The Honorable Wayne 

Executive Director 

N. Whatley Opinion No. ~-796 

Texas Board of Private Investi- Re: Whether state land 

gators 6 Private Security local law enforcement 

Agencies agencies may establish 

P. 0. Box 13509, 'Capitol,Station training programs for 

Austin, Texas 78711 private security personnel. 

March 16, 1976 

Dear Mr. Whatley: 

You have requested our opinion regarding recent amendments to the Private Investigators and Private Security 

Agencies Act, article 4413(29bb), V.T.C.S. Specifically, 

you ask: 

1. Does the [Texas] Board [of Private 

Investigators and Private Security 

~Agenciesl have authority to establish 

training programs in state and local 

law enforcement agencies for persons 

in the employ of profit making businesses, i.e. private security personnel? 

2. Do local and state law enforcement 

agencies have authority to accept and 

charge a fee for training persons in the 

employ of profit making ,businesses, i.e. 

private security personnel? 

Section 20(a) of the Act now provides: 

The board shall establish training 

programs to be conducted by agencies and 

institutions approved by the board. The 

board may approve training programs conducted by licensees if the licensees offer 

the courses listed in Subsection (b) of 

this section, and if the instructors of 

o. 3360 
. . 

The Honorable Wayne N. Whatley - page 2 W-796) 

the training program are qualified instructors 

approved by the board. The board shall 

approve a training program conducted by the 

security department of a private business to 

train its own personnel, without regard to 

its curriculum, if it is adequate for the 

business' security purposes. 

Section 20(f) provides in pertinent part: 

The board may not issue a security 

officer commission to an applicant 

employed by the security department 

of a private business unless the 

applicant submits evidence satisfactory to the board that: 

(1) he has completed an approved 

training course conducted by the 

security department of the business; 

. . . . 

The Act establishes two distinct classes of private 

security personnel: (1) individuals employed by security 

services contractors and (2) those employed in the security 

departments of private businesses. The former engage in the 

business of providing security services for other persons: 

the latter do not offer or provide security services to any 

other person. Sets. 2(9), 2(10), 2(13). Section 20(a) 

clearly permits the Board to establish training programs for 

individuals employed by a security services contractor. 

Such programs need only be conducted "by agencies and institutions approved by the board." There would seem to. be 

nothing to prevent state and local law enforcement agencies 

from qualifying for such Board approval, if the operation of 

such programs is otherwise consistent with their statutory 

authority. But section 20(f), by requiring that a commission may not be issued to an employee of the security department of a private business unless the employee has completed 

"an approved training course conducted by the security 

department of the business" requires the conclusion, in our 

opinion, that the Board may not permit law enforcement 

D. 3361 
. . 

. 

The Honorable Wayne N. Whatley - page 3 (H-796) 

agencies to conduct programs for the purpose of training 

employees of the security department of a private business. 

You also ask whether state and local law enforcement 

agencies may charge a fee for training persons employed by a 

security services contractor. The Act provides no specific 

authority for the imposition of such fees. As to state 

agencies, we believe the answer is clear. It is well established that, unless a fee is provided by law for an official 

service required to be performed and the amount fixed by 

law, none can lawfully be charsed. Attornev General Oninions 

H-669 (1975), H-443 (i974). See Nueces County v. Currington, 

162 S.W.Zd 687, 668 (Tex.Sup.T42);Calla v.Cit of 

Rockdale, 246 S.W. 654, 655 (Tex.Sup.11922). -.TiSeSrd Wit to 

sheriffs, a similar result obtains. In the absence of some 

enactment providing for remuneration for a particular service, 

no fee mav be demanded therefor. 52 Tex.Jur.Zd: Sheriffs. 

Constables, and Marshals 939. 

Tex. 209 (1883). 

See Templeton v..Ryburn, 59 

A home rule city, on the other hand, may exercise any 

power not denied it by the Constitution or by statute, so 

lona as the Dower is incornorated in the citv charter. V.T.C.S. 

art: 1176; Janus Films, & v. 

s.w.2a 597 (Tex Civ. App. 

at 358 s.w.2a 589). You have not requested our opinion as to 

any particular city, and we therefore conclude that whether 

a city law enforcement agency may charge a fee for training 

persons employed by a security services contractor depends 

upon the terms of the city's charter. 

SUMMARY 

The Texas Board of Private Investigators 

and Private Security Agencies may establish training programs in state and local 

enforcement agencies for individuals 

employed by a security services contractor, 

but not for the employees of the security 

department of a private business. In 

p. 3362 
The Honorable Wayne N. Whatleyl- page 4 (Hm7g6) 

general, law enforcement agencies may not 

charge a fee for training private security 

personnel, but a city law enforcement agency 

may do so if permitted by the terms of the 

city's charter. 

Very truly yours, 

A- JO&L.‘ Ii&- 

I/ ~~ ~~ ~-~ Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

jwb 

D. 3363