May J.
Jordan Brewer, Mark Timmons, and Josh Uitts, in their official capacities as Commissioners of Clinton County (collectively, “the Commissioners”) appeal the denial of their motion to correct error filed following the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Clinton County Sheriff’s Office and Richard Kelly, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Clinton County (collectively, “the Sheriff’s Office”). The parties present multiple issues for our consideration, and we find one dispositive: whether the Commissioners’ authority to enact an ordinance generally applicable to all county buildings is limited by the Sheriff’s duty to use reasonable precautions to take care of inmates housed in the jail. We affirm. [Footnote omitted.]
….
The Commissioners contend the trial court erred when it determined they exceeded their authority when enacting Order 2021-05 because they had authority to enact that Ordinance under the Home Rule Act… Thus, under the Home Rule Act, the Commissioners are permitted to pass an ordinance of general applicability that prohibits the use of e-cigarettes in county buildings as they have done with Order 2021-05…
However, the Home Rule Act also sets limits on the Commissioners’ authority. A “unit may exercise any power it has to the extent that the power: (1) is not expressly denied by the Indiana Constitution or by statute; and (2) is not expressly granted to another entity.” Ind. Code § 35-1-3-5(a).11 Specific to the case before us, the county sheriff shall “take care of the county jail and prisoners there[.]” Ind. Code § 36-2-13-5(a)(7) (hereinafter “Take Care Provision”). Indiana precedent has interpreted the Take Care Provision to require the Sheriff “to take reasonable precautions under the circumstances to preserve the life, health and safety of the prisoner.”…
In circumstances like those before us, where the Sheriff’s Office is required to take reasonable precautions to protect the life, safety, and health of an inmate in the county jail, “county commissioners do not have control over the acts of a sheriff.” Robins v. Harris, 740 N.E.2d 914, 919 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. granted, summarily affirmed in relevant part by Robins v. Harris, 769 N.E.2d 586, 587 (Ind. 2002). While the Commissioners have the power to enact a general ordinance governing the use of e-cigarettes in county buildings under the Home Rule Act, the Commissioners do not have the authority to regulate the use of e-cigarettes in the county jail because that power is entrusted in the Sheriff’s Office pursuant to the Take Care Provision. Based thereon, we conclude the trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of the Sheriff’s Office and, thus, did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Commissioners’ motion to correct error. [Footnote omitted.]
Conclusion
While the Commissioners had authority under the Home Rule Act to enact Order 2021-05 as a general ordinance governing the use of e-cigarettes in county buildings, Indiana Code section 36-2-13-5(a)(7) expressly gives the Sheriff’s Office the power to “take care” of prisoners. Therefore, Order 2021-05 does not apply to the activity of prisoners in the county jail. Based thereon, we conclude the trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of the Sheriff’s Office and did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Commissioners’ motion to correct error. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed. Crone, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.