In Connecticut, can a city sheriff (Bridgeport, Norwalk, etc.) serve a support enforcement capias, or only a state marshal?

Plain-English summary

The Connecticut Judicial Branch had been receiving service-of-process invoices from a Bridgeport city sheriff for capias warrants in child-support cases and asked whether that was a legitimate billing. State statutes name "state marshals," "town constables," "borough bailiffs," and "special police of the Bureau of Child Support Enforcement" as authorized to serve civil process. They do not specifically name city sheriffs. The Judicial Branch wanted to know whether the silence in the general statutes meant city sheriffs could not bill.

The AG (through Assistant AG Mark F. Kohler) concluded that city sheriffs can serve civil capias warrants, including support enforcement capiases, within their city limits when the city's charter grants them that authority. The reasoning rested on three pieces. First, city sheriffs are deeply rooted in Connecticut history; the office goes back to the 1836 Bridgeport charter and similar provisions in several other city charters. Second, the early courts (back to Dow v. Kelly, 1 Root 552 (1793)) treated city sheriffs as functionally equivalent to county sheriffs within their jurisdictions, and county sheriffs plainly could serve civil capias warrants. Third, when the Legislature abolished county sheriffs in 2000 (Public Act 00-99), it shifted the civil process authority to state marshals but did not strip city sheriffs of their parallel municipal-charter authority. A 2001 bill (Senate Bill 567) that would have addressed city sheriffs failed in committee, but the AG cautioned against drawing negative inferences from failed legislation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2012. 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: Which Connecticut cities have city sheriffs?
A: Bridgeport elects six city sheriffs. Ansonia, Norwalk, Shelton, and Waterbury have charter provisions for appointing or electing city sheriffs. Other municipalities may as well; the opinion's list was illustrative.

Q: Why doesn't the general statutes section on process service mention city sheriffs?
A: Because the city-sheriff office is created by municipal charters rather than the general statutes. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-193(b) confirms that "every municipality shall have all municipal officers . . . which are required by the general statutes or by the charter." The charter-source authority is independent of general-statutes naming.

Q: Can a city sheriff serve a capias outside city limits?
A: No. The opinion's reasoning ties the city sheriff's authority to the charter, and the charter's reach is the city's boundaries. Young v. City of Bridgeport, 135 Conn. App. 699 (2012), specifically confirms the Bridgeport sheriff's authority "to serve summons and process within Bridgeport."

Q: What was the practical impact of the 2000 abolition of county sheriffs?
A: It transferred county sheriff functions to state marshals, who now serve civil process statewide (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-32). It did not abolish city sheriffs, who remain creatures of their charters.

Q: Why did the 2001 bill fail, and does that matter?
A: The opinion noted unsuccessful legislation is a poor guide to legislative intent (citing Ricigliano v. Ideal Forging Corp., 280 Conn. 723, 741-42 (2006), and Conway v. Wilton, 238 Conn. 653 (1996)). The bill could have failed for any reason, including the conclusion that city sheriffs already had the authority and no clarifying statute was needed.

Background and statutory framework

The civil capias is a long-standing tool in Connecticut family law and child support enforcement. The relevant statutes (§§ 17b-745(a)(8), 46b-215(a)(8)(C), and 46b-231(m)(1)) direct that a "proper officer" shall serve the capias. The AG considered what "proper officer" means.

The general statutes specifically name several officers: state marshals (§ 6-32), town constables (§ 7-89), borough bailiffs (§ 52-50(e)), and special police of the Bureau of Child Support Enforcement (§ 29-1g). None mentions city sheriffs. But that silence was not exclusive. The city-sheriff office traces back through colonial Connecticut. The 1836 Bridgeport charter (I Conn. Priv. Laws 355 § 6) established the office. Subsequent re-enactments in 1855, 1868, 1907, and ultimately the present home-rule Bridgeport Charter (ch. 2, §§ 1(e), 12) carried the office forward. Similar provisions appeared in early charters of Norwalk, Ansonia, and Waterbury.

The Connecticut Supreme Court treated city sheriffs as having "the same powers and authorities . . . in any case whatever, to all intents and purposes, as sheriffs of the counties" Dow v. Kelly, 1 Root 552, 552-53 (1793). The legislature's abolition of county sheriffs in 2000 abolished only the county-sheriff office and shifted its functions to state marshals. Public Act 00-99's history shows no intent to disturb the parallel city-sheriff regime. The 2012 Connecticut Appellate Court decision in Young v. City of Bridgeport, 135 Conn. App. 699, expressly confirmed Bridgeport's city sheriffs are charter-authorized to serve summons and process within the city.

