Town of Centreville - Community Alliance Program

07/04/2024

Youth Violence Prevention Center Coming Soon!

The Town of Centreville’s decision to provide lease space to the Wilk-Amite Youth Action Network for the development of our Youth Violence Prevention Center, at a nominal fee, is a significant next step towards addressing youth violence in our community.

By offering this space, Town of Centreville confirmed its commitment to supporting ongoing initiatives of the Learning Village and Wilk-Amite Youth Action Network to prevent youth violence, the town showed that it values the work that is being done to prevent youth violence and have shown that it is willing to support youth violence prevention work in a tangible way.

Also, the town’s decision to offer the space at a nominal fee suggests that it is prioritizing social good over financial gain. By making it financially viable for the Youth Violence Prevention Center to operate in the Town of Centreville, the town is showing that it places a high value on promoting safety and well-being for our youth.

The town’s decision to allow the establishment of the Youth Violence Prevention Center at 216 East Joseph Street is important to the Learning Village and Wilk-Amite Youth Action Network in addressing the issue of youth violence in our community.

This location, with its historical significance as the former USO Building, Town Hall, Centreville Police Department and a number of other community service and improvement programs, provides a rich backdrop for the Youth Violence Prevention Center’s mission.

The fact that this location has served various important functions in the past underscores its importance within our community. The USO Building was a place where service members found support and friendship during wartime. The Town Hall symbolizes governance and community leadership, while the Centreville Police Department represents safety and security.

By using this site for our Youth Violence Prevention Center, we are not only utilizing a space with deep historical roots but also using it for a well-intentioned cause.

By locating the Youth Violence Prevention Center at 216 East Joseph Street, we will leverage the historical significance and central location of the site to maximize our impact on preventing youth violence.

The familiarity of the location to our community will help increase trust and enhance engagement with our programs. Additionally, being housed in a space with such diverse historical uses adds layers of meaning to our work, emphasizing continuity and our community’s ability to confront and conquer adverse challenges.

The Youth Violence Prevention Center plans to reduce and prevent youth violence in our community by leveraging existing recreational and educational resources and engaging volunteer community members as staff. The programs developed to address youth violence in our community includes a wide range of topics; community outreach to engage with families, schools, and other community organizations to build a network of support for our youth; parenting classes to enhance parenting skills through education and support to help prevent youth violence and promote the overall well-being in families; educational workshops that will focus on topics such as conflict resolution, anger management, and communication skills; access to mental health services to address underlying issues that may contribute to violence; mentoring where coaches and other community members will work with our youth to provide guidance and support; recreational activities that will provide a healthy outlet for youth energy and promote positive social interaction and an annual STEM camp.

Now that we have acquired the building for the Youth Violence Prevention Center, it is important to initiate the renovation process to enhance the building’s functionality and aesthetics. The renovations will help modernize the space, improve energy efficiency, address any structural issues, and create a more helpful environment for our program participants and volunteer staff.

We are excited about this opportunity and welcome suggestions and assistance from individuals or organizations who can contribute to the successful completion of the renovation tasks. We value input from individuals or groups who have expertise in renovation projects or creative ideas that could enhance our renovation efforts. If you have suggestions or are willing to assist us in this process, please contact us at [email protected] or at (601) 810-9428.

01/29/2021

Office of the Attorney General
May 16, 1979
Previous search term Term Next search term
1979 WL 24563 (Miss. A.G.)
Office of the Attorney General
State of Mississippi
*1 May 16, 1979

*1 Chastaine Flynt
*1 Mayor
*1 Town of Flowood
*1 Post Office Box 5536
*1 Flowood, Mississippi 39208

Dear Mayor Flynt:

*1 Attorney General A. F. Summer has received your opinion request of May 4, 1979 and has assigned it to me for reply. In your letter you state:

*1 “It came to my attention from the news media that the United States Supreme Court recently held that it was unconstitutional to set up Previous road blocks or check points for the purpose of checking drivers license to the general public without probable cause of any law violation.

*1 The police officers of the Town of Flowood have periodically in the past set up Previous road blocks detaining people in their normal travel on the streets and highways of Flowood.

*1 Before issuing a directive to our police department under these conditions to cease and desist such practice, I would appreciate your legal opinion as to the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court before I issue such a directive.”

*1 The case you are referring to is Delaware v. Prouse, 47 L.W. 4323 (March 27, 1979). In this case the Supreme Court held that the police cannot arbitrarily pull over a motorist to check his license, in the absence of probable cause. However, the Court specifically stated it limited its opinion to an arbitrary spot check of a motorist, and went so far as to suggest that a roadblock where all passing motorists are checked as a possible method to be used to enforce traffic laws and public safety.

