Opinion ID: 1292155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: duties of sheriff

Text: ¶ 17 Plaintiffs also contend that the jail privatization statutes are an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power because they allow counties to alter the duties of sheriff. The Office of Sheriff is constitutionally created subject to change by the legislature. [21] The Legislature has previously defined the duties of the sheriff to include the charge and custody of the jail of his county, and all the prisoners within the county. [22] ¶ 18 The language of article 17, section 2 specifically gives the Legislature the exclusive power to change the duties of the Office of Sheriff. Not only does the Legislature have the power to alter the duties of the Office of Sheriff, it has the power to abolish the office [23] as it did the offices of County Surveyor [24] and County Superintendent of Public Instruction. [25] In enacting the privatization statutes, the Legislature has demonstrated its intent to change the duties of sheriff. The primary goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and follow the intention of the Legislature. [26] It is well settled that intent is ascertained from the whole act in the light of the general purpose and object. [27] ¶ 19 By authorizing the various counties to contract with private entities for the operation of county jails, the Legislature must have foreseen that such action would alter the duties of sheriff. The purpose and object of the challenged provisions is to allow for jail privatization. The Legislature cannot accomplish its object without altering the duties of sheriff. We therefore find that the Legislature's intent was to alter the duties of sheriff and that it has not assigned the power to do so to the counties as argued by the plaintiffs.