Ark. Code Ann. § 14-15-503 (2020)

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Seventeenth Annual Survey of Arkansas Law — Criminal Law, 17 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 448.

Case Notes

In General.

This section is merely declaratory of the common law. Davidson v. Chandler, 206 Ark. 375, 175 S.W.2d 567 (1943) (decision prior to 1977 amendment).

Appointment of Deputies.

Appointment of deputy expires with the term of the principal; on reelection of principal, new appointment is necessary. Greenwood v. State, 17 Ark. 332 (1856).

This section refers to general deputies and does not take away the common law right of a sheriff to depute his authority to another for a particular service. Putman v. State, 49 Ark. 449, 5 S.W. 715 (1887).

Sheriff was entitled to appoint deputy to work with Junior Deputy Sheriffs League if quorum court made an appropriation to pay the salary of the deputy, and county court was required to allow deputy's claim for salary. Parker v. Adkins, 223 Ark. 455, 266 S.W.2d 799 (1954).

Following a controlled-drug buy, defendant was arrested by Monticello, Arkansas, officers outside county limits; cocaine, the buy money, and drug paraphernalia were retrieved by the officers. Defendant was not entitled to suppress the evidence even though the officers were outside their jurisdiction; the officers carried commission cards which appointed them to act as deputies in Drew County, Arkansas, under § 14-15-503. Trotter v. State, 99 Ark. App. 37, 256 S.W.3d 521 (2007).

Authority of Deputies.

A deputy sheriff is not, by reason of such appointment, authorized to act as deputy collector, although both offices are held by his principal. Crowell v. Barham, 57 Ark. 195, 21 S.W. 33 (1893); Boone County Bank v. Eoff, 66 Ark. 321, 50 S.W. 688 (1899).

A deputy sheriff cannot, as such, engage to guard the property of a private person not in the custody of the law. Saint Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. v. Hackett, 58 Ark. 381, 24 S.W. 881 (1894).

Where sheriff appointed a deputy and signed a card for identification purposes, the introduction of the card in evidence was not prejudicial when the evidence showed that the deputy acted and assumed he had authority to make an arrest for a traffic violation. Wilkerson v. State, 212 Ark. 603, 206 S.W.2d 758 (1947).

As a sheriff is given the legislative authority to be a conservator of the peace in his county under § 14-15-501, the same is true of a deputy sheriff employed by a planned community, for he is likewise authorized to stand in the stead of his sheriff and discharge his duties throughout his county. Gritts v. State, 315 Ark. 1, 864 S.W.2d 859 (1993).

Deputies employed by planned communities have the authority to arrest. Gritts v. State, 315 Ark. 1, 864 S.W.2d 859 (1993).

Lieutenant did not have a letter from the director of the Arkansas State Police authorizing his activities, but he was working interdiction on the interstate to locate drugs in vehicles as a deputy sheriff commissioned by the county sheriff's department, he produced his identification card showing his commission dates, and he testified that when he discovered defendant appeared to be intoxicated, he notified another lieutenant who was specifically working driving while intoxicated investigations; there was no clear error in the trial court's finding that the lieutenant was acting on behalf of the county when he conducted the traffic stop. Batchelor v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 682, 450 S.W.3d 245 (2014).

Legislative Intent.

The legislature intended to provide all deputy sheriffs with the power to perform all duties as required by law to be performed by a sheriff, and, in addition, these powers are specifically provided to deputy sheriffs while in the course of their employment for planned community property owners associations. Gritts v. State, 315 Ark. 1, 864 S.W.2d 859 (1993).

Liability of Sheriffs.

Sheriff is liable for unjustifiable assault of his deputy while in discharge of his duty. Edgin v. Talley, 169 Ark. 662, 276 S.W. 591 (1925), overruled in part, Dillard v. State, 260 Ark. 743, 543 S.W.2d 925 (Ark. 1976).

Sheriff is not liable on account of his deputy's negligence in driving car on way to make an arrest. Usrey v. Yarnell, 181 Ark. 804, 27 S.W.2d 988 (1930).

The general rule is that for all civil purposes, the acts of a deputy sheriff are those of his principal; hence, a sheriff is liable for the act, default, tort, or other misconduct done or committed by his deputy, colore officii. Davidson v. Chandler, 206 Ark. 375, 175 S.W.2d 567 (1943).

Where citizen, who attempted to stop unjustified beating of elderly man by deputy sheriff following automobile collision while deputy was transporting prisoners to court, was killed by the deputy, sheriff was held not liable, since the act of the deputy was not, on the facts presented, done under the color of his office. Davidson v. Chandler, 206 Ark. 375, 175 S.W.2d 567 (1943).

Under the common law, a sheriff is liable for the actions of his appointed deputies and has control over their selection and retention. Dilday v. State, 300 Ark. 249, 778 S.W.2d 618 (1989).

Cited: Brenneman v. State, 264 Ark. 460, 573 S.W.2d 47 (1978); Pipes v. State, 22 Ark. App. 235, 738 S.W.2d 423 (1987).