Can a McComb police officer provide security at an airport board meeting if the airport is in Magnolia, not McComb?

Plain-English summary

The McComb/Pike County Airport is a joint airport board project of the City of McComb and Pike County, but the airport itself sits within the city limits of Magnolia. The board's president asked whether a McComb police officer could provide security at airport board meetings, since the airport is not in McComb.

The AG said no. Municipal police jurisdiction is limited to the corporate limits of the city employing the officer. A McComb officer acting officially has no authority to enforce the law in Magnolia, even at facilities owned or operated by McComb.

The framework: Section 21-21-1 establishes the marshal/chief of police as the city's chief law enforcement officer. The chief is "an ex officio constable within the boundaries of the municipality." Long-standing AG opinions (Stanford 1988, Bowman 2001) confirm: "The territorial jurisdiction of the chief of police and therefore all police officers of a municipality serving under him is thereby limited to the corporate limits of the municipality." This office knows of no statutory authority that extends municipal police jurisdiction outside the city, even when the property outside the city is owned by the city.

The Stanford 1988 opinion was directly on point: a city police department had no jurisdiction at an airport that the city owned but was outside the city limits. The 2021 Hensarling opinion follows that precedent. The only exception the opinion names is hot pursuit: a municipal officer in fresh pursuit of a fleeing offender (Richardson 1998, Denton 2013).

The practical solution the opinion points to is airport guards. Under Sections 61-5-13 and 61-5-39, the joint board can appoint guards to enforce the airport board's ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations, with the approval of the governing boards of the City of McComb and Pike County.

What this means for you

For police chiefs and municipal officers

Under the opinion, a municipal officer's territorial jurisdiction is "limited to the corporate limits of the municipality." A McComb officer acting in official capacity "could not provide official on-duty security services at the Airport located within the city limits of Magnolia." The opinion identifies hot pursuit as the only exception to the corporate-limits rule.

For airport board members

The opinion tells the board where its authority lies: under Sections 61-5-13 and 61-5-39, the joint board "could appoint airport guards to enforce the Airport Board's ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations, with the approval of the governing boards of the City of McComb and Pike County." It does not address security arrangements beyond that.

For city attorneys

The opinion grounds the territorial limit in Section 21-21-1, which makes the chief of police "an ex officio constable within the boundaries of the municipality." It states the office "knows of no statutory authority which extends the jurisdiction of municipal police officers to areas outside the municipality, simply because such areas are owned by the municipality," and notes the single exception for hot pursuit.

Common questions

Q: Can a McComb police officer provide security at the airport in Magnolia?
A: No. The opinion answers that "a City of McComb police officer could not provide official on-duty security services at the Airport located within the city limits of Magnolia," because municipal police jurisdiction is limited to the city's corporate limits.

Q: Does it matter that the airport is a McComb/Pike County project?
A: No. The opinion follows Stanford (1988) and Bowman (2001), which held that "a municipal police department is not authorized to enforce the law beyond the municipal limits, even where property outside the city is owned by the city."

Q: Is there any exception to the corporate-limits rule?
A: The opinion names one: hot pursuit. It cites the Richardson (1998) and Denton (2013) opinions for the exception but does not describe any other.

Q: How can the airport board get security at the airport, then?
A: The opinion points to Sections 61-5-13 and 61-5-39, under which the joint board can appoint airport guards to enforce the airport board's ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations, with the approval of both the City of McComb and Pike County governing boards.

Background and statutory framework

The territorial limit comes from Section 21-21-1, which the opinion quotes: "The marshal or chief of police shall be the chief law enforcement officer of the municipality and shall have control and supervision of all police officers employed by said municipality. The marshal or chief of police shall be an ex officio constable within the boundaries of the municipality." The opinion reads the "within the boundaries" language, as prior opinions had, to limit all of a city's officers to the corporate limits.

The airport itself was established by joint resolution of the City of McComb and Pike County under Section 61-5-1 et seq. and sits within the city limits of Magnolia. The opinion identifies Sections 61-5-13 and 61-5-39 as the authority for the joint board to appoint airport guards, with the consent of the constituent governments, to enforce the board's ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations.

