On November 9, 2018, the Ohio Attorney General issued an opinion regarding a county sheriff’s authority to control the provision of security in a courthouse that is used to house the court of common pleas, as well as other county officers. OAG Opinion 2018-027. The opinion explains the role of the county sheriff, board of county commissioners, and court of common pleas in implementing and funding the security of a courthouse.
Under Ohio Revised Code Section 311.07(A), the county sheriff is in charge of the courthouse, meaning the sheriff is responsible for the care and supervision of the courthouse and the court of common pleas. To be able to fulfill this duty, the sheriff possesses discretion in determining what security measures are necessary. However, this discretion is not unlimited, as the sheriff’s charge of the courthouse is subject to the direction and control of the board of county commissioners.
A courthouse is county property, and as such, the applicable statutes confer a duty upon the board of county commissioners to secure a courthouse and court of common pleas. A board of county commissioners exercises this duty through its directives regarding the courthouse and its financial support. It is the duty of the board to furnish all things coupled with the administration of justice within the limits of their own county. The board of county commissioners is also required to provide a county sheriff with equipment that the board determines is necessary for the sheriff to secure the courthouse.
However, the authority to provide for the security of a courthouse and court of common pleas is not limited to the board of county commissioners and sheriff. The court of common pleas itself is entitled to control over its facilities as may be necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the court. The OAG Opinion held the court’s exercise of this power may extend to areas of a courthouse that are not exclusively occupied by the court. As the Opinion further states, based on this authority, a board of county commissioners shall fund security measures in a courthouse that a court concludes are reasonably necessary to the court’s proper and efficient operation, unless the board can show that the request is unreasonable or unnecessary.
Attorneys at Fishel Downey Albrecht & Riepenhoff LLP advise public entities on compliance with the Ohio Revised Code. If you have any questions, please contact Benjamin Albrecht (balbrecht@fisheldowney.com) or Daniel Sabol (dsabol@fisheldowney.com) bye mail or phone at 614-221-1216.