State ex rel. Farley v. Spaulding

• Decision Date: 14 July 1998
• Docket Number: No. 24965.,24965.
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia ex rel. Stan FARLEY, Sheriff of Putnam County, Petitioner, v. Honorable O.C. SPAULDING, Judge of the Circuit Court of Putnam County, and the County Commission of Putnam County, Respondents.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

507 S.E.2d 376

203 W.Va. 275

STATE of West Virginia ex rel. Stan FARLEY, Sheriff of Putnam County, Petitioner, v. Honorable O.C. SPAULDING, Judge of the Circuit Court of Putnam County, and the County Commission of Putnam County, Respondents.

No. 24965.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted April 28, 1998.

Decided July 14, 1998.

Concurring Opinion of Justice Workman July 20, 1998.

Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Davis July 22, 1998.

Concurring Opinion of Justice Starcher November 9, 1998.

Claude S. Smith, III, G. Wayne Van Bibber, Smith & Van Bibber, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for Petitioner.

John M. Hedges, Byrne & Hedges, Morgantown, West Virginia, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, West Virginia Judicial Association.

Ancil G. Ramey, Steptoe & Johnson, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for Respondent Judge.

Franklin L. Gritt, Jr. Winfield, West Virginia, Attorney for Respondent County Commission.

McCUSKEY, Justice:

In this original proceeding in prohibition, the petitioner, Stan Farley, Sheriff of Putnam County, petitions this Court to issue a writ of prohibition preventing the Honorable O.C. Spaulding, Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Putnam County, from enforcing two administrative orders which he entered on August 26, 1997. Pursuant to the judge's orders, nine individuals, who had been hired by the Putnam County Commission to perform court security functions for the county's judiciary, were designated as court marshals and granted certain powers and duties.

Sheriff Farley attacks the administrative orders as unconstitutional and an impermissible usurpation of his statutory power under W.Va.Code § 51-3-5 (1923). On the other hand, the respondents, Judge Spaulding and the Putnam County Commission, assert that the challenged orders are constitutionally valid and, further, that W.Va.Code § 51-3-5 (1923) does not preclude the respondent county commission's employment of court security officers, whose responsibilities go beyond merely attending court proceedings. In addition, the respondents contend that the West Virginia Constitution has vested in circuit judges, and particularly in chief circuit judges, the power to regulate courthouse security and to employ the necessary personnel to perform court security functions. For reasons explained below, we find that the West Virginia Constitution and laws of this State support both sides. Accordingly, we grant, in part, and deny, in part, the writ of prohibition.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The new Putnam County Judicial Building opened in August of 1997. The facility was constructed by the Putnam County Commission and equipped by the commission with state-of-the-art security devices, including a metal detector, x-ray machine, video monitoring equipment, and remote-controlled electronic door locks. The building houses the Putnam County judiciary, including two circuit judges, three magistrates, and the family law master, as well as the circuit clerk, the magistrate clerk, the probation department, and the prosecuting attorney.

The planning of the new judicial building included the consideration of adequate court security personnel requirements. Discussions transpired regarding the court security personnel necessary to ensure the security needs of the facility. Among the participants in these discussions were representatives of the county judiciary, the county commission, and the sheriff's office. Their evaluation of security needs took place against the backdrop that in fiscal year 1996-1997, Sheriff Farley had assigned only one full-time deputy sheriff to serve as bailiff for the county's six judicial officers and family law master.

In order to provide efficient and effective court security services for the new facility, the county commission and the county judiciary undertook a collaborative effort to staff the building with properly trained civilian security officers. Sheriff Farley was informed of the court security program that was being developed by the commission and county judiciary. While there is some dispute as to whether Sheriff Farley endorsed the use of civilian security officers, affidavits of the respondent judge and Linda K. McClanahan, administrative assistant to the county commission, indicate that the sheriff did express support for an aspect of the overall plan which involved returning to law enforcement activities the one deputy sheriff who had been assigned to bailiff services. It also appears from the record that the county commission met with Sheriff Farley on May 21, 1997, to discuss the selection of the Court Marshal; that the sheriff was told of the three individuals under consideration for the position; and that he expressed his preference for Douglas Ratliff, who was eventually selected for the job.

