May 5, 1977

Mr. Jack Klauck 
State's Attorney 
Pennington County Courthouse 
Rapid City, South Dakota 57701

Official Opinion No. 77-43

Providing for magistrate court facilities

Dear Mr. Klauck:

You have requested an official opinion from this office in regard to the following factual situation:

FACTS: 

At the present time, Rapid City and Pennington County officials are planning to construct a public safety building.  A point in controversy appears to have arisen as to who should bear the cost of furnishing quarters for the Magistrate's Court. 
    
I have checked the records of the Magistrate Court in Rapid City to determine the number of State filed cases that are handled by the Court in relation to the number of city filed cases and the amount of fines attributable to each.  The records show that approximately two-thirds of the total amount of fines were attributable to State cases.  The number of cases appears to follow an uneven pattern, however, the Magistrate believes that roughly eighty percent of his time is spent on State cases or State-related matters. 
    
In view of the statutes and the figures furnished by the Clerk of Courts, I recommended to the County Commissioners that I believed it would be equitable if the County and the City would share the cost of providing the facility for the Magistrate with the County paying two-thirds of the cost and the City one-third. 
    
Some of the County Commissioners do not feel this is equitable in view of the fact that all monies collected in the form of fines for state offenses go to the school district and therefore, of course, the County has no revenue from this source.  On the other hand, the city does garner some revenue from the Court based on a percentage of the amount of fines collected for city traffic offenses.

Based on the above facts, you ask:

QUESTION: 

Do the provisions of SDCL 16-12A-29, 16-12A-30, 16-2-25, and 16-2-26, require that the County bear the cost of furnishing quarters to the Magistrate's Court?

SDCL 16-12A-29 and -30 provide: 
    
16-12A-29. Each county in the state shall provide suitable and adequate facilities for the magistrate court, including the facilities necessary to make the space provided functional for its intended use. 
    
16-12A-30. Any municipality in the state shall, upon order of the presiding judge of the circuit, provide suitable and adequate quarters for a magistrate court assigned principally to serve the municipality, including the facilities necessary to make the space provided functional for its intended use.

SDCL 16-2-25 and -26 provide: 
    
16-2-25. Each county in the state shall provide suitable and adequate facilities for the clerk or any deputy clerk of the circuit court, including the facilities necessary to make the space provided functional for its intended use. 
    
16-2-26. Any municipality or township in the state assigned a magistrate for the principal purpose of providing service to such political subdivisions shall, upon order of the presiding judge of the circuit, provide suitable and adequate quarters for any deputy clerk of the circuit appointed to serve the magistrate, including the facilities necessary to make the space provided functional for its intended use.

The above-cited statutes lead me to believe that the Legislature has placed the primary obligation upon the counties to provide space for the magistrate court.  This basic requirement may appear to some commissioners to be harsh or inequitable, but the language of the statute is clear and its meaning unavoidable.  With respect to the equitable nature of this statute, that is a matter for presenting to the Legislature for review.

The Legislature has, however, recognized that municipalities may have obligations to provide the necessary facilities to a magistrate court which the presiding judge of the circuit recognizes as a magistrate court assigned principally to serve a municipality.  I do not know if there has been any order entered by the presiding judge in regard to the fact situation you present. Absent such an order, it would appear that the primary obligation would be imposed upon the county to provide these facilities.  See SDCL 16-12A-29.

Although I can understand and sympathize with the feelings of the county commissioners in this matter, I feel that the law has pretty well established who has the primary responsibility here. This legislative determination may have the appearance of being unfair in some circumstances, but the only solution to that problem is to bring the matter to the Legislature.  There is no authority, of course, in this office to ignore what the law says in an attempt to reach an equitable solution.

If the City of Rapid City has agreed to participate in a two-thirds/one-third arrangement, it would certainly appear to me that that arrangement would be more beneficial for the county than for the county to bear the entire burden. There is, of course, no reason why Rapid City cannot agree to participate with Pennington County in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

William J. Janklow
Attorney General

WJJ:DOC:mhb