Can an Arkansas county pay for fuel in a constable's private vehicle when the vehicle is used for official duties?

Plain-English summary

A state representative asked whether a county quorum court could authorize the sheriff to fuel constables' personal vehicles when those vehicles are used on official business. AG Leslie Rutledge said yes. Arkansas law requires constables to drive a vehicle equipped with emergency equipment and marked with a six-point star and the words "Arkansas Constable" (Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1314(c)). The same statute permits, but does not require, the county to pay reasonable expenses tied to that requirement. Operating a vehicle takes fuel, so fuel can be a reasonable expense.

The AG noted a second path: because constable compensation is left entirely to the quorum court's discretion, a quorum court can also treat fuel as part of the constable's compensation.

The opinion is hedged on practical implementation. A county that wants to do this should work with its attorney and finance officials on accounting, because mixing personal and official use of a vehicle creates obvious abuse risk. There is also a related statute, § 14-14-1207(c)(1)(B), that prohibits counties from assuming maintenance or operational costs for privately owned vehicles used on county business, but that statute applies only to county and district officers, not township officers like constables.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. 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.

Common questions

Q: What is a constable in Arkansas?
A: A township-level elected officer, established by Ark. Const. art. 7, § 47. Constables are elected for two-year terms by the qualified electors of each township, and their duties are spelled out by statute (Ark. Code Ann. § 16-19-301).

Q: Why does it matter that constables are township, not county, officers?
A: Because § 14-14-1207(c)(1)(B) bars counties from assuming maintenance or operational costs for privately owned vehicles, but only when those vehicles are owned by county or district officers. The 2009 Act 732 removed "township officers" from § 14-14-1207, so the prohibition does not reach constables.

Q: Does the county have to pay these expenses?
A: No. Section 14-14-1314(d) says the county "may pay" reasonable expenses, not "shall." The quorum court has discretion to authorize it, decline to authorize it, or limit it.

Q: Why does the opinion flag accounting concerns?
A: Because fueling a private vehicle that mixes official and personal use is easy to abuse. The AG cautioned that the quorum court should consult county counsel and finance officials before passing an ordinance, and probably needs a mechanism to track or separate official from personal mileage.

Q: Can the quorum court treat the fuel as part of the constable's salary instead?
A: Yes. Under § 14-14-1205(d), constable compensation is fixed by quorum court ordinance "if any," meaning the court can decline to pay constables anything. Graves v. Greene County upheld a $25-per-month constable salary as constitutionally permissible. If the court chooses to provide fuel as compensation, the value can be treated like any other in-kind payment.

Background and statutory framework

The Arkansas Constitution at article 7, § 47 creates the office of constable as a township-level elected position, two-year term. The legislature has tied a number of operational and equipment requirements to the office. Section 14-14-1314(c) requires every constable, in the performance of official duties, to drive a vehicle equipped with emergency equipment and clearly marked with a six-point star and the words "Arkansas Constable." Section 14-14-1314(d) then says: "The county may pay reasonable expenses associated with the requirements of this section."

The Arkansas Supreme Court's bedrock rule for reading a statute is to "construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary meaning" (MacSteel). On that plain reading, fueling a constable's vehicle is plausibly a reasonable expense associated with the section's requirement to drive that vehicle on official business.

The opinion also addresses § 14-14-1207, which restricts county payment of maintenance and operational costs for privately owned vehicles. The 2009 General Assembly (Act 732 of 2009) removed "township officers" from § 14-14-1207, so that section's restriction does not reach constables.