The opinion relies on a consistent line of AG opinions: Stanford (Apr. 15, 1988), which found a city's police had no jurisdiction at a city-owned airport outside the city limits; Bowman (Mar. 9, 2001), involving an airport in one county owned and operated by a municipality and a different county; and Richardson (Dec. 18, 1998) and Denton (Nov. 1, 2013) on the hot-pursuit exception.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Miss. Code Ann. § 21-21-1, marshal/chief of police as ex officio constable within municipal boundaries
• Miss. Code Ann. § 61-5-1 et seq., Municipal Airport Law
• Miss. Code Ann. § 61-5-13, joint airport board authority including ordinance-making and guard appointment
• Miss. Code Ann. § 61-5-39, joint airport board authority subject to constituent-government approval

Prior AG opinions cited:

• MS AG Op., Bowman (Mar. 9, 2001), municipal police department not authorized to enforce law beyond municipal limits, even at city-owned airport
• MS AG Op., Denton (Nov. 1, 2013), hot-pursuit exception
• MS AG Op., Richardson (Dec. 18, 1998), hot-pursuit exception
• MS AG Op., Stanford (Apr. 15, 1988), territorial jurisdiction limited to corporate limits; airport outside city had no city police authority

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/R.Hensarling-December-17-2021-Jurisdiction-of-City-Police-Officer-for-Security-Purposes.pdf

Original opinion text

December 17, 2021

Mr. Robert Hensarling
President, McComb/Pike County Airport Board
1018 Pinehurst West
McComb, Mississippi 39648

Re: Jurisdiction of City Police Officer for Security Purposes

Dear Mr. Hensarling:

The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.

Background Facts

The McComb/Pike County Airport ("Airport") was established by a joint resolution between the City of McComb and Pike County pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 61-5-1 et seq., and it is located within the city limits of Magnolia, Mississippi.

Question Presented

Can a City of McComb police officer, acting in his or her official capacity, provide security at the Airport Board meeting, given that the Airport office is located within the city limits of Magnolia, rather than within McComb?

Brief Response

No, the territorial jurisdiction of police officers of a municipality is limited to the corporate limits of the municipality. Therefore, a City of McComb police officer could not provide official on-duty security services at the Airport located within the city limits of Magnolia.

Applicable Law and Discussion

The territorial jurisdiction of a municipal police department is set by Section 21-21-1. MS AG Op., Stanford at *1 (Apr. 15, 1988). Section 21-21-1 provides, in part:

The marshal or chief of police shall be the chief law enforcement officer of the municipality and shall have control and supervision of all police officers employed by said municipality. The marshal or chief of police shall be an ex officio constable within the boundaries of the municipality, and he shall perform such other duties as shall be required of him by proper ordinance.

In describing the jurisdiction of municipal police officers to areas outside the corporate limits of the municipality, this office has consistently opined in the following manner:

The territorial jurisdiction of the chief of police and therefore all police officers of a municipality serving under him is thereby limited to the corporate limits of the municipality. This office knows of no statutory authority which extends the jurisdiction of municipal police officers to areas outside the municipality, simply because such areas are owned by the municipality.

MS AG Op., Stanford at *1 (Apr. 15, 1988).

In Stanford, we found that a city police department would have no jurisdiction at an airport that the city owns but was outside the city limits. As a general matter, "a municipal police department is not authorized to enforce the law beyond the municipal limits, even where property outside the city is owned by the city." MS AG Op., Bowman at 2 (Mar. 9, 2001) (involving an airport located in one county but owned and operated by a municipality and a different county). Notably, there is an exception in a case of hot pursuit. MS AG Op., Richardson at 1 (Dec. 18, 1998); MS AG Op., Denton at *1 (Nov. 1, 2013). Accordingly, the City of McComb's police officers, in their official capacity, would not have jurisdiction to provide security services at the Airport.

Pursuant to Sections 61-5-13 and 61-5-39, the joint airport board could appoint airport guards to enforce the Airport Board's ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations, with the approval of the governing boards of the City of McComb and Pike County.

If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: /s/ Gregory Alston
Gregory Alston
Special Assistant Attorney General