On June 18, 1997, the county commission entered an order adding Douglas Ratliff to the county payroll, effective June 30, 1997. On August 20, 1997, the commission entered an order placing eight persons, selected by Mr. Ratliff to serve as Deputy Court Marshals on the county payroll, effective that day.

On August 26, 1997, Judge Spaulding issued the two administrative orders which are now in dispute. The first order provided as follows:

WHEREAS, Article VIII of the Constitution of West Virginia provides for the Supreme Court and its Circuit Courts to appoint their officers and employees; and

WHEREAS, adequate security is necessary to assure the safe, secure and peaceful conduct of a circuit court's business; and

WHEREAS, the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia, has determined that a full-time position for a qualified Court Marshal is necessary for adequate security in the conduct of the court's business; and

WHEREAS, the Putnam County Commission has employed Douglas M. Ratliff to assist this Court in its responsibility of providing the public and employees a safe, secure and peaceful environment in the Putnam County Judicial Building; and

WHEREAS, the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia, has determined that Douglas M. Ratliff is qualified by training and experience to be the Court's Marshal;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that Douglas M. Ratliff, an employee of the Putnam County Commission, is hereby designated by the Chief Judge of the Twenty-Ninth Judicial Circuit as Court Marshal for the Circuit Court of Putnam County, to serve at the will and pleasure of the Chief Judge thereof;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court Marshal may utilize Deputy Court Marshals employed by the Putnam County Commission to assist the Court Marshal and that said Deputy Court Marshals shall have the same powers and authority as the Court Marshal in carrying out their duties; Provided, that said Deputy Court Marshals shall be properly trained, qualified, approved and appointed by this Court to serve at the will and pleasure of the Chief Judge thereof.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court Marshal and Deputy Court Marshals are authorized to:

1. perform the services of court bailiff including assuring the security for all court proceedings;

2. escort prisoners to and from court proceedings;

3. make arrests in and around the Putnam County Judicial Building and the Putnam County Courthouse for offenses committed in their presence or in the presence of the Court;

4. carry a concealed firearm or other deadly weapon upon their person in the Putnam County Judicial Building and the Putnam County Courthouse; and

5. use reasonable and necessary force, including deadly force, in the exercise of their responsibilities and duties.

The second order designated eight individuals to serve as Deputy Court Marshals for the Circuit Court of Putnam County. As of March 4, 1998, a Court Marshal, two full-time Deputy Court Marshals, and six part-time Deputy Court Marshals were employed by the county commission to serve the county judiciary.

In connection with this litigation, the respondent judge conducted a survey of the other judicial circuits in West Virginia in order to ascertain whether any of them use "civilian bailiffs." This survey revealed that circuit courts in eleven counties use civilian bailiffs to some degree. In some of these counties, the civilian bailiffs are employees of the sheriff. In other counties, they are employees of the county commission.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review upon a petition for writ of prohibition was articulated by this Court in Syllabus Point 1 of State ex rel. W.Va. Fire & Casualty Co. v. Karl, 199 W.Va. 678, 487 S.E.2d 336 (1997):

"`"In determining whether to grant a rule to show cause in prohibition when a court is not acting in excess of its jurisdiction, this Court will look to the adequacy of other available remedies such as appeal and to the over-all economy of effort and money among litigants, lawyers and courts; however, this Court will use prohibition in this discretionary way to correct only substantial, clear-cut, legal errors plainly in contravention of a clear statutory, constitutional, or common law mandate which may be resolved independently of any disputed facts and only in cases where there is a high probability that the trial will be completely reversed if the error is not corrected in advance." Syllabus Point 1, Hinkle v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979).' Syllabus Point 12, Glover v. Narick, 184 W.Va. 381, 400 S.E.2d 816 (1990)." Syllabus Point 1, State ex rel. Doe v. Troisi, 194 W.Va. 28, 459 S.E.2d 139 (1995).

See also Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Canady, 194 W.Va. 431, 460 S.E.2d 677 (1995). In addition, we review questions of law and statutory interpretations de novo. Syl. Pt. 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A. L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).

III. DISCUSSION

The issue before this Court is two-fold: Does a county commission have the authority to employ individuals to perform court security functions for the county's judiciary, and, if so, does a circuit court judge have the power...