Finally, on the compensation track, § 14-14-1205(d) gives the quorum court complete discretion to "fix by ordinance" constable compensation "if any." That phrase is intentional: a quorum court can decline to compensate constables at all. Graves v. Greene County, 2013 Ark. 493, 430 S.W.3d 722, upheld a $25-per-month constable salary on rational-basis review.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Ark. Const. art. 7, § 47
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1301(b)(2) (township officers)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1314 (constable vehicle and equipment)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1205(d) (constable compensation discretion)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1204(a) (county officer salaries)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1207(c)(1)(B) (private vehicle costs, county/district officers only)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-19-301 (constable duties)

Cases:

• MacSteel Div. of Quanex v. Arkansas Okla. Gas Corp., 363 Ark. 22, 210 S.W.3d 878 (2005) (plain meaning rule)
• Graves v. Greene County, 2013 Ark. 493, 430 S.W.3d 722 (constable compensation discretion)
• Rowell v. Austin, 276 Ark. 445, 637 S.W.2d 531 (1982) (proper administrative regulation has force of statute)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2016-088
December 2, 2016
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE

The Honorable James Ratliff
State Representative
P. O. Box 791
Imboden, AR 72434-0791

Dear Representative Ratliff:

This is in response to your request for an official Arkansas Attorney General opinion on the following question:

May a quorum court authorize the sheriff of a county to put gasoline in the private vehicles of constables, when the vehicles are being used for official business by the constables?

RESPONSE

I take your question to be asking, as a general proposition, whether a county, acting through its quorum court, may pay for fuel for a constable's private vehicle when that vehicle is used for the constable's official duties. In my opinion, the answer to this question is "yes." State law requires constables, inter alia, to drive a vehicle with certain markings and equipment in the performance of their official duties. The same statute permits, but does not require, counties to "pay reasonable expenses associated with the requirements" of that law. Thus, the quorum court could deem it a reasonable expense to pay for fuel for a constable's vehicle when used for official duties. The quorum court may also designate such provision to be part of the constable's compensation, the paying of which, if any, is solely at the quorum court's discretion. But there may be practical or accounting issues that would have to be taken into careful consideration in consultation with the county's attorney and finance officials prior to enacting an ordinance allowing such an arrangement.

DISCUSSION

The Arkansas Constitution establishes the office of constable as a township official, but a constable's duties and obligations have historically been defined by statute. In the performance of their official duties, Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1314 places certain obligations upon constables. Among these obligations, and the one that is most relevant to your question, is the requirement that a constable "drive a motor vehicle that is: (1) [e]quipped with emergency equipment; and (2) [c]learly marked with a six-point star and the words 'Arkansas Constable'." The immediately following subsection then states that "[t]he county may pay reasonable expenses associated with the requirements of this section."

The first rule in considering the meaning of a statute is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary meaning and usually accepted meaning in common language. Section 14-14-1314(c) requires a constable to drive a motor vehicle with certain equipment and markings in the performance of his official duties. The operation of a motor vehicle requires fuel. Under a plain reading of the statute, and in my opinion, it would seem that the county, acting as it must through its quorum court and pursuant to section 14-14-1314(d), may, in its discretion, consider it a reasonable expense to pay for fuel for a constable's vehicle when used in the performance of his official duties.

I note here that Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1207(c)(1)(B) (Supp. 2015) states that "[a] county shall not assume responsibility for any maintenance [or] operational costs ... incurred by the owner of the [privately owned] vehicle while on official business of the county." This statute, however, is inapposite in my view because the entirety of section 14-14-1207(c)(1), which concerns the use of and the paying of mileage reimbursement for privately owned vehicles "in the conduct of county affairs," addresses only county and district officers (and such officers-elect) and employees. It does not address township officials. This view is supported by the fact that the General Assembly completely removed "township officers" from section 14-14-1207 with the enactment of Act 732 of 2009.

Additionally, the General Assembly has left the question of constables' compensation, if any, completely to the discretion of the county quorum courts. It would appear then that a quorum court has flexibility in how it chooses to compensate constables, if it chooses to do so at all. In this light, a quorum court might choose to permit the provision of fuel for official duties as all or part of the constable's compensation.

I believe, however, that certain problematic practical or accounting issues would have to be taken into careful consideration and in consultation with the county's attorney and finance officials prior to enacting any ordinance. For instance, there could be questions involving the accounting for the fuel expended for official duties as opposed to personal travel. An arrangement like the one your question suggests could be abused without careful monitoring. There likely will be other issues that would have to be discussed and resolved prior to enacting any such ordinance, but those issues are beyond the scope of an Attorney General's opinion.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General