 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
UILKIE v. STATE3/30/1992
arms special agents;
(11) Internal Revenue Service special agents and inspectors; and
(12) Certified law enforcement officers of the Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
In adding subsection (e) above, the General Assembly apparently intended to extend to full-time wildlife officers the same powers as other peace or law enforcement officers, so long as the wildlife officers did not exercise their authority in a manner that would jeopardize federal funds. However, confusion arose regarding the arrest powers given wildlife officers under subsection (e) of Act 715 because two days after that Act's passage, the General Assembly enacted Act 846, which again amended 16-81-106 (1987) and covered the same subject as that contained in Act 715. However, this later Act incorporated all the provisions of Act 715, but deleted subsection (e) of Act 715, thus omitting any reference to wildlife officers. The General Assembly substituted a new subsection (e) in Act 846 which, with some slight modification, had been subsection (f) of Act 715. While Act 846 covered anew the same subject matter contained in Act 715, Act 846 did clarify and enlarge the prior Act to (1) substitute the designation "certified law enforcement officer" for "peace officer," (2) add a new subsection (b)(3) to give certified law enforcement
officers statewide arrest powers in certain circumstances and (3) add language to the new subsection (e) so as to extend state arrest authority and immunity, if any, to members of the federal, state, county, municipal and prosecuting attorney's drug task forces.
Appellant's argument (rejected by the trial court below) is that Act 846 clearly superseded Act 715, and by deleting subsection (e) and omitting any reference to Commission wildlife officers in Act 846, the General Assembly intended to remove the additional arrest powers it previously gave such officers under Act 715. He cites the settled rule of statutory construction that, if two legislative acts relating to the same subject are in conflict with each other, the later act controls. Wells v. Heath, 274 Ark. 45, 622 S.W.2d 163 (1981).
The state argues, of course, that the two acts are not irreconcilable, and can be construed so as to give effect to both. It further asserts that courts are required to reconcile statutes on the same general subject matter, construing them together, if possible, in order to implement legislative intent. Cook v. Bevill, 246 Ark. 805, 440 S.W.2d 570 (1969). This is especially so if two acts on the same subject were enacted during the same general session. Love v. Hill, 297 Ark. 96, 759 S.W.2d 550 (1988). This court has also held that, where two acts were under consideration by the General Assembly at the same time, and were passed at the same session, this strengthens the presumption that there was no intention to repeal one by the other. Merchants' Transfer and Warehouse Company v. Gates, 180 Ark. 96, 21 S.W.2d 406 (1929).
[1-3] We believe the two rules set out in Berry v. Gordon, 237 Ark. 547, 376 S.W.2d 279 (1964), are particularly instructive in deciding whether our General Assembly intended to repeal Act 715 by its later enactment of Act 846. The Berry court, quoting from Babb v. El Dorado, 170 Ark. 10, 278 S.W. 649 (1926), stated the following:
One is that, where the provisions of two statutes are in irreconcilable conflict with each other, there is an implied repeal by the latter one which governs the subject matter so far as relates to the conflicting
provisions, and to that extent only.
The other one is that a repeal by implication is accomplished where the Legislature takes up the whole sub
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|