v. E veni ng N

ew s C o. , 1 5 1 M d

. 2 8 5 , 2 9 7 , 1 3 4 A

. 2 1 4 (19 2 6 ); s ee al s o H ar f or d C ount

y v. U ni ver s i t y of Mar yl and Medi cal

Sys t em C or por at i on , 318 M d. 525, 528, 569 A

. 2d 649 ( 1990) ( “O ne of the pr i nci pal dut i es of t he sher i ff at comm on l aw w as t o actas t he j ai l or o f th e s h i r e o r c o u n ty in w h ic h h e s e rv e d ” ); 1 W . A n d e rs o n , AG en. 338] 341

In 1 97 4, Al le g any

County a do pte d c od e ho me ru le un de r Artic le 3 XI -F of the Mar

yland C onstitut ion. In a letter of advic e date d Dec ember 4, 1995, Assistant Attorney Gene ral Richard E. I srae l c oncluded that the Cou nty Co mmis s ioners of Alleg any County may assume re sponsibili ty

for operation of the d e tenti o n

c enter unde r the Express Powers Ac t, Annotated Cod e of Mary land , Artic le25 A, §5 (C ) – a uth ority a ppli c a bleto c od e ho me rule c ounties under Ar

ticle 25B , §13 of the Annotated Code. A county that has adopte d char

ter home r

ule under Article X I -A of the Ma ry la nd Con sti tution ha s sepa

rate a uth ority un de r C S §1 1- 20 1(b) to a pp oint a man a g ing of

fi c ia l to op e ra

te thec ounty ’s de te nti on

c e nter. Th is latter provision wa s orig inally enacted as Article 87, §46A of the Annotated Code by

Chapter 103, L aws of Ma ryland 1950. CS §11-201(b) does not apply to a code home rule c ounty ; it was enac ted 16 year s before ArticleX I

- F o f

th e Co n s ti tuti o no f

f e r e d c o unti e s th e a lt e r

n ati v e o f c o de home rule. A lthough CS §11-201(b) ha s been recodif ied, it ha s not been substantively

modified since it was e nacte d.
The sh e ri ff

is also c on sid e re d th e “ g ov e rn inga uth ority” in 4 ref e r e n c e to a d

u lt p la c e s o f c o n f in e ment u n d e r th e s h e rif

f ’ s ju ris d ic tion. (continued...) Tre at is e on the Law of Sher i f f s , C or oners and C ons t abl es §§263 and 267 ( 1941)

. T hus , under t he com m on l aw t he sher i ff ha d cont r ol of th e c o u n ty ja il. 7 2 C .J .S

. P r is ons § 1 4 (19 8 7 ).
T he L egi s l atur e has codi fi ed m any of t he comm on l aw dut i es o f th e sh e rif

f a n d , in la rg e m e a su re , h a s le f t th o se d u ties in tac t. Soper , 2 9 4 M d

. at 33 7 , cit ingC o m m e n t, The Mar yl and Sher i

f f v. Moder n and E

f f i ci ent A dm i nis t r at i on of

Jus t i ce , 2 U

. B al t

. L

. R ev. 282, 288 ( 1973)

. N ow i ncl uded among t he sher i ff’ s s t atut or ydut i es i s t he obl i gat i on t o “kee p s afe l yeac h i ndi vi dual l aw ful l ycomm i t t ed t o t he s her i ff’ s cus t ody

. ” A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l a n d, C or r ect i onal S e rv ic e s A rt ic le (“ C S ” ) § 1 1 -2 0 1 (a ).
A lth o u g h th e L e g isla tu re h a s a u th o riz e d h o m e ru le c o u n ties to a ss u m e res po nsi bil i t yfor op erat i on of thei r j ai l s, A l l egan yC ou n ty h a s n o t ex e r c is e d th is o p tio n
. T h e re f o re , the A lleg a n yC o u n ty 3 Sher i ff r emai ns t he “managi ng offi ci a l ” r e s p o n s i b l e f o rt he oper at i on o f t h e Co u n t yd e t e n t i o n c e n t e ra n d f o rt h e c a r e o f

i t s i nmat e s
. CS §§1- 101( k) , 11- 203( a) ( 1)

