deputy sheriffs hired by planned community are authorized by statute to discharge their duties throughout the county, even if outside the planned community; these duties include the authority to arrest
How later courts described this case
- deputy sheriffs hired by planned community are authorized by statute to discharge their duties throughout the county, even if outside the planned community; these duties include the authority to arrest
- upholding, under A.C.A. § 14-15-503, the arrest authority of deputies employed by the Association
- presume sheriff's deputies properly performed duties though paid with private funds
- Hickman and Dudley, JJ., concurring, and Purtle, J., dissenting
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring. I agree with the result reached, that is, the charges should not be dismissed because of the questionable authority of the officers.
There are broad and serious questions that arise from the Bella Vista retirement community’s use of ostensibly public law enforcement officers for its private purposes. But this case is not here for declaratory judgment, nor in any way that I feel will allow us to reach these questions. I think the officers were cloaked with enough official power to arrest a person for violation of the traffic laws. In any event, the appellant should not be exonerated for any lack of authority by these deputies.
What distinguishes this case from those cited in the majority opinion is that in those cases an off duty regular police officer is acting for a private individual or firm. Meyers v. State, 253 Ark. 38 , 484 S.W.2d 334 (1972). Some would say, and without serious argument from anyone, a policeman is on duty 24 hours a day; that is, he or she has the official power of the office at all times. Meyers v. State, supra. But these “deputy sheriffs” were essentially created by the legislature to serve a private community, and the local sheriff’s office has opted to give them some semblance of official stature. That is a horse of a different color. I would not examine that practice in this case. It should wait until the private police force, if that is what it is, is properly challenged.
Dudley, J., joins in the concurrence. David Newbern, Justice, concurring. The result reached by the court is correct. I disagree with the statement that the rule of Brewer v. State, 286 Ark. 1 , 688 S.W.2d 736 (1985), is an exception to the rule followed in Davis v. State, 296 Ark. 524 , 758 S.W.2d 706 (1988). In the Brewer case we held an officer’s act in charging a defendant with a crime by citation was ineffective, and, absent a valid charge, the conviction was invalid. In the Davis case, we held an invalid arrest does not invalidate an otherwise valid conviction. To be an exception, the Brewer case would have to be one to which the rule in the Davis case does not apply. The rule in the Davis case would have applied in the Brewer case, but it was simply not the issue decided. We should avoid confusing the two rules.