Freestone County approves interlocal agreement with Oakwood Police Department amid liability and jurisdiction concerns

Freestone County Commissioners on an item to allow municipal officers to operate in parts of the county approved an interlocal cooperation agreement that will permit the Oakwood Police Department to exercise law-enforcement authority in specified county areas, including patrols on county roads near the city border.

The agreement was presented during discussion of precinct security and reserve deputies. The court voted to enter the interlocal cooperation arrangement after commissioners heard resident testimony urging continued Oakwood patrols for faster response times and county staff described the agreement as similar to a mutual-aid arrangement.

The discussion focused on three practical questions: what duties visiting officers will perform, whether the county or the municipality will bear liability for injuries or misconduct, and how dispatch will coordinate calls. Precinct staff described the visiting Oakwood officers as carrying active peace officer licenses and performing building security, serving eviction notices and assisting on-scene when requested. "This person is willing to come and work and have specialized training ... and provide better law enforcement care and security for the court annex building over there at no cost to the county," said the Precinct 2 constable, who presented the item and supporting paperwork, including a TCOLE profile and training records.

Several residents who live on county roads north of Oakwood read letters asking the commissioners to keep Oakwood patrols in place. One resident told the court the presence of Oakwood officers had reduced late-night traffic and apparent criminal activity in her neighborhood and urged continuation: "Oakwood Police Department is most definitely a benefit to this part of Freestone County," the resident said while reading a submitted letter.

County counsel and other staff said the draft agreement is an interlocal or mutual-aid style arrangement that includes an indemnity clause. "Any liability dealing with the Oakwood PD action, that liability would fall with the municipality of Oakwood, and that officer," the county attorney said, while acknowledging no indemnity is absolute and scenarios exist where the county could be drawn into litigation. The attorney said an indemnity clause would, in practice, help push primary liability back to Oakwood when an Oakwood officer acts alone.

Sheriff's remarks reflected caution about delegation of patrol responsibility. The sheriff said he was not convinced the agreement was necessary in areas he regards as among the county's safer spots and emphasized that deputies already respond there: "Just because you don't see them don't mean they're not there," he said.

Commissioners also discussed mapping the agreement's geographic scope; one speaker reviewed proposed map lines that would include county roads up to State Highway 84 in the area around CR 300 and CR 331. The court and Oakwood representatives agreed to a final map to attach to the interlocal agreement before implementation.

The court approved the interlocal cooperation agreement by voice vote. No roll-call tally was recorded in the transcript. The court directed staff to finalize the agreement language and map and to confirm the operational details of dispatching and indemnity with Oakwood prior to broad deployment.

The agreement will allow Oakwood officers to issue citations and make arrests in the approved area when acting under the interlocal arrangement. Commissioners and staff emphasized the arrangement is intended to supplement—rather than replace—county and sheriff patrols, and that the county will continue to respond when county deputies are dispatched.

The item closed with the court approving the agreement and asking county staff to continue work on finalizing map limits, indemnity language and a memorandum of understanding with the city of Oakwood.