The HonorableWayne

Executive Director N. Whatley Opinion No. ~-796
Texas Board of Private Investi- Re: Whether stateland gators 6 Private **Security** local law enforcement Agencies agenciesmay establish P. 0. Box 13509, 'Capitol,Station trainingprograms for Austin, Texas 78711 private securitypersonnel. 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 [ofPrivate

Investigatorsand Private Security ~Agencieslhave authority to establish training programs in state and local law enforcement agencies for persons in the employ of profitmaking businesses, i.e.private securitypersonnel?
**2.** Do local and state law enforcement agencies have authority to accept and charge a fee **for** trainingpersons in the employ of profitmaking ,businesses,i.e. private securitypersonnel? Section 20(a) of the Act now provides:

The board shall establish training programs to be conductedby **agencies** and institutionsapprovedby the board. The board may approve trainingprograms con

## ducted by licensees **if** the licenseesoffer the courses listed **in** Subsection **(b)** of this section,and if the instructorsof

**o. 3360** ..

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

the trainingprogram are qualified instructors approved by the **board.** The **board** shall approve a trainingprogram conductedby the securitydepartment of a private business to train its own personnel,without regard to its curriculum, **if** it is adequate for **the** business' securitypurposes. Section 20(f)provides in pertinent part:

The boardmay not **issue a**  security officer commission to an applicant employed by the securitydepartment of a private business unless the applicant submits evidence satisfactory to the board that: (1) he has completed an approved training course conductedby the securitydepartment of the business;

. . . . The Act establishes two distinct classes of private securitypersonnel: (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 trainingprograms for individuals employedby 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 consistentwith their statutory authority. But section 20(f),by requiring that a commissionmay not be issued to an employee of the security department of a private business unless the employee has completed "an approved training course conductedby the security department of the business" requires the conclusion, **in** our opinion, that the Boardmay not permit law enforcement

D.3361..

.

The HonorableWayne N. Whatley - page 3 (H-796)

agencies to conduct programs for the purpose of training employees **of** the securitydepartment of a private business.
You also ask whether state and local law enforcement agenciesmay charge a fee for trainingpersons employedby a security services contractor. The Act provides no specific authority for the impositionof 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** lawfullybe 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). Wit -.TiSeSrd to sheriffs, a similar result obtains. In the absence of some enactment providing for remuneration for a particular service, no feemav be demanded therefor. 52 Tex.Jur.Zd: Sheriffs. Constables, and Marshals 939. Tex. 209 (1883). See Templetonv..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 agencymay 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 Agenciesmay 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 HonorableWayne N. Whatleyl- page 4 (Hm7g6)

general, law enforcementagenciesmay not charge a fee for trainingprivate security personnel,but a city law enforcement agency **may** do so if permittedby the terms of the city's charter. Very truly yours, 

# A-

JO&L.‘ Ii&- 

# I/ ~~ ~~~-~ Attorney **General of**  Texas APPROVED:

jwb

**D. 3363**