City of Abbeville v. Vermilion Parish Police Jury

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-766

CITY OF ABBEVILLE, ET AL.

VERSUS

VERMILION PARISH POLICE JURY, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERMILION, NO. 92931
HONORABLE KRISTIAN DENNIS EARLES, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Marc T. Amy, Elizabeth A. Pickett, J. David Painter, Shannon
J. Gremillion, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.

Painter, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
Keaty, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Judge Painter.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

James Isaac Funderburk
Funderburk & Herpin
P. O. Drawer 1030
Abbeville, LA 70511-1030
(337) 893-8140
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE:
City of Abbeville

Calvin Eugene Woodruff, Jr.
Cooper & Woodruff
220 S. Jefferson St. 3rd Floor
Abbeville, LA 70510
(337) 898-5777
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE:
City of Kaplan

Paul Gonsoulin Moresi III
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 1140
Abbeville, LA 70511-1140
(337) 898-0111
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:
Vermilion Parish Police Jury

PICKETT, Judge.

The defendant, the Vermilion Parish Police Jury (VPPJ), appeals a judgment

of the trial court ordering the VPPJ to pay for the pre-adjudicative costs of housing

juveniles arrested by the police forces of the cities of Abbeville and Kaplan and

ordered held by the courts for those municipalities in detention facilities outside of

Vermilion Parish.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In addition to the state district court in Vermilion Parish, there are two ward

courts with concurrent jurisdiction in some juvenile matters. The City of Abbeville

is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Third Ward Court, and the City of Kaplan

is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ninth Ward Court. When a police officer

for either Abbeville or Kaplan arrests a juvenile, they can petition either the district

court or their respective ward courts for an order to detain the juvenile until a

seventy-two hour hearing is held. Because Vermilion Parish has no juvenile

detention facility, the juveniles must be transported to a facility outside of the

parish. Two such facilities are the Lafayette Juvenile Detention Home in Lafayette

Parish or the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office Detention Center. The cities argue

that until June 2010, the Vermilion Parish Police Jury authorized the parish to pay

for the costs associated with the pre-adjudicative detention of all juveniles arrested

in Vermilion Parish, even if they were arrested by city police officers and detained

pursuant to a ward court order.

Based on its understanding of La.Ch.Code 815, in June 2010, the VPPJ

refused to authorize the payment of these costs for juveniles arrested by police

officers in Abbeville and Kaplan and ordered detained by the ward courts. The

VPPJ sent the bills for March 2010 forward to the cities to pay. Abbeville and

1

Kaplan responded by filing a Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Mandamus in

Support of a Declaratory Judgment. In their petition, they asked the district court

to order the VPPJ to pay the outstanding bills and all future bills for pre-

adjudicative detention of juveniles. The cities also sought a declaration that

La.Ch.Code art. 815 was unconstitutionally vague. The VPPJ filed a

Reconventional Demand. The cities filed an exception to the reconventional

demand.

The parties agreed to postpone a hearing on the reconventional demand and

the exceptions thereto, and the trial court heard evidence and arguments on the

cities’ petition. The trial court found that La.Ch.Code 815 is not applicable

because neither the Lafayette Juvenile Detention Home nor the St. Martin Parish

Sheriff’s Office Detention Center is a “regional detention center or shelter care

facility.” The trial court ordered the VPPJ to pay the bills. The VPPJ now appeals.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The VPPJ asserts one assignment of error:

The district court committed error in ordering the VPPJ to pay the cost
of the detention of juvenile offenders when said detention is initiated
by city police and ordered by the judges of the city courts of
Abbeville and Kaplan, and in finding Louisiana Children’s Code
Article 815(E) not applicable to this case.

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Children’s Code Article 815 states:

A. The peace officer or an appropriate representative of the
arresting agency shall have the authority and responsibility to
transport the child to the appropriate place of detention specified in
Paragraphs B and C of this Article, unless the child has been released
to the care of his parents pursuant to Article 814(B)(1).

B. If the child has been taken into custody for the commission
of a felony-grade delinquent act or of a misdemeanor-grade
delinquent act based upon an offense against the person of another,
the child shall be taken to a juvenile detention center.
2

C. For the commission of any other misdemeanor-grade
delinquent act, the child shall be taken to either a shelter care facility
or a juvenile detention center.

D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code or other
provision of law to the contrary, no judge shall order that a youth
taken into custody for a felony-grade delinquent act or for a
misdemeanor-grade delinquent act based upon an offense against the
person of another be placed in a shelter care facility.

E. The governing authority of the parish or municipality
requesting placement of a juvenile in either a regional detention center
or a shelter care facility shall be responsible to the regional detention
center or shelter care facility for the cost of confinement in
accordance with a schedule which may be adopted by the regional
detention center or shelter care facility.

The VPPJ and the cities dispute the effect of Section E on the situation in

Vermilion Parish. “Statutory interpretation presents an issue of law for an

appellate court. It is, thus, reviewed de novo. See Burnette v. Stalder, 00-2167

(La.6/29/01), 789 So.2d 573.” Stewart v. Estate of Stewart, 07-333, p. 3 (La.App.

