When can Arkansas police and police from a bordering state work together legally, and what does the AG actually approve when looking at an interlocal agreement?

Plain-English summary

Texarkana, Arkansas's city attorney George Matteson submitted an interlocal cooperation agreement between Texarkana, Texas and Texarkana, Arkansas for mutual law enforcement assistance, asking the AG to approve it under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 25-20-101 to -108. The AG approved it as submitted.

What the AG actually checks under § 25-20-104(f)(1) is whether the agreement is "in proper form and compatible with the laws of this state." That is a form review, not an evaluation of whether the agreement is wise as policy. The AG cannot say whether Texas law permits the cooperation; that is for Texas authorities to evaluate.

The AG's review tracked two layers:

1. Substantive authority for the cooperation. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-20-104(a) lets a public agency exercise its powers jointly with another agency that has the same powers, including agencies in other states (provided the other state's law also permits). For cross-border police authority specifically, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-81-115 lets Arkansas municipalities authorize certified peace officers from adjoining states to enforce Arkansas law within the city. The officer must be (1) regularly assigned to duty in a municipality within one mile of the Arkansas border, (2) on duty in the officer's home municipality at the time of entering the Arkansas city, and (3) within the city limits of the Arkansas municipality that adjoins the home municipality. The agreement explicitly recognized § 16-81-115 standards.

2. Required formal elements under §§ 25-20-104(c) and (d). The agreement had to specify duration, separate legal entity (if any), purposes, financing/budget arrangements, termination methods and property disposition, an administrator/joint board (if no separate entity), property holding arrangements, and any "necessary and proper" matters. The AG verified the submitted agreement contained all of those.

The opinion is brief and approves the agreement. It is the kind of opinion the Interlocal Cooperation Act was designed to produce: a sign-off that lets the cooperating cities operate without later legal-form challenges.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2019. 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 "the Interlocal Cooperation Act"?
A: Ark. Code Ann. §§ 25-20-101 to -108. It lets public agencies of one state exercise their powers jointly with public agencies of the same state, or of another state where reciprocal authority exists. The AG must approve any such agreement as proper in form and compatible with Arkansas law.

Q: Who is a "public agency" for these purposes?
A: § 25-20-103(1) defines it broadly to include "political subdivision of this state" and "political subdivision of another state." Cities qualify.

Q: What was the § 16-81-115 angle here?
A: It was the substantive authority for Texas officers to enforce Arkansas law inside Arkansas city limits. The agreement contemplated cross-border policing, so it had to track § 16-81-115's three-element test (regularly assigned within one mile, on duty in home jurisdiction, within the adjoining Arkansas municipality).

Q: Does the AG check whether Texas would let its officers operate under the agreement?
A: No. The opinion expressly disclaimed Texas-law review. Each side has to check its own law.

Q: What if a future cooperative agreement omitted one of § 25-20-104(c)'s elements?
A: The AG would refuse approval. The form-review function is not optional, and a missing element (duration, financing, termination, etc.) would be a fatal flaw.

Background and statutory framework

Ark. Code Ann. § 25-20-104(a) authorizes joint exercise of powers across public agencies in the same state and across states "but only to the extent that laws of the other state or of the United States permit the joint exercise or enjoyment." Subsection (b) requires that any such agreement be approved by the AG as "proper in form and compatible with Arkansas law" before taking effect.

The required content of the agreement is in § 25-20-104(c): duration, separate legal/administrative entity (if any), purposes, financing and budget, termination and property disposition, and "any other necessary and proper matters." When no separate legal entity is created, § 25-20-104(d) adds two more required items: an administrator or joint board, and a property-holding mechanism.

The § 16-81-115 piece is the cross-border policing rule: Arkansas city governing bodies can authorize certified peace officers from adjoining states to enforce Arkansas law and city ordinances, provided the three-element test is satisfied.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. §§ 25-20-101 to -108 (Interlocal Cooperation Act)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-20-103(1) (definition of "public agency")
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-20-104(a), (b), (c), (d), (f)(1) (joint exercise; AG review)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-81-115(a) (cross-border peace officer authority)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2019-057
November 5, 2019

George Matteson, Esq.
Moore, Giles & Matteson, L.L.P.
1206 State Line Avenue
Texarkana, AR 71854

Dear Mr. Matteson:

You have requested my approval, pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, of a proposed "Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Mutual Assistance in Law Enforcement" between Texarkana, Texas and Texarkana, Arkansas. You have submitted a copy of the Agreement, the terms of which provide for the cities' cooperation in exercising their respective law enforcement powers and duties.

You are seeking approval of the Agreement pursuant to the statutory requirement that I approve as proper in form and consistent with Arkansas law any interlocal agreement to undertake a joint enterprise between or among "public agencies." This designation plainly applies to the parties to the proposed agreement.

With respect to the range of permissible agreements under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, the Act provides:

Any governmental powers, privileges, or authority exercised or capable of exercise by a public agency of this state alone may be exercised and enjoyed jointly with any other public agency of this state which has the same powers, privileges, or authority under the law and jointly with any public agency of any other state of the United States which has the same powers, privileges, or authority, but only to the extent that laws of the other state or of the United States permit the joint exercise or enjoyment.

In my opinion, this grant of authority would include the Agreement that you have submitted, so long as Texas law similarly authorizes an agreement of this sort. As the proposed Agreement appears to recognize, the governing body of an Arkansas municipality may authorize certified law enforcement officers from adjoining states to enforce Arkansas law and the ordinances of the municipality under the conditions listed therein.

With respect to the formal requirements, the Interlocal Cooperation Act requires that interlocal agreements for joint or cooperative action specify the following items:

1. Its duration;
2. The identity of any separate legal or administrative entity to conduct the undertaking;
3. Its purposes;
4. The manner of financing the joint or cooperative undertaking and of establishing and maintaining a budget therefor;
5. The permissible methods to be employed in accomplishing the partial or complete termination of the agreement and for disposing of property upon the partial or complete termination; and
6. Any other necessary and proper matters.

In addition, if the interlocal agreement does not establish a separate legal entity to conduct the joint or cooperative undertaking, it must specify the following items:

1. The provision for an administrator or a joint board that will be responsible for administering the joint or cooperative undertaking; and
2. The manner of acquiring, holding, and disposing of real and personal property (if any) used in the joint or cooperative undertaking.

Having analyzed the submitted agreement, I find that it meets all of the requirements set forth above. Accordingly, it is hereby approved as submitted.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General