Citations and references

Statutes and laws:

• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-32
• Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 7-187 et seq. (Home Rule Act)
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-231
• Public Act No. 00-99 (2000), abolition of county sheriffs
• Bridgeport Charter, ch. 2, §§ 1(e), 12

Cases:

• Dow v. Kelly, 1 Root 552 (1793), early recognition of city sheriff authority
• Swan v. City of Bridgeport, 70 Conn. 143 (1898)
• Young v. City of Bridgeport, 135 Conn. App. 699 (2012), confirming charter authority
• Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 258 Conn. 313 (2001), Home Rule Act background
• Ricigliano v. Ideal Forging Corp., 280 Conn. 723 (2006), failed legislation as guide to intent

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/ag/opinions/2012/libbinopinion080712-pdf.pdf?rev=3e292d9e8b484923809007d1d68a68d9

Original opinion text

GEORGE C. JEPSEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

55 Elin Street
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120

Office of The Attorney General
State of Connecticut

August 7, 2012

Martin R. Libbin

Deputy Director, Legal Services

State of Connecticut Judicial Branch
Court Operations Division

100 Washington Street, P.O. Box 150474
Hartford, CT 06115-0474

Dear Attorney Libbin:

You have requested, on behalf of Judge Barbara M. Quinn, Chief Court
Administrator, and the Judicial Branch, an opinion on whether a city sheriff is a
proper officer for service of a support enforcement capias. You indicate that the
Judicial Branch has received several invoices from a City of Bridgeport Sheriff in
connection with the service of capias orders in support enforcement matters.
Although the City of Bridgeport Charter authorizes city sheriffs to serve civil
process within Bridgeport, you question whether state law permits a municipality
to empower a city sheriff to serve a support enforcement capias. For the reasons
set forth below, we conclude that a city sheriff has such authority.

A capias mittimus order is a civil arrest order issued to compel a person
who has failed to appear in court following service of a summons, subpoena or
citation, See DiPalma vy. Wiesen, 163 Conn. 293, 298 (1972); A.G. Op. No. 2000-
10 (Mar. 7, 2000). Several child support enforcement and family relations
statutes authorize the issuance of a capias order to arrest a person who has failed
to appear in response to a summons or subpoena, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 17b-
745(a)(8) (“the court or family support magistrate may order a capias mittimus be
issued, and directed to some proper officer to arrest such defendant or defendants
and bring such defendant or defendants before the Superior Court for the
contempt hearing” (emphasis added)); 46b-215(a)(8)(C) (same); 46b-231(m)(1)
(‘a family support magistrate may issue a capias mittimus directed to a proper
officer to arrest the obligor or the witness and bring him before a family support
magistrate” (emphasis added)). These statutes direct that a “proper officer” shall
serve the capias order and arrest the person for the purpose of appearing before
the court or family support magistrate.

' A review of the legislative history of each of these statutes revealed no evidence of the meaning
of the term “proper officer.”

MABBMSE opihet?
Deputy Director, Legal Services
Page 2

There is no question that a state marshal is a “proper officer” to effect civil
process, including a capias order. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-32. The legislature has
also expressly authorized the special police of the Bureau of Child Support
Enforcement of the Department of Social Services to serve capias orders in child
support matters. Conn, Gen, Stat. § 29-1g. Town constables “have the power in
their towns to serve and execute all process legally directed to them. . . ,” Conn,
Gen. Stat. § 7-89, and borough bailiffs “may, within their respective boroughs,
execute all legal process which state marshals or constables may execute.” Conn,
Gen. Stat. § 52-50(e). No similar statute expressly addresses the authority of city
sheriffs.

City sheriffs nonetheless have a long history in Connecticut. The
Bridgeport Charter presently provides for the election of six city sheriffs and that
“(tlhe sheriffs shall severally have, within the limits of the city, the same power
and authority . . . to all intents and purposes, as sheriffs by law now have... .”
Bridgeport Charter, ch. 2, §§ 1(e), 12. This provision can be traced to the
Bridgeport charter that the General Assembly first enacted and subsequently
reenacted and amended. See I Conn. Priv. Laws 355 (1836) (Act Incorporating
City of Bridgeport, § 6); III Conn. Priv. Laws 365 (1855) (Act Amending Charter
of City of Bridgeport, § 40); VI Conn. Special Laws 419 (1868) (Act Relating to
Charter of City of Bridgeport, § 22); XV Conn. Special Laws 536 (1907) (Act
Revising Charter of City of Bridgeport, § 104). Similar provisions regarding city
sheriffs are found in the early charters of other cities. See, e.g., XI Conn. Special
Laws 1006 (1863) (Act Incorporating City of Norwalk, § 19); XI Conn. Special
Laws 944 (1863) (Act Incorporating City of Ansonia, § 26); II] Conn. Priv, Laws
457 (1853) (Act Amending Charter of City of Waterbury, § 7). After the passage
of the Home Rule Act, Conn, Gen, Stat. §§ 7-187 ef seg., which permits
municipalities to enact their own charters and relieves the legislature of the need
to amend municipal charters, see Ganim y. Smith & Wesson Corp., 258 Conn.
313, 366 (2001), the city sheriff provision was carried forward to the present
Bridgeport Charter. See Young y. City of Bridgeport, 135 Conn. App. 699, 708-
709 (2012) (city sheriff is authorized by charter to serve summons and process
within Bridgeport). The authority for these city sheriffs, therefore, ultimately is
derived from the legislature’s enactment by special act of the original city
charters,

