Is it in fact a conflict of interest for the city building inspector, employed by the city, to make inspections while wearing a uniform, badge and carrying a pistol. Q2) Does the city need to show cause if it elects to terminate a city building inspector. ANSWER: Q1) It should be discouraged. Q2

STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 201 EAST MARKHAM STREET . | STEVE CLARK HERITAGE WEST BUILDING (501) 371-2007 ATTORNEY GENERAL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 ; ; HHO OPINION NO. 86~ a April 29, 1986 Honorable Bill Walters State Senator. - -P.0O. Box 280 - Greenwood, AR “72936 Dear Senator Walters: a OS . a You have requested an opinion from this office on the _ £ollowing questions: [t]s it in fact a conflict-of interest for the city | . building inspector, employed by the city to make 7 ye i inspections while wearing a uniform, badge and carrying , a. pistol. The. ‘second question is, does the city need to show cause Sore if it elects to terminate a city building inspector. —— - Whether ‘or not it would. be a true conflict of interest for a city building inspector to wear the uniform of a _. constable while performing city building inspector duties is ; to a certain’ extent questionable. In the sense that the vw. ¢ity building “inspector would not be gaining financially - : from this: situation does not remove the impropriety of his” = 2 %syc~ acts. -To use the-trappings of one office in order to © ec -influence and intimidate the citizens with which the building inspector came into contact in the course of his | building inspector . duties, demonstrates at the very. least poor judgment.-’-The: building inspector through the use of. “the: accoutrements ‘OE™: ‘a-Constable, i.e.; “uniform, badge, nd pistol, projects ‘an’ image. which would tend to be. -- ocIntimidating as well as confusing to the citizenry in. ‘that! “it. would impair the sharp delineation between the two ° -. totally. different functions of a constable and a city _ building inspector, This would impair the efficient oe ‘provision of inspection services and be adverse to the best interest of the City of Greenwood. ta response” to your second: question, the heed to: “Nghow: _ cause" prior to the termination of this city employee would | “depend upon whether or not the city building inspector! so ! employment was governed by any expressed or implied contract creating expectation of continued employment absent cause for termination. I would suggest that the Greenwood City. . Attorney investigate any circumstances which might give rise 2 to a possible property interest in public employment for om? this individual. Hs The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was . ; ; | prepared by Assistant Attorney General Kay J. Jackson - Demailly. ‘ ; . ~~ Sincerely, STEVE CLARK _ - ‘Attorney General eror wove THo 2G hdak ide 4 Pade aan : an . 4, Nene “OPINION NO. 86—241 » April 30, 1986 Greenwood, "te! 720s Dear Senator Walters: oa This letter is written. in response to your request . for" an Opinion concerning Act 1011 of.1985. This act prohibited all terrain vehicles from being operated on public streets, highways and county roads. You correctly note that this law exempts farmers that are using-all terrain vehicles to move™~ from one field to another.:. Your question is. whether this would also apply to a water well driller or a gas well driller that uses an all terrain vehicle to move some equipments, parts and so forth from one site location to another. - In: addition, - you’ question: whether. it is constitutional to allow farmers but not similarly situated and related type industries the same right. Act’ 1011 of 1985 is compiled at Ark; Stat, Ann. §75-1061 - 1064 (Cumm. Supp. 1985). Ark. Stat. Ann. §75-1062 (Cumm, Supp. +1985) states: Lo, .. It shall be unlawful, for any person to- operate an all terrain vehicle upon the. public streets and highways of this State, mot withstanding the fact that said vehicle may otherwise’ meet’ the equipment standards as set fdrth in §3 [§$75-1703] of Act 201 of 1959, as amended, except that an all terrain vehicle may be operated upon the public streets and highways if the vehicle is used in farming operations and by necessity must be operated upon. the public streets and highways in order to get to from one field to another. The language. is clear. . The exception for the operation of. all terrain vehicles upon public streets and highways only applies to farming operations. ‘This. exception would not apply to water well drillers or gas well drillers. They ‘simply do not fit the common definition of a "farming operation. " oS Your second question is whether it is an ‘unconstituional discrimination to allow farmers but not similarly situated and related type industries from having the same exemption. _ When considering equal protection challenges to a Legislative classification which does not involve either a "suspect" class or "fundamental" right the test is whether the..classification bears some rationale relationship to the objective sought. In the Matter of the Estate of Epperson, 284 Ark. 35, 679 S.W.2d 792 (1984). The mere fact - that two. groups are. treated differently does not mean-= an unconstitutional discrimination , has “occurred, A discrimination must be invidious and if there. .is. .some rationale basis to support the distinction the classification is constitutional. When a court is faced with an equal protection challenge it is not necessary for the court to discover the actual basis for the legislation | but merely to consider if any rationale basis exists which demonstrates the possibility of a deliberate nexus with state objectives so that the legislation is not utterly abitrary, capricious and void of any kind of deliberate and lawful purpose. Streight v. Ragland, 280 Ark. 206, 655 S.W.2d 459 (1983). The operation of a vehicle or in this case an all terrain vehicle, is not a fundamental right nor does it affect a suspect class. Thus, the question is whether there is some rationale basis to support the legislative classification. For the -most part, Arkansas is still an agrarian society. I must assume the legislature found that the use of all terrain vehicles in a farming operation is necessary and essential to the farming community. Undoubtedly the legislature did not see the benefit in extending that privilege to other industries. There are numerous reasons or justifications °.for allowing’ this privilege to farmers. It appears that there is a rationale basis for granting this privilege to farmers and not to other industries. In my opinion, this statute is not an_ unlawful discrimination. The foregoing. “opinion, which. 7 heteby ‘approve,. “prepared by Assistant _Attorney General Randel. K. Miller. Sincerely, STEVE CLARK. Attorney General . woo os ~ SC/RKM/1jm : ET was.