. T he Sher i ff i s al s o cons i der ed t he “managi ng offi ci al ” of the det ent i on cen t erforpurpos es of c o m p ly in g w ith a p p lica b le m a n d a to rysta n d a rd s e sta b lish e d in regul at i ons adopt ed byt he Secr et ar yof Publ i c Safe t yand C o rr e c tio n a l S e rv ic e s
. See C O M A R 12. 14. 01. 01

. B ( 54) and 1 2 .1 4 .0 3 .0 2 , et

s eq
. 43 4 2 [8 5 O p
. A tt ’y

(...continued) 4 COMAR 12

. 1 4

. 0 1.01B( 45)(b) . As the designated g overningauthority , the sheriff would be a require d party in a proce edingbefore the Commission on Correc tional Standards conc erningclosure o f a detention center

. COMAR 12.14.06.03.
Howeve r, eve ry

duty of a she riff is not nec essarily a fina ncial 5 obligation of the county

. S e e, e
. g
. , A lu isi , 3 5 4 Md. at 441 (cost of providingDistrict Court security is to be borne by

the State).
The last substantive amen dment to the Public L ocal L aws of 6 Alleg an y County occur red in 1963. While these provisions appe ar antiquated in par

t, they do not c onflict with provisions of public g eneral law re latin gto t

he seiss ue s. C
. R o le o

f th e C o u n ty
U n d e r S tate law , the C o u n tyC o m m iss io n e r s a re re sp o n sib le forfundi ng t he O ffi ce of t he Sher i ff. A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and,

5 C our t s and J udi ci al Pr ocee di ngs A r t i cl e ( “C J ”) §2- 309( a-1). T h e re f o re , w h ile th e S h e rif

f is re sp o n sib le f

o r th e c a re o f

in m a tes in th e d e te n tio n c e n te r, th e C o u n ty m u s t b e a r th e c o s ts o f th a t c a re
. See C S § 1 1 -2 0 3 (a )(2 ); se e a lso H a rfo rdC o u n ty v . U

n ive rs ity , 318 M d. 5 2 5 , 5 6 9 A .2 d 6 4 9 (1 9 9 0 ) . T h e L e g isla tu re h a s a lso a d d re ss e d in publ i c l ocal l aw t he A l l eganyC ount y ’ s obl i gat i on t o fund t he cos tof o p e ra tin g th e C o u n ty d e te n tio n c e n te r. See Pu b l i c Lo c a l La ws of A l l eganyC ount y , §§70- 1 and 70- 2. 6
T he O ffi ce of

t he Sher i ff i s s ubj ect to t he budgetand fi s cal pol i ci es and pr ocur ement law s of t he C ount y
. A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, A r t i cl e 24, §8- 101( 3)

. H ow ever , t he C ount ym aynot admi ni s t eri t s p ol i ci es i n a mannert hatpr ecl udes t he Sher i ff f r om c a rr y in g o u t r e s p o n s ib iliti e s im p o s e d b ya p p lic a b le la w
. R ucke r , 316 M d . a t 2 8 8

. See als o 80 O pi ni ons of

the A t t or ney G ener al295 ( 1995) ] ( “A r t i cl e 24, §8- 101 r equi r es
. . . county - funded St at e ent i t i es to su b m itto co u n ty b u d g et p roc ed u res, n o t co u n tyb u d g et co n tr o l”).G en. 338] 343

Other employees in the S heriff ’s Office are also included in the 7 County pe rs onne l syste m. I f a

utho ri zed by theCou nty Commis sio ne rs , the Sheriff

may employ

a cle rk-bookke eper , who will be a membe r of the County classified service

. CJ §2-309(b) (4). Cooks in the detention center arealso part of

the county

classified se rvice . Pub l ic L ocal L aws of Alleg any County , §70-1.A.1.
Th e L e g isl ature ha s gra

nte d c oll e c tiv e ba

rg a ini ngri ghts t o d eputy 8 sheriff s below the ra

nk of lieutena

nt, corre ct i o nal offic ers, a nd civilian employees of

the Sheriff

’s Off ice, includingemployees a ssigne d to the County detention ce nter. CJ§2-309(b) (7). The Sheriff is require d to meet with a labor org anization a nd “eng ag e in g ood faith neg otiations to re ach a writt e n a gre e me nt o n w a g e s a nd be ne fi ts, ho ur s, wo rkingc on di ti on s, discipline proce dures, a