*1 In the light of the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Delaware v. Prouse, it is our opinion that a roadblock where all motorists' driving licenses are checked is permissible.

*1 Trusting that the above will be of value to you, I am and remain
Sincerely yours,
*1 A. F. Summer
*1 Attorney General
1979 WL 24563 (Miss. A.G.)

01/29/2021

Office of the Attorney General
April 30, 1981
Previous search term Term Next search term
1981 WL 39233 (Miss. A.G.)
Office of the Attorney General
State of Mississippi
*1 April 30, 1981
Roadblock Inside Corporate Limits

*1 Honorable John Michael Sims
*1 Town Attorney for Heidelberg
*1 Post Office Drawer P
*1 Heidelberg, Mississippi 39439

Dear Mr. Sims:

*1 Attorney General Bill Allain has received your letter of April 28, 1981, and has assigned it to the undersigned for research and reply. In your letter you state:

*1 “I am writing at the request of the Town of Heidelberg, as the Attorney for the Town. My question is as follows:

*1 “Can the city policeman within the Town of Heidelberg, Mississippi establish Previous roadblocks within the corporate limits, for the purpose of making drivers license checks?”

*1 This office is not aware of any authority which would prohibit a municipal police officer from setting up a Previous roadblock Term inside the corporate limits for the purpose of checking drivers license.

*1 In addition, please find enclosed a prior opinion addressed to Mr. Chastaine Flynt, dated May 16, 1979, concerning the legality of roadblocks.

Very truly yours,
*1 Bill Allain
*1 Attorney General
1981 WL 39233 (Miss. A.G.)

01/29/2021

Office of the Attorney General
June 7, 1996
Term Next search term
1996 WL 369495 (Miss. A.G.)
Office of the Attorney General
State of Mississippi
*1
Opinion No.
96 - 0331

*1 June 7, 1996
Re: Aldermen and Police Department

*1 Ms. Alice M. Scott
*1 Mayor
*1 P. O. Box 1605
*1 Canton, Mississippi 39046

Dear Ms. Scott:

*1 Attorney General Mike Moore has received your recent letter on behalf of the City of Canton and has asked me to respond. In your letter you ask two questions which are answered below.

*1 1. May the Board interfere with the day to day operation of the police department and attempt to resolve minor disputes within the department?

*1 2. May the Board overrule and make decisions regarding an individual officer's specific shift and/or duty assignment?

*1 The enclosed prior opinion to James Hutcherson, March 8, 1995, states that aldermen have the responsibility of hiring and firing employees but do not have authority to become involved in minor disputes between police officers and employees of the police department or other departments on a daily basis or to take official action as a board on the resolution of these disputes. The department heads are responsible for the daily operation of their respective departments. The enclosed opinion to John McWilliams, July 25, 1991, states that the board of aldermen has a statutory responsibility to hire and fire employees which cannot be delegated. The enclosed opinions to James Bates, August 15, 1990, and Chastaine Flynt, February 11, 1980, state that the police chief has control and supervision of police officers but that the authority to hire police officers pursuant to Section 21-21-3 is vested in the governing authorities. The enclosed opinion to Edward Patten, October 30, 1985, states that an alderman has the authority to act as an advisor and observe the departments of city government for the purpose of reporting back to the board. However, an alderman does not have authority to become involved in the day to day operation of a particular department or make decisions for a department. The prior opinion to William Hathorn, June 6, 1990, states that aldermen may not serve as supervisors over departments of city government, with the statutory exception of street commissioner.

*1 The board of aldermen constitutes the legislative branch of a code charter municipality. City of Jackson v. Freeman-Howie, Inc., 121 So. 2d 120 (Miss. 1960). The police department is in the executive branch. The board of aldermen may not micromanage the police department without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers set forth in Art. 1 and 2 of the Mississippi Constitution (attached).

*1 The chief of police is the chief law enforcement officer of the municipality pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. Section 21-21-1, which states in relevant part:

*1 The marshal or chief of police shall be the chief law enforcement officer of the municipality and shall have control and supervision of all police officers employed by said municipality. The marshal or chief of police shall be an ex officio constable within the boundaries of the municipality, and he shall perform such other duties as shall be required of him by proper ordinance.

*2 The board of aldermen has responsibility to hire a sufficient number of police officers and to appropriate funds for the support of the police department pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. Section 21-21-3, which states:

*2 The governing authorities of municipalities shall have the power and authority to employ, regulate, and support a sufficient police force or night marshals, to define the duties thereof, and to furnish and supply all suitable and necessary equipment therefor.