From the state’s earliest history, the courts treated city sheriffs as having
the same authority within their jurisdiction as county sheriffs. Dow v. Kelly, 1

• In addition to Bridgeport, the charters of at least four other cities ~ Ansonia, Norwalk, Shelton
  and Waterbury — provide for the appointment or election of city sheriffs. See Ansonia Charter, §§
  5, 34; Norwalk Charter, §§ 1-166, 1-214; Shelton Charter, § 6.11; Waterbury Charter, § SD-1.

August 7, 2012
Martin R. Libbin

Deputy Director, Legal Services
Page 3

Root 552, 552-53 (1793) (city sheriffs “within the limits of said city, have the
same powers and authorities . . . in any case whatever, to all intents and purposes,
as sheriffs of the counties...”); Swan v. City of Bridgeport, 70 Conn. 143, 149
(1898); Frank Miller & Co. y. Lampson, 66 Conn. 432, 437 (1895). The former
county sheriffs plainly had authority to serve capias orders. A.G. Op. No. 2000-
10 (Mar. 7, 2000) (citing former Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-31 (“[eJach sheriff may
execute in his county all lawful process directed to him...”)), In 2000, the office
of county sheriff was abolished, and the civil process authority of the county
sheriffs was transferred to state marshals. Public Act No. 00-99 (2000), Nothing
in that legislation or its legislative history suggests that the abolition of the county
sheriffs and the creation of state marshals was intended to alter the authority of
city sheriffs.

In the aftermath of the abolition of county sheriffs, a bill addressing city
sheriffs was introduced in 2001, Senate Bill 567 proposed that “[nJotwithstanding
any charter, special act or home rule ordinance, city sheriffs in a municipality, as
defined in subsection (a) of section 7-148 of the general statutes, shall be deemed
to have the authority of constables in their respective precincts.”* The bill was
not reported out of committee, and its legislative history does not indicate the
reason for its failure. A court would be unlikely to draw from this bill’s failure a
negative inference as to the authority of city sheriffs. Unsuccessful legislation
such as this is a poor guide to legislative intent. Ricigliano v. Ideal Forging
Corp., 280 Conn, 723, 741-42 (2006); Conway v. Wilton, 238 Conn. 653, 679-80
(1996). The failure of a bill can be for any number of reasons, not the least of
which could be the conclusion that it was unnecessary. Because it was clear prior
to the abolition of the county sheriffs that city sheriffs had the same authority as
to civil process, the proposed bill would at most have been clarifying legislation
as to city sheriffs’ unchanged civil process powers. We do not discern in this
failed bill evidence that city sheriffs lack authority to serve capias orders, a power
clearly within the prior authority of county sheriffs.

Although there is no express statutory provision authorizing municipalities
to empower city sheriffs to serve capias orders, “[e]very municipality shall have

Moreover, the Bridgeport Charter provision, which became effective in 1993, references the
authority that “sheriffs by law now have... .” Bridgeport Charter, ch. 2, § 12, ch. 22, § 1,
(emphasis added). Interestingly, the Waterbury Charter references the powers of state marshals,
Waterbury Charter, § 5D-1, while the Norwalk Charter references the powers of constables,
Norwalk Charter, § 1-214. These distinctions would not materially alter the analysis of this
opinion.

“ Constables have authority to serve and execute civil process within their towns. Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 7-89,

August 7, 2012
Martin R. Libbin

Deputy Director, Legal Services
Page 4

all municipal officers . . . which are required by the general statutes or by the
charter.” Conn, Gen. Stat. § 7-193(b). City sheriffs have their origins in the
charters enacted by special acts of the legislature. City sheriffs were long
understood to have the same authority as county sheriffs within their cities. In
light of this history and the absence of any indication that the legislature intended
to change this historical understanding, we conclude that a city may by charter
authorize city sheriffs to execute civil process, including the service of support
enforcement capias orders.

Sinferely yours,

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mark F. Kohler
Assistant Attorney General