nd job security

issues.” CJ§2-309(b) (7)( iii). D
. Jail

E mployee s U n d e r S tate law , the A lleg a n y C o u n ty S h e rif f m u st a p p o in t a m in im u m n u m b e r o f

d e p u tysh e rif

f s, w h o a re in th e C o u n ty cl as s i fi ed s er vi ce. C J §2- 309( b )(2). W i t h t he appr oval of t he 7 C o u n ty C o m m iss io n e rs, th e S h e rif f m a ya p p o in t a c h ief

d e p u ty sh e rif f , w h o se rv e s a t th e S h e rif f ’s p lea su re a n d is n o t in th e C o u n ty c la s s if ie d s e rv ic e . C J § 2 -3 0 9 (b )( 6 ).
A l th o u g h d e p u tys h e r i f

f s ar e s ubj ectt o admi ni s t r at i ve pr act i ces a p p li ca b le t o C o u n ty em p lo y e e s , th e yre m a in S ta te o f f ic ia ls

. R ucke r , 31 6 M d. at29 0-29 1 ; P en h ol l ow , 1 1 6 M d

. Ap p
. at296. L i ke ot her em p loy ee s in th e S h eriff ’s O ff ice, th eyare u n d er the S h eriff ’s s u p e rv is io n
. See , e. g. , 84 O p in io n s o

f th e A tto rn e

y G e n e ra l 1 58 ( 1999) ( l egi s l at i on pl aci ng G ar r et t C ount y deputy s her i ffs and ot her s her i ff’ s offi ce e m pl oy ees i n count ycl as s i fi ed s er vi ce doe s notal t er sh e rif f ’s r o le a s a p p o in tin g a u th o rity ; h o w e v e r, sh e rif f m u st c o m p ly w i t h cou n tyc l a s s i fi ed s er vi ce pr ocedur es )

. A l t hough deput ys her i ffs and corr ect i onal offi cers in A l l eganyC ount yar e s epar at e ca r eer f ield s u n d e r th e a p p lica b le c o llec tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t, 8 admi ni s t r at i vel y t he pos i t i ons ar e t r eat ed s i m i l ar l y
. Si gni fi cantfor p u rpo ses o f o u r an aly sis, b o th d ep u ti es an d co rrecti o n al o ff icers are r ecogni zed a s empl oy ees of t he Sher i ff.3 4 4 [8 5 O p
. A tt ’y

This provision does n ot apply to Ba ltimore City . CS §11-101. 9 The Baltimore Ci ty Detention C enter is a State fa cility

. SeeCS §5-401(a).
Anno tate d Co deof

Ma ry la nd , Artic le25 A, §5 (C ) p ro vid e s: 10 The followingenumerated express powers aregrante d to and conf

erred upon any co unty

or counties which here afte r form a cha rter under the provisions o f Article X I -A of theConstitution, th ati s t o s ay:

. . . To ere ct, establish, maintain and control hospitals, almshouses, pesthouses or other similar ins tit uti on s w ith in t

hec ounty, a

nd makea ll regulations f

or the g overnme nt a

nd conduct of

the same ; to e re c t, e stabli sha ndmain ta in courthouses; to estab lish, maintain, regulate and control county

jails, and county

houses of c or re c tio n o r d e te nti on

and ref or matorie s, and

to regulate all per sons confined the rein; to make prop e r prov isi on

fo r f e ma leand

juv e nil e of fend e rs
. Article 25B , §13 extends thi s authority to counties that haveadopted c ode home rule. Seenote 3, su pra
. II
A n a ly sis
A
. N ew D etenti on C enter It is b e y o n d d isp u te th a t a c o u n tyd e ten tio n c e n ter is a c o u n ty f a c ili ty , reg a rd les s o f

w h e th e r th e lo c a l sh e rif f is re sp o n sib le f

o r its op erat i on
. T he L egis l at ure has provided that a cou ntym ayest abli sh and mai nt ai n a l ocal det ent i on ce n t er
. C S §11- 102( a)

. Fur t her m or e, 9
u n d e rt h e Ex p r e s s P o we r s A c t , a n yc o u n t yt h a th a s a d o p t e d h o me ru le h a s a u th o rityto e sta b lish a d e ten tio n c e n ter a n d c o n tro l it s oper at i on. St at e fi nanci al as s i s t ance forcons t ruct i on orexpans i on

