Lawson v. Lincoln County

Citations: 664 S.E.2d 900; 292 Ga. App. 527; 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 2445; 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 816Docket: A08A0713

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; July 8, 2008; Georgia; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Lincoln County sought a declaratory judgment to compel Sheriff Gerald Lawson to transfer funds from a telephone services contract for the county jail and from pre-paid phone card sales. The Superior Court ruled in favor of the county, requiring Lawson to turn over the funds. The background reveals that the former sheriff, Edwin Bentley, had a contract with Evercom Systems, Inc., which provided inmate telephone services, yielding commissions of approximately $15,000 to $16,000 annually, previously directed to the county's general fund for jail operations.

After taking office in 2005, Lawson initially continued this practice but later amended the contract to allow for the resale of pre-paid calling cards. Subsequently, he stopped transferring the commissions to the county, instead depositing them into a personal account, using the funds for jail expenses and purchasing more calling cards for profit. The county argued that these actions violated budgeting processes, leading to the lawsuit.

The trial court affirmed the county's position, asserting that the sheriff must turn over all funds collected from the contracts. The legal framework noted that while the sheriff is a constitutional officer of the county, the state legislature defines his powers and duties. The court's decision emphasized the sheriff's obligations related to the management and allocation of funds, underscoring that the funds were not used for personal compensation or mishandled, with access provided for auditing purposes.

The Georgia Constitution limits the legislative power of county commissioners, prohibiting them from actions affecting elective county offices, including salaries and personnel. While the county commission has the authority to issue budgets, it cannot dictate how the sheriff allocates that budget for his duties, establishing the sheriff's office as an independent entity from county government interference. The county maintains original jurisdiction over certain matters, including property management and auditing financial accounts related to county funds. Although the county commission can adjust the sheriff's budget, the sheriff retains sole discretion over spending those funds.

Counties are required to maintain jails and provide necessary services for inmates, which includes adopting budgets that adequately support the sheriff's law enforcement responsibilities. This relationship creates tension, illustrated in the case where a county attempted to cut funding for specific sheriff's department positions, highlighting that while budget amounts can be modified, spending decisions rest with the sheriff. Furthermore, counties have limitations regarding equipment designated for the sheriff's exclusive use. In a relevant case, the court ruled that the sheriff could use forfeited funds for department expenses but could not unilaterally decide on modifications to county-owned office spaces, adhering to the commissioners' authority over such properties.

Saba and Hill are not applicable precedents for the current case, which centers on the sheriff's authority to generate and retain revenue from county property and resources. Unlike Saba, this case does not involve disputes over fund allocation or exclusive property use, nor does it merely question the sheriff's ability to maintain an account. Instead, it examines whether the sheriff can independently utilize county property to earn revenue and retain it for departmental use. The court concludes that the sheriff lacks such authority. Revenue generated from county resources is classified as county property, thus falling under county control according to OCGA § 36-5-22.1. The telephone contract with Evercom explicitly requires the use of county jail facilities for service installation, establishing that the contract relies on county property. Additionally, there is no legislative support for the expansive powers Lawson claims, and the cited cases do not authorize the retention of revenue from such contracts. While sheriffs can collect certain fees, these must be submitted to the county treasurer as mandated by OCGA § 15-16-21(a). The existence of separate accounts maintained by Lawson does not validate his authority to keep telephone contract revenue. Allowing the sheriff to independently earn and retain revenue would undermine the county's control over public property. Despite arguments regarding the sheriff's management capabilities, such matters should be resolved collaboratively with the county. The judgment is affirmed.