*2 Pursuant to the above constitutional provisions and statutes, the chief of police supervises and exercises control over police officers and makes daily decisions as to what law enforcement duties and responsibilities to assign police officers, how investigations will proceed, whether search warrants or arrest warrants will be obtained, etc. The chief of police decides which officer will be head of the criminal investigation division, which officers will be assigned to investigations, and which officers will be assigned to patrol specific areas. Individual aldermen may observe activities of the police department for the purpose of reporting back to the board only. The board of aldermen does not have authority to make daily decisions which arise in the management of the police department, such as decisions concerning an individual officer's shift, duties or assignments.

*2 If we may be of any further assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely,

*2 Mike Moore
*2 Attorney General
*2 Alice Wise
*2 Special Assistant Attorney General
Note
TO RETRIEVE THE FULL TEXT OF THE ATTACHED OPINION(S) SET FORTH AT THIS POINT, ENTER THE FOLLOWING FIND:
FI 1995 WL 165643 1991 WL 533533 1990 WL 547932 1980 WL 28206 1985 WL 70894 1990 WL 547876

01/29/2021

Office of the Attorney General
February 19, 2016
Term Next search term
2016 WL 1072877 (Miss. A.G.)
Office of the Attorney General
State of Mississippi

Opinion No.
2016 -00044
-
1 February 19, 2016
Re: Municipal Police Department

*1 Mr. Steven D. Jackson
*1 Chief of Police
*1 City of DeKalb
*1 94 Bell Street
*1 DeKalb, Mississippi 39328

Dear Mr. Jackson:

*1 Attorney General Jim Hood has received your request for an opinion and has assigned it to me for research and response.

Issues Presented

*1 You inquire about the supervisory authority of the mayor and board of aldermen over the police chief, the authority of the mayor and board to abolish the police department and whether the sheriff and the police chief have concurrent jurisdiction. Specifically, you ask the following:

*1 On January 28, 2016, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen voted 3-0 with two aldermen not present in a show of protest against the abolishing the police department. I request an official [opinion] for the following questions.

*1 1. Do the mayor and board of aldermen have the statutory authority to set work schedules, assignments, involvement in criminal investigations or dictate to the police chief any functions concerning day to day operations and control of police department?

*1 2. Can the mayor get involved in the decision making of law enforcement actions within the police department or direct officers in the course of their law enforcement duties?

*1 3. Can the mayor and board of aldermen abolish the position of chief of police or marshal in accordance with 21-21-1 or dissolve funds appropriated for the police department for the chief's salary?

*1 4. Can the sheriff of Kemper County supersede the authority of the police chief within the municipal whether there is an existing police department or not?

*1 5. Does the sheriff and chief of police share concurrent jurisdiction and authority within the city limits of DeKalb?

Response

*1 Neither the mayor nor the board of aldermen have the authority to direct the daily operations, which includes the setting of work schedules and assignments and directing criminal investigations, of the police department. That authority is vested in the chief of police in accordance with Mississippi Code Annotated Section 21-21-1. The municipality may abolish its police department but may not abolish the office of the chief of police as such office must be maintained pursuant to Section 21-21-1. The sheriff and the chief of police enjoy concurrent jurisdiction over criminal matters, and neither office has superior authority over the other.

Applicable Law and Discussion

*1 As to your first and second inquiries, the “chief of police shall be the chief law enforcement officer of the municipality and shall have control and supervision of all police officers employed by said municipality” pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 21-21-1. In accordance with Section 21-21-1, we have consistently recognized that the chief of police supervises and exercises control over police officers and makes daily decisions as to law enforcement duties and responsibilities. MS AG Op., Lee (January 3, 2003); MS AG Op., Scott (June 7, 1996); MS AG Op., Gorrell (September 26, 1990); MS AG Op., Stewart (February 16, 1982). While the mayor has superintending authority over the municipality pursuant to Section 21-3-15, he does not have the authority to direct the daily operations of the police department. MS AG Op., Adams (April 5, 2012); MS AG Op., Devine (April 4, 1997); MS AG Op., Stewart (February 16, 1982). Likewise, the board of aldermen does not have the authority to make daily decisions which arise in the management of the police department. MS AG Op., Lee (January 3, 2003). The chief of police has the ultimate statutory authority to control and supervise, which includes, but is not limited to, establishing shift work, duties or assignments, how investigations will proceed and whether search warrants or arrest warrants will be obtained. MS AG Op., Lee (January 3, 2003); MS AG Op., Devine (April 4, 1997); MS AG Op., Scott (June 7, 1996).
*2 In response to your third inquiry, a municipality may abolish its police department but is prohibited from abolishing the office of marshal or chief of police, as all municipalities are required to maintain this office pursuant to Section 21-21-1. MS AG Op., Blackledge (May 31, 2013); MS AG Op., Berry (October 19, 2001); MS AG Op., Dulaney (January 19, 1989).