3 Cir. 10/3/07), 966 So.2d 1241, 1242-43.

Abbeville and Kaplan claim that La.Ch.Code 815(E) provides an exclusive

listing of the facilities for which a municipality is responsible for the cost of

confinement. Pursuant La.R.S. 15:1091 et seq., the state created a system of

regional youth detention facilities. It is undisputed that neither the Lafayette

Juvenile Detention Home nor the St. Martin Detention Center is a “regional

detention center.” A “shelter care facility” is defined at La.Ch.Code art. 116(25) as

“a licensed, physically unrestricting public or private child caring facility, or a

youth residential facility operated for runaway or homeless youth, which provides

temporary care for children.” Throughout the Children’s Code, a “shelter care

facility” is distinguished from a “detention facility.” See La.Ch.Code arts. 738,

3

791, 814, 817, 819. Neither party introduced evidence that the Lafayette and St.

Martin facilities are shelter care facilities.

On the other hand, the VPPJ argues that the listing in La.Ch.Code art.

815(E) is merely illustrative of the types of facilities for which municipalities are

responsible for the cost of confinement. Instead, they argue the key phrase in

section E is “governing authority of the parish or municipality requesting

placement of a juvenile,” and because it is clear that the cities, through their

respective ward courts, have requested placement of juveniles. The VPPJ cites

Attorney General Opinion 1998-61, which answered the question, “Who bears the

pre-adjudicative costs associated with the detention of a juvenile?” The attorney

general, interpreting a previous version of La.Ch.Code art. 815, stated:

[T]he governing authority requesting the juvenile’s detention
must pay the costs associated with that detention. LSA-Ch. C. Art.
815(D)(3) states:

“The governing authority of the parish or
municipality requesting such placement and the
administrator of the facility enter into a mutual
agreement for reimbursement to the facility for the costs
of the care provided.”

For example, if the sheriff’s office requests the detention of a
juvenile the parish must pay the costs associated with the juvenile’s
detention. If the city police request the detention of the juvenile the
city must pay the costs associated with the detention of the juvenile.
As a result, the most important issue to consider in determining who
pays the pre-adjudicative detention costs of a juvenile is which
governing authority is requesting the detention. Whatever governing
authority requests the detention must pay the pre-adjudicative
detention costs.

Subsection D(3), relied on by the attorney general in reaching his opinion,

was deleted by the Legislature in 1999. 1999 La. Acts No. 1359, § 1. Therefore,

we find this attorney general’s opinion of no value in determining the issue before

us.

4

We find that La.Ch.Code art. 815(E) applies only to regional detention

facilities or shelter care facilities, and the facilities in question are neither. Our

inquiry does not end there. The cities must also show that the VPPJ is legally

responsible for these costs in order to be entitled to the relief sought. The cities

argue that until June 2010 the police jury paid these costs, and that custom and

practice are sufficient to create an obligation for the VPPJ. Civil Code art. 3 states:

Custom results from practice repeated for a long time and
generally accepted as having acquired the force of law. Custom may
not abrogate legislation.

Custom has a long tradition as a source of law in our state. Our supreme court

long ago explained the meaning of Article 3:

Customs, according to our Civil Code, result from a long series
of actions, constantly repeated, which have by such repetition, and by
uninterrupted acquiescence, acquired the force of a tacit and common
consent. La. Code, art. 3.

....

The recognition of customs, by our Code, necessarily admitted proof,
other than that required to establish laws.

Broussard v. Bernard, 7 La. 211, 215 (La.1834). This jurisprudence has remained

unchallenged since that time. The cities have not introduced sufficient evidence to

prove that a custom exists whereby the Vermilion Parish is liable for the costs

incurred for the pre-adjudicative detention of juveniles in Lafayette and St. Martin

Parishes. Therefore, the cities have failed to show a legal basis for the VPPJ’s

obligation to pay for the bills incurred at the Lafayette Parish Detention Home or

the St. Martin Parish Detention Center. The judgment of the trial court is reversed.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for

further proceedings on the remaining issues. The costs of this appeal, in the

5

amount of $1,376.50, are assessed as follows: one-half to the City of Abbeville,

and one-half to the City of Kaplan.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

6

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
11-766

CITY OF ABBEVILLE, ET AL.

VERSUS

VERMILION PARISH POLICE JURY

**********

PAINTER, J. dissents.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The majority finds that

La.Ch.Code art. 815(E) applies only to regional detention facilities or shelter care

facilities and that the facilities in question are neither. However, it finds that the

cities must show that the Police Jury is legally responsible for these costs, and that

the cities failed to introduce sufficient evidence to prove that a custom exists

whereby the Police Jury is responsible for paying these costs. As a result, the

majority finds that the cities have failed to show that the Police Jury is obligated to

pay the costs for the juvenile detentions at issue.

I agree that La.Ch.Code art. 815(E) applies only to regional detention

facilities or shelter care facilities and that the facilities in question are neither.

However, I disagree with the finding with regard to custom. The Police Jury in its

reconventional demand states that:

Prior to March, 2010, the Vermilion Parish Police Jury paid all
costs associated with the confinement of juveniles who had been
placed into detention or protective custody by the order of the Judge
of Abbeville and Kaplan City Courts on the erroneous belief that the
Parish was responsible for those costs.

Thus the pleadings of the Police Jury establish that it was the custom of the

Police Jury to pay these costs. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the

trial court.