Do Arkansas cities lose fines collected on offenses in their corporate limits when state troopers use electronic tickets, and how do cities get their share when the city has no district court?

Plain-English summary

Three state representatives from Craighead County wrote the AG with a stack of related questions. After the Arkansas State Police implemented electronic tickets, fines from offenses committed inside the corporate limits of Craighead County cities were being held by the county and not distributed to the cities. The lawmakers asked how the system was supposed to work.

The AG answered the substantive questions and flagged what was outside the office's scope:

E-tickets do not change anything (Q1). An electronic ticket is just "an electronic citation or warning printed by a law enforcement officer and issued to a person accused of violating the law." § 16-10-202(3). No statute treats e-tickets differently from handwritten ones for fine distribution.

Cities where a district court holds dockets are not themselves "district court" cities (Q2). Craighead County has one district court, the 19th State District Court, with two departments (Jonesboro and Lake City). The judges can hold dockets in other cities by quorum court ordinance, but that does not give those cities a district court for purposes of § 16-17-1203.

Cities with a police department but no district court need a written agreement (Q3 and Q5). Section 16-17-1203 sets up a procedure: a city or town that has its own police department but no district court can contribute a prorated share of operating expenses of the nearest district court in its county. In return, the city receives a prorated share of fines, fees, penalties, and costs from offenses occurring within its corporate limits. The agreement must be in writing and is mandatory if the city seeks the arrangement. The proration is based on the number of cases filed from each town and city and from the county during the preceding calendar year.

A county cannot unilaterally refuse to sign the agreement. Section 16-17-1203(a)(1)(B) says the written agreement "is mandatory." If a county could refuse, the statute's purpose (giving cities a share of revenue from their corporate-limits offenses) would be defeated.

Questions outside scope (Q4 and Q6). The AG declined to advise the city on what to do if the county refuses to sign (Q4) or on whether back funds are owed (Q6). Both questions require fact-finding and counseling that fall outside the AG's authority.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

The Arkansas district court system reorganized in the late 2000s, consolidating older municipal courts into state district courts. Each county has one district court (possibly with multiple departments), and judges are elected countywide. § 16-17-1111(b)(3). A "department" is "the physical location where sessions of court are held," § 16-17-901, and is not itself an independent court. Judges may hold dockets in other cities by quorum court ordinance, § 16-17-108(a)(19)(A), without converting those cities into district court cities.

Section 16-17-707 lists three classes of accounting records for fines, penalties, forfeitures, fees, and costs. The opinion notes a publication quirk: § 16-17-707(b)(3), which addresses a city that has a police department but does not operate a district court, was added by Act 663 of 2007 § 37 but is omitted from the official Code volume and supplement. The AG treats the Act 663 language as the operative version of § 16-17-707(b)(3).

Section 16-17-1201 announces the legislative intent: cities that have operated a city court should continue to receive revenue from cases originating in their limits, and cities that have law enforcement but never operated a city court should be able to participate in revenue from cases originating in their limits.

Section 16-17-1203 establishes the procedure: a written agreement among the governing bodies of all contributing political subdivisions (county and cities), with proration based on the prior year's case counts. § 16-17-1203(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(A). Cost contribution is the price of revenue participation. § 16-17-1203(c) and § 16-17-707(b)(3) (Act 663 version) together explain how the city receives its prorated revenue.

Common questions

Did e-tickets create a legal loophole that lets counties keep all the fines?

No. E-tickets are functionally equivalent to handwritten tickets for fine-distribution purposes. There is no statute that treats them differently.

Does the City of Brookland have a district court because dockets get called there?

No. Craighead County has one district court with two statutorily defined departments (Jonesboro and Lake City). A docket called in another city does not make it a district court city under § 16-17-1203.

How does a city without a district court get its share of fines?

By entering into a written agreement with the county and other contributing political subdivisions to share both the operating expenses and the revenue of the nearest district court, on the same proration. The agreement is mandatory when the city wants to participate, and the county cannot refuse.

What happens if the county refuses to sign?

The AG declined to advise. The city should consult its own counsel about its options for compelling compliance.

Does the city get back fines withheld during the impasse?

The AG declined to answer that question, which turns on whether any agreement was in place, its effective date, and its terms. The AG cannot do that factual review.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-202(3) (definition of electronic ticket)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-108(a)(19)(A) (judges holding dockets in other cities by ordinance)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-707 (accounting records for district court collections)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-707(b)(3) (Act 663 of 2007 § 37) (city with police but no district court)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-901 (definition of department)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-906 (Craighead County district court)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1111(b)(3) (Craighead County 19th State District Court structure)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1201 (statutory intent on city revenue participation)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1203 (cost-sharing agreement procedure)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-102 (county is a political subdivision)
• Act 663 of 2007 (district court consolidation)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2015-084
September 21, 2015
The Honorable Dwight Tosh
The Honorable Dan Sullivan
The Honorable Jack Ladyman
State Representatives
Gentlemen:
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE

This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding the operation of Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-10-202, 16-17-707, 16-17-906 and 16-17-1203. Your request states that following implementation of electronic tickets (e-tickets) by the Arkansas State Police, all fines relating to citations for offenses occurring in the different cities of Craighead County written by the State Police are being held by Craighead County and are not being distributed to the cities in which the offense occurred. In light of this situation, you pose the following questions:

1. Does the implementation of electronic tickets change in any way the process by which the fines are distributed amongst the cities within a county in Arkansas?
2. Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-17-906 states [that] Craighead County shall have one district court with two departments, one in Jonesboro and one in Lake City. If another city in Craighead County (i.e., the City of Brookland) has a docket called within this District Court, does this mean that city [has] a district court as referenced in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1203?
3. Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-17-707 lists three (3) separate classes of accounting records for fines, penalties, forfeitures, fees, and costs received by the district court clerk. This statute also states that a city that operates a police department but does not operate a district court shall receive prorated sums collected pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1203. However, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1203 does not specifically state the way in which fines, fees, penalties, and costs are to be distributed. How is a city that has a police department but does not operate a district court to receive fines, fees, penalties, and costs associated with offenses committed within said city?
4. What option does a city have if a county refuses to enter into a written agreement as stated in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1203?
5. Does the cost proration in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1203 also apply to the proration of fines, fees, penalties and costs for offenses occurring within a city?
6. If Craighead County has not distributed funds to cities for fines, fees, penalties, and costs relating to offenses occurring within a city, does the county owe these funds to said city back to the date the county refused to distribute said funds?

RESPONSE

The answer to your first two questions is "no," in my opinion. With respect to Question 3, a city that has a police department but does not operate a district court may choose to contribute its prorated share to the operating expenses of the nearest district court in its county by entering into a written agreement with all of the other political subdivisions that contribute to the district court in consideration for receiving its prorated amount of revenue deriving from certain offenses occurring within its corporate limits. The answer to Question 5, in my opinion, is "yes." I am unable to provide definitive answers to Questions 4 and 6, as they are beyond the scope of an Attorney General's opinion.

DISCUSSION

Question 1: The answer to this question is "no," in my opinion. Electronic tickets, defined as "an electronic citation or warning printed by a law enforcement officer and issued to a person accused of violating the law," are merely an alternative to the hand-written method in which law-enforcement officers issue citations to people accused of violating the law. I can find no statute that would suggest that electronic tickets are or should be treated differently than hand-written citations in the context you describe.

Question 2: The answer to this question is "no," in my opinion. The district court in Craighead County and its departments are established by statute. Craighead County has a district court, the 19th State District Court. It is one countywide district court with two departments, one in Jonesboro and one in Lake City. The district court is served by two district judges who are elected districtwide, that is, countywide. While the judges may establish dockets and hold court in other cities and towns in the county as the Quorum Court by ordinance deems it necessary, such occurrences do not mean that those localities themselves have a district court or should be considered departments of that district court.

Question 3: In my opinion, a city or town that has a police department but does not operate a district court is entitled to receive a prorated share of revenue deriving from certain offenses that occur within its corporate limits if two conditions are met. First, the city must enter into a written agreement to contribute a prorated share to the operating expenses of the nearest district court in its county. Second, the city must actually contribute its prorated share of operating expenses of the district court.

The clear statutory purpose, as expressed in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1201, is that cities or towns that have their own law-enforcement officers but do not operate a district court are to receive at least a portion of the revenue derived from cases originating within their corporate limits: "It is the intent of the General Assembly that a town or city that has operated a city court is to continue to receive revenue from cases that originate in its town or city limits and to establish a procedure to allow a town or city that has never operated a city court but that now or in the future may have law enforcement officers to be able to receive a portion of the revenue from cases that originate in its town or city limits."

The statutory procedure established allows such a city or town to enter into a written agreement with the county and other political subdivisions in the county to contribute its prorated share toward the operational expenses of the nearest district court in the county. In return, that city or town can receive an equally prorated share of fines and other revenue from certain violations of state laws or local ordinances that occur within its corporate limits.

The statute requires there be a written agreement between the governing bodies of all of the political subdivisions that contribute to the district court's operation. The share of expenses from each contributing city is to be "a prorated amount based on the number of cases filed in the district court from each of the towns and cities and the county during the preceding calendar year." As mentioned above, that proportion is also used to determine each contributing city's share of its revenue.

The question arises whether a county is required to enter into this written cost-sharing agreement if would-be contributing cities request it. In my opinion, the answer is "yes." The statute states that a written agreement "is mandatory and is to be entered into between the governing body of the town or city and the governing bodies of the political subdivisions that contribute to the operational expenses of the district court." If a county could unilaterally refuse to allow towns or cities that have a police department but not a district court to contribute to the expenses of the district court (and in turn be able to receive some revenue), so that the county paid all the expenses and kept all the revenue, this would defeat the statutory purpose.

Question 4: I am unable to answer this question as it is beyond the scope of an Attorney General's opinion and I lack the authority to counsel a city in this regard. Any options a city may have must be addressed to and considered by that city's attorney.

Question 5: The answer to the question is "yes," in my opinion. Please refer to my response to Question 3.

Question 6: The answer to this question is contingent upon whether a written agreement discussed above, or a prior interlocal agreement for district-court expense and revenue sharing, is in place, its effective date, and the terms of any such agreement. Consequently, I cannot provide an answer to this question. I am not authorized to undertake the necessary factual review to determine these matters.

Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General