QBffice of tfp ZZhmep @eneraI 

Mate of Qexae 

DAN MORALES 

ATTORNEY GNERAL January 13, 1995 

Honorable W. Keith Oakley Opinion No. DM-3 15 

Chair 

Committee on Public Safety Re: Interpretation of section 80.001 of the 

Texas House of Representatives Human Resources Code, which concems the 

P.O. Box 2910 duty of local law enforcement officials to 

Austin, Texas 78768-2910 perform fingerprinting services (RQ-718) 

Dear Representative Oakley: 

You ask this office to interpret section 80.001 of the Human Resources Code, 

which concerns the duty of local law enforcement officials to perform fingerprinting 

RNiCeS. 

Section 80.001 reads: 

(a) A state law enforcement agency or the law en8orcement 

agency of any political subdivision of the state shah comply with the 

request of a person to have a record of his fingerprints made or a 

record of the fingerprints of a child or ward of the person made. 

(b) A law enforcement agency may not charge for the service 

provided under this section and may not retain records of fingerprints 

made under this section unless specifically requested to do so by the 

person requesting the service. 

You note that some Texas law enforcement agencies are either re.&sing to provide 

such service or charging a fee for it, apparently taking the view that, as you put it, “rhe 

statute did not intend for local law enforcement officers to do free fingerprinting for 

anyone except children.” 

Accordingly, you ask three questions: first, whether a local law enforcement 

agency may refuse to provide fingerprinting services on request; second, whether it may 

charge for such services; and third, whether it may impose conditions (other than 

providing the service during normal business hours when staE is available) on providing 

such services. 

We believe that the plain language of the statute addresses your concerns. As to 

your first question, a local law enforcement agency is required to perform the senice, and 

may not refuse to do so. Section 80.001(a) provides that the agency “shall comply” with a 

request for this service. The language used by the legislature is mandatory, not precatory. 

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1375 (6th ed. 1990) (“As used in statutes, contracts, or the 

like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory[;] [i]n common or ordinary 

p. 1676 
HonorableW.KeithOakky - Page 2 (~~-315) 

signiiication, the term “shall” is a word of command, and one which has always or which 

mustbegivenaannpulsory meaning as denoting obligation”). 

Similar& the knguage of section 80.001@) plainly answers your second question. 

An agency “may not charge for the service provided under this se&on.” Nothing in the 

provision suggests that this sedcc is to be provided he of charge only to chikn. Such 

a~wwldreadarthe~“tohwearecordofhistingerp~smade”auplusaee. 

See Chewon Cap. v. Redmm, 745 S.W.2d 314,316 (Tex. 1987) @amtory kguage not 

tobetrutedassurplusage). 

Nordoesurythinginthestatutepamitalocal~enforcemartsgencytoimposc 

additional conditions on the perfom~~~~ of this service. The law imposes a duty on local 

law enforcement agencies which they must discharge without fee or restriction. 

SUMMARY 

Section 80.001 of the Human Resource$ Code obliges state 

and local law etSxcement agencies to provide free 

fingeqkting services to the public upon request and without 

additional wllditio&~ 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney Gearal of Texas 

JORGE VEGA 

First Assistant Attorney General 

SARAH J. SHIRLEY 

Chair, Gpiion Committee 

Prepared by James Tourtelott 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 1677