November 27, 1990
Lynne DeLano, Secretary
Department of Corrections
Joe Foss Building
523 E. Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501
OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 90-42
Inmate earnings
Dear Secretary DeLano:
You have requested an official opinion from this Office concerning the following factual situation:
FACTS:
If the warden of the South Dakota State Penitentiary determines that the character and attitude of an inmate reasonably indicate that he is worthy of trust, the warden may release and provide for continued supervision of said inmate to work at paid employment. The earnings of any inmate placed on work release are to be assigned and paid to the warden of the State Penitentiary. The warden, in turn, is required to make deductions therefrom for, inter alia, child support payments.
State statute specifically provides that:
24-8-9. The warden shall place all earnings in the inmate's account and make disbursements therefrom in the priority set forth below:
(1) The board and room charges of the inmate;
(2) Necessary travel expenses and other incidental expenses of the inmate related to his release program;
(3) Assist in the support of the inmate's legal dependents;
(4) Payments on fines and restitution;
(5) The inmate shall have the discretion of directing payments to be made upon proper proof of personal debts and obligations;
(6) The balance, if any, to be retained in the inmate's account and paid to the inmate upon parole or discharge.
Those earnings, however, are not subject to garnishment. It is also provided for in statute that:
24-8-10. The earnings of inmates under this chapter shall not be subject to garnishment, attachment or execution either in the hands of the employer or an agent authorized to hold or transmit such moneys.
Based upon its prior interpretation of these statutes, the Department of Corrections currently exempts work release earnings from child support and restitution type payments. The Department would like to change that policy so as to allow these deductions from work release earnings.
Based on the foregoing factual situation, you have asked the following questions:
QUESTIONS:
1. Does the exemption provided in SDCL 24-8-10 apply so as to prevent deductions from an inmate's work release earnings or do the provisions of SDCL 24-8-9(3) relating to the support of an inmate's dependents control in the factual situation presented?
2. Does SDCL 24-8-10 protect all inmate earnings from garnishment or only those wages paid to the inmate while on work release?
IN RE QUESTION NO. 1:
It is a well-established maxim of statutory construction that statutes relating to the same subject matter are to be construed together and harmonized in order to give each statute full force and effect. Hartpence v. Youth Forestry Camp, 325 N.W.2d 292 (S.D. 1982); Kinzler v. Nacey, 296 N.W.2d 725 (S.D. 1980). See also Logerquist v. Board of Canvassers, 442 N.W.2d 551 (Wis. 1989). The rule that statutes in pari materia should be construed together applies with particular force to statutes passed at the same session of the Legislature. Iowa Farm Serum, Co. v. Board of Pharmacy Examiners, 35 N.W.2d 848 (Iowa 1949). Moreover, one should refrain from adopting an interpretation to a statute that would have the effect of nullifying another statute. Georgetown Ltd. Partnership v. Geo Technical Services, 430 N.W.2d 34 (Neb. 1988); City of Sioux Falls v. State Board of Equalization, 203 N.W.2d 419 (S.D. 1973).
Applying these rules of statutory construction to the issue at hand, I conclude that SDCL 24-8-10 was not intended to circumvent the requirement found in SDCL 24-8-9 that the warden deduct child support and restitution type payments from the inmate's work release earnings. This conclusion is mandated by the fact that not only were these statutes enacted during the same legislative session, but both provisions were contained in the same subsection of the chapter providing for a work release program at the State prison. See Session Law 1967, ch. 32, 5. The intent of enactment was to avoid discouraging prospective employers from participating in the work release program by relieving them of potential liability under our State's garnishment statutes. It is my opinion that the Department of Corrections should therefore implement a policy whereby these deductions are made from an inmate's work release earnings.
IN RE QUESTION NO. 2:
In answer to your second question, I believe that only work release earnings are protected from garnishment under SDCL 24-8-10. That statute should not be construed to apply to other inmate earnings (i.e., those earned from employment in the prison industries). In analyzing a statute, one must begin with the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, the language must ordinarily be considered conclusive. State v. Galati, 365 N.W.2d 575 (S.D. 1985); Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, 447 U.S. 102, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980).
In the instant case, State statute provides that:
The earnings of inmates under this chapter shall not be subject to garnishment, attachment or execution either in the hands of the employer or an agent authorized to hold or transmit such moneys. [Emphasis supplied.]
SDCL 24-8-10. The language of the statute is clear, certain and unambiguous and there is therefore no reason for construction. One need only declare the meaning of the statute as clearly expressed. Appeal of AT&T Information Systems, 405 N.W.2d 24 (S.D. 1987); Petition of Famous Brands, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 882 (S.D. 1984). Based on the plain language employed by the Legislature in enacting SDCL 24-8-10, it is obvious that the clear legislative intent was to limit this "protection" to an inmate's work release earnings.
Respectfully submitted,
ROGER A. TELLINGHUISEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
RAT:ss