10 o f a d e te n tio n c e n te r i s a v a ila b le to c o u n ty g o v e rn m e n ts

. See § § CS 1 1 -1 0 4 a n d 1 1 -1 0 5

. In c o n tra st, n o S tate law a u th o riz e s a sh e rif f to b u ild o r o v e rs e e c o n s tr u c tio n o f a c o u n ty ja il o r d e te n tio n c e n te r. W hi l e t he C ount y i s t hus r es pons i bl e for cons t ruct i ng t he new det ent i on cent er , i ti s cer t ai nl yprudentfort he off i ci al w ho w i l l beG en. 338] 345

r es pons i bl e for i t s oper at i on t o be i nvol ved i n i t s devel opm ent , as t he de s i g n o f

t h e f a c i l i t ywi l l i n e v i t a b l ya f f e c tma n a g e me n to f

t he i nm at es
. I n A l l egan y C o unt y , t he adopt i on of a ne w m et hod of i nm at e s uper vis i on appea r s t o m andat e a pa r t i cul ardes i gn fort he f a c ility, if th a t m e th o d is to s u c c e e d

. See f o o t n o t e 1 , supra
. No sta tu to ryo r c o m m o n law p rin c ip le g ra n ts th e S h e rif f th e rig h t to m ake deci s i ons conce r ni ng t he new fac i l i t ybefor e i ti s tur ned over to h im f o r o p e ra tio n . H o w e v e r, if th e S h e rif f a n d th e C o u n ty C om m i s s i oner s had notagr eed on t he new appr oach t o s uper vi s i on, a n d if th e C o u n tyC o m m iss io n e rs h a d n o t tak e n th a t ap p ro a c h in to a c c o u n t in th e d e sig n , th e f a c ili ty m ig h t w e ll h a v e f a iled to se rv e its purpos e. In anot hercont ext , A t t or neyG ener al B ur ch comm ent ed t hats uch a si tuat i on “nec es s ar i l ym andat es a good fa i t h w or ki ng r el at i ons hi p bet w een t he t w o offi ces and r equi r es t he s her i ff a nd t he c o u n tyc o m m iss io n e rs to m a k e h o n e st a ttem p ts to re so lv e th e ir di ffe r ence s t hr ough negot i at i on and compr om i s e. ” 60 O pi ni ons of the A t t or ney G ener al647, 657 ( 1975)

. I ti s comm endabl e t hatt he C o u n tyC o m m iss io n e rs a n d th e S h e rif f h a v e h e e d e d th a t ad v ice in th e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s
. B
. C onsultant ’s A cce s s to D etenti on C enterE mployee s U ndercur r entl aw , t he Sher i ff is r es pons i bl e foroper at i on of t he C ount y det ent i on cent er
. H ow ever , a var i et y of St at e and l ocal law s d ire c t th e e x e rc ise o f th a t r e s p o n sib ili ty . F o r e x a m p le, in admi ni s t er i ng t he det ent i on cent er , t he Sher i ff i s s ubj ectt o St at e l aw g o v e rn in g c e rt a in e m p lo y m e n t m a tte rs
. See, e. g. , C S § 2 -30 9 (b)(7 ). Fur t h e r , t h e Sh e r i f

f i s s u b j e c tt o t h e Cou n t yb u d g e ta n d f i s cal p o licie s a n d p ro c u re m e n t law

. A n n o tate d C o d e o f M a ry lan d , A rticle 2 4 , § 8 -1 0 1 (3 ). T h e S h e rif f m u st also c o m p ly w ith r e q u ire m e n ts a d o p ted b yth e C o rre c tio n a l T ra in in g C o m m iss io n w h e n h e a p p o in ts a n d tr a in s c o rr e c tio n a l o f f ic e rs
. See C S § 8 -2 0 9 ; see al so CO M AR 12. 10. 01. 01 et

