Freestone County tables proposed interlocal policing agreement with Oakwood after legal, liability concerns

Freestone County commissioners on an unspecified meeting date agreed to table consideration of a proposed interlocal policing agreement with the municipality of Oakwood after commissioners and staff raised legal and liability questions and said the county sheriff was not supportive.

County staff told the court the draft agreement'which they discussed with Charlie Johnson, attorney for Oakwood'would define a patrol perimeter north of Oakwood and along Highway 79 up to the Trinity River. A staff member said, "I don't think there's a way with the Code of Criminal Procedure to ... have even those Class C'[offenses] that occur in Freestone County go somewhere else." The same staff member added the draft would include a map showing the scope of patrol, describing county roads such as County Road 310, 311 and connections near the new high school football field in Freestone County.

Commissioners and speakers raised operational questions: who currently patrols the county roads, how dispatch would decide whether to call Oakwood or the Freestone County Sheriff's Office, and whether existing memoranda of understanding remain in effect after a cancellation letter that Oakwood reportedly sent in January. A county official summarized concerns about venue and ticket processing: "Those tickets can't go to Oakwood Municipal Court Freestone County," and said the county needed a new agreement to address the issue.

Speakers also emphasized liability risks. A staff member warned that "any officer that's operating in Freestone County ... there could always be a civil lawsuit," and said plaintiff attorneys often include all potentially responsible parties; the speaker called the degree to which different entities would share liability a "case-by-case basis." Commissioners cited the sheriff's apparent opposition; one commissioner said the sheriff "is not in favor of doing this." Several residents and Oakwood representatives described calls for more patrol presence on county roads immediately outside Oakwood city limits.

After extended discussion the presiding commissioner said they would not break a tie and moved to table the item for further research and negotiation; the court agreed to revisit the proposal at a later meeting.

The item remains tabled, with staff directed to research the legal effect of Oakwood's cancellation letter, clarify venue for Class C citations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and examine dispatch and liability arrangements before returning the agreement to the court.