*2 With respect to the concurrent jurisdiction of the sheriff and the police chief in a municipality, we opined to Sheriff Danny Riegel, dated December 19, 2008, that:

*2 [th]e question of which law enforcement agency has superior law enforcement authority inside a municipality is one which cannot be addressed in terms of priority. It stands without reservation that both a municipal police department and county sheriff's office have general law enforcement powers. The one great distinction of course, is that while the sheriff's authority extends to all portions of the county including all municipalities situated therein, the municipal police department is limited to the confines of the corporate limits of the municipality, except in the situation of hot pursuit.

*2 To specifically respond to your inquires this office is not aware of any specific statutory authority which states which law enforcement agency has superior authority nor is there any statutory authority which states that one law enforcement department has to share information with another. However, the Mississippi Supreme Court has stated in Smith v. State, 169 So.2d 451, 251 Miss. 241, (1964), that a “sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer of county ...”
*2 What this office would respectfully suggest is that a policy or at least an understanding be developed between the two departments as to the responsibilities each will assume when conducting law enforcement investigations or other operations within the municipal corporate limits.

*2 The sheriff and the chief of police enjoy concurrent jurisdiction over criminal matters and both should establish an understanding as to what responsibilities each will assume in an effort to provide police protection to the municipality.1 MS AG Op., Riegel (December 19, 2008).

*2 If our office may be of further assistance, please advise.
Sincerely,
*2 Jim Hood
*2 Attorney General
*2 By: Leigh Triche Janous
*2 Special Assistant Attorney General
Footnotes
1
We note that municipal police officers are responsible for enforcing municipal ordinances, which include state law violations that are automatically violations of municipal ordinance pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 21-13-19. See MS AG Op., Carroll (March 31, 1993). Sheriffs have jurisdiction to enforce state law within the corporate limits of municipalities located within the county; however, they do not have general jurisdiction to enforce municipal ordinances. See MS AG Op., Little (June 4, 1999).

06/03/2020

This video should provide a greater understanding of how your water meter works

Description

06/03/2020

This video should provide a greater understanding of how your water meter works

How to read you water meter to check for leaks.

05/09/2020

05/09/2020

Town of Centreville, Mississippi
COMMUNITY ALLIANCE PROGRAM (TOC-CAP)

At its regular meeting on May 5, 2020, chaired by Mayor David Owens, the Centreville Board of Aldermen voted unanimously to adopt a proposal designed to enhance the quality of life in the Town of Centreville by encouraging citizens’ participation in the development of processes and programs to create and maintain a safe and orderly environment and improve the delivery of services in the Town of Centreville.

The Town of Centreville’s Community Alliance Program (TOC-CAP) will help to improve the community’s ability to make positive change by promoting citizen involvement and action and by helping people from diverse backgrounds and experiences develop trust, understand each other’s experiences, and work together on solutions.

The purpose of the TOC-CAP:

•To empower our community to recognize and make changes to the existing norms, where appropriate.
•To encourage community involvement to initiate and/or sustain change efforts.
•To develop and implement plans to address problems and concerns within the community.

Basic assumptions of the TOC-CAP:

•Local Communities can solve local problems.
•Resources can be found and developed at the local level.
•Partnership can be more effective in solving local problems than individuals or groups working independently.
•Communities can develop action plans and strategies that are realistic and practical.

Anticipated Outcomes of the TOC-CAP:

•Increase community and individual ability to identify and address problem and concerns.
•Increase community input in decision-making.
•Increase community ownership of programs.
•Bring additional resources to the community.
•Build on networks to spread support, commitment and changes in norms and behaviors.

We all have a right to be safe, secure and productive within our community. In spite of our differences and preferences, we can work together to make positive changes. When all is said and done, we have the responsibility for making the decisions that impact the future of the children and our community.

The Town of Centreville Community Alliance Program (TOC-CAP) when fully implemented will reduce the level of actual and perceived crime and disorder in our community and provide a mechanism for improvements in service delivery; all done with the active participation and support of the citizens we serve.

For more information, contact David Walker, Alderman-At-Large, [email protected] or (601) 810-9428.