TEEA~~~ORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS

. HMorable T; 'Gilbert Adams C%init~ A$tdrneg J&isp&'County Jasper, Texas -.,~ Dear Sir: Oplniofi Non; o-52=- “‘~ Re: Authdrity.dfa.Ju‘etibe bf3hV Pe&c'Ei to colIect“a‘fee-.id~'~he issuance of a search warrant. .., *. .~ __._~. Your request for ‘dpinion has beeti

rec&iVed~ati~~bai+d -filly consideredby this department. We quote from ycur request as follows: _^

"I would,thankyou Fo furnish Bie with'an opinion as to what method and manner a Justice of the Ptiace"

should.'fbllow

intiollectlng

fees f‘dr IsSuing a Search Warrant t5 Peace"Offlcersin liivestiga,tion

of Liquor violationsand other violaL tions which do not borne und.@r the jurisdiction

bf the Justice Court, and in cases-~that do not come under the-jurisdiction upon trlCil,"of

the Justice of the Peace; when the Bearchwarrant Is used by the officer and no violation sufflc'ient o prosecute, is found on the premises searched.

. "UndbrArticle 1066, Code bf Criminal Procedure, Texas Statutes, it reads as follows:

"'Justicesof the'peac.e shall receive the following fees in criminalactions tried before them. to be collectedof the defendant in case of his condytion:

. For each

1

. . . ..f

. a .o "I,'po not find whereby a Justice of warrant, Seventy-fivecents.

any provision in the Statute thb Fe&e is..pr&ectedin

__ .- hlKfee .when

he issues a S‘earch Warrant for the Peace Officer an&the violation, if one is found to'exlst,comes under the jurisdiction of the District Coiirt

or the County Court, OP where it is found that there is not bufflclentvlolatioii to justifyprosecution. I am referringespecially., ., ,.,

Honorable T. Gilbert Adams, page 2 o-5286

: ,, to violationsof the Liquor Law and warrants issued by the Justice of the Peace for State Liquor Inspectorsin their efforts to curb the violation of the Liquor law8 in a dry area. ,"I Would assume that if there Wa8'.nOtsuffitilefit @vld‘EhCe

fbuduna to ijros&de.a violationupon which a Searchwartiknt h&s iSSUd, there'would be no f&e payable to'the Justide of the"Peace,but in th& event ther'&.'is'~sufficibnt evidence'.found

by .' reason"ofthe warrant, there Is some way to protec,t the Jtistice

for his services in the issuing of the warrant."

. -,' Article 1066, Revised Code of CVimlnal"-Proc,edure of Texas ,1925,referred,to~ifi your lette?,'wasrepelled in 1929"by H.B. 64 of the 41st LegislatureBf Texas, Firat Called Session.

_. There is no Texas statute allowIng ju8tYkes'of the peace fees for issuing searchwarrants of any character. ."

We quote from 34 Texas Jurisprudence, page 511, as fOllOW8:
"As hereinbeforestated, the compensationof $ublic officers is fix& by the ConstitutionSir statutes. An bfficer may not claim or reach aiiy %onSy without a law‘.authorizing him to do so, and clearly,,fixing

the gmount to which he Is entitled.

. . . .

- In"vi,ew

of the above it is our opinion that"justices of-'the peace are not i3ntftled to any fees for Issuing any characterof searchwarrants.

We enclose herewith for your informationa copy of opinion'No.O-4091 of this departmentwhich holds Article 1071, Vernon's AnnotatedTexas Code of Criminal Procedure (an article allowing justicesof"the petice examiningtr'ial

fees in misdemeanor cases to be tcixed against the defendanton conviction) to be unconstitutional.Honorable T. Gilbert Adams, page 3 o-5286

Very truly yours ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS

By s/Wm. J. F&nning Wm. J,“Fannlng Assistant WJF:mp:wc Encl.

APPRm MAY 18, 1943 s/GeraldC. Mann ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS
Approved Opinion CommitteeBy s/BIsB Chai'rman