Opinion letter to the Honorable Stephen E. Strom

OPI"liO"l REQUEST No . J~QEl) No . 9 (1962}) Answer~~tter . March 26, 1962 Honorable Stephen E. Strom Prosecuting Attorney Cape Girardeau County Cape Girardeau, Missouri Dear Mr. Strom: This refers to your request for an opinion concern- ing the employment of prisoners in your county pursuant to Section 221.170, RSMo 1959, as amended by House Bill No. 194, 7lst General Assembly. Section 221.170, as so amended, may be somewhat ambiguous on its face . However, a review of the legis- lative history of House Bill No. 194 makes it clear that the intent of t hat bill was to change the law only i n counties of the first class under charter form of govern- ment and counties containing a city of the first class and that paragraphs 1 to 12, inclusive, of amendel Sec- tion 221.170 should have no application to other counties . As introduced, House Bill No . 194 would have repeal ed Section 221.170 and enacted in lieu thereof the provisions now contained in paragraphs 1 to 11, inclusive, of amended Section 221 .170, except that the first part of paragraph 1 read as follows : "Any person sentenced to a county jail or to a workhouse in cities outside a county for crime, * * *•" The House amended the bill by adding what no~ appears as parag.rapb 12 except that the first part of the paragraph read as followa: •Any county or city outside of a county may suspend* * *·" (See Perfected Bill.) The Senate amended the bill to change the first parts of paragraphs 1 and 12 to read as they now read in amended Section 221.170. (See Senate Journal for June 21, 1961, pages 1316 and 1317. ) Finally, a conference committee amendment which added what now appears as paragraph 13 in amended Section 221 .170 was adopted. (See Senate Journal for June JO, 1961, Honorable Stephen E. strom 2 pages 1566 and 15S7, and House Journal for June 29~ 1961, page 2045, and June JO, 1961, pag~s 2072 and 2073 · J The obvious purpose of the amendments during the course o~ passage of the bill was to r eject the proposal that the change in the law with respect to the employment of prisoners should be applicable throughout the state and to provide, instead, that the la-v1 should remain un- changed except in counties of tho first class under charter form of government and counties containinr- a city of the first class. Thus , there \'Jas no change in the law applicable to Cape Girar deau County, a county of the third class . It is belioved that this basically answers your ques- tions concerning the employment of prisoners under amended Section 221.170. For your county to undertake to apply the principles of the provisions contained in paragraphs 1 to 12 of the amended section would be contrary to the intent of the Gener al Assembl y in enactinv such amended section . The disbursement of earnintJ,;S of prisoners in accordance with such provisions would be in direct conflict with the provision of paragraph lJ of the amgnde1 section which , as noted in your letter; provides that earnin~s shall be applied upon the ~~dgment against the prisoner. Also , the employment of prisoners in Cape Girardeau County i n the manner contemplated by paragraphs 1 to 12 of the amended section would run afoul of restrictions upon the release of custody of prisoners by the sheriff. In this connection, we are enelosin~ a copy of an opinion furnlshed by this office to John Hosmer on December 20, 1954. JCB lc 1 enclosure Very truly yours, THOI·tAS F . EAGLETON Attorney General