. s eq
. A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, al t hough det ent i on cent er em ploy ees are subject t o C ou nty personn el rul es, t heyre m a in empl oy ees of t he Sher i ff, s ubj ectt o t h e S her i ff’ s aut hor i t yand d ir e c tio n
. W i t hi n t hi s fr amew or k, t her e m ay b e ci r cumst ance s under w hi ch t he C ount yC om m i s s i oner s coul d requi r e t hatempl oy ees of t he Sher i ff’ s O ffi ce unde r go cer t ai n t r ai ni ng ort hat t he Sher i ff gr ant a cons ul t ants el ect ed byt he C ount yC om m i s s i oner s acc es s t o t he det ent i on cent er
. For exam p l e, i f C ount yper s onnel rul es r equi r ed t hat al l empl oy ees i n t he cl as s i fi ed s er vi ce r ece i ve t r ai ni ng on t he obl i gat i ons and bene fi t s of t hei rempl oy m ent , t he Sher i ff w oul d be expec t ed t o cooperate. Si m i l ar l y , i f t he C ount yi ns t al l ed a c ent r al3 4 6 [8 5 O p
. A tt ’y

For purposes of your inquiry , we ne ed not ad dre s s to what 11 extent, if any , the Express Powers Act, Annotated Cod e of Ma ryland, Article 25A, §5(C), would allow a home rule c ounty

to regulate operation of a county detention center through county leg islation withoutremoving the fa cility

from under

the jurisdiction of the sheriff. comput er i zed pur chas i ng s y s t em, empl oy ees of t he Sher i ff’ s O ffi ce w o u ld lik e lyn e e d tra in in g o n th a t sy ste m a lo n g w ith o th e r C o u n ty p e rso n n e l. If th e C o u n ty ’s b u d g e tar yp ro c e d u re s re q u ire d e a c h u n it r ece i vi ng C ount yfundi ng t o s ubm i t t o a fi nanci al audi tbyan out s i de audi t or , t he Sher i ff w oul d be expec t ed t o cooper at e w i t h t he audi t or s el ect ed byt he C o u n t y
. E ach of t hes e exa m pl es i s bas ed on a p a rt ic u la r S ta te s ta tu te

. S e e , e .g ., C J §2- 309( b) ( 2) ; A r t i cl e 24, §8- 101.
H ow ever , i n t he abse nce of any contr ol l i ng s t atut e and s o l ong as t he det ent i on cent er r emai ns undert he contr ol of t he Sher i ff, t he C o u n tyC o m m iss io n e rs m a yn o t re q u ire th e S h e rif f , a S tate cons t i tut i onal offi cer , t o cooper at e w i t h a consul t ant s el ect ed byt he C o u n tyC o m m issi o n ers to train c o rrecti o n a l o ff icers o n m att ers exclusi velyw i t hin t he S heri ff’s aut ho ri t y
. T o co nclu d e other w i se coul d al l ow t he C ount yC om m i s s i oner s t o di r ect l yabr i dge t he funct i ons and dut i es of t he Sher i ff. N onet hel es s , i n t he i nt er es tof 11 eff i ci ent and effec t i ve use of publ i c re s our ces , i t i s i ncumbent upon t he Sher i ff a nd t he C ount yC om m i s s i onert o coor di nat e t he t r ai ni ng of corr ect i onal empl oy ees t o t ake advant age of t he des i gn of t he new f a c i l i t y.

III
C oncl usi on W hi l e t he Sher i ff may , and s houl d, par t i ci pat e i n t he pl anni ng and deve l opm entof new C ount ydet ent i on cente r , t he Sher i ff may n o t d e c id e m a tt e r s c o n c e rn in g c o n stru c tio n o f th e f a c ili tyb e f

o re it i s tur ned overt o hi m foroper at i on. O n t he ot herhand, as l ong as t he d e ten tio n c e n ter is o p e ra ted b yth e S h e r if f , the C o u n ty C om m i s s i oner s cannotr equi r e t hatt he Sher i ff us e a c ons ul t ant s el ect ed byt he C oun ty C om m i s s i onert o t r ai n det ent i on cent er e m p lo y e e s in c o rre c tio n a l m a tters . T h u s, in o rd e r f o r th e S h e rif

f to c a rryo u t h is re sp o n sib ili ties e f f e c tiv e lya n d f

o r th e C o u n ty C o m m iss io n e rs to d isc h a rg e th e ir o b lig a tio n to d e p lo yC o u n ty reso u rce s ec o n o m icall y , the S h eriff an d the C o u n tyC o m m issi o n ersG en. 338] 347

m us tcooper at e w i t h r es pectt o bot h t he cons t ruct i on and oper at i onal p lann ing o f th e n ew d eten ti o n ce n ter.
J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al
W i l l i am R

. V ar ga A ss i s t an t Att o r n e yGen e ral
R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons and A dvi ce