. .- - 

Honorable Ray 'winder 

County Attorney 

Cooke County 

Gainesville, Texas 

Dear Sir: OpiniT;JNk O-219 

Be: 8 exas peace offioers'havz authority to make 

arrests outside of Texas, 

.(2) Whether county court has 

jurisditition to entertain a 

proceeding to enforce forfeit-' 

ure of authomobile seized outside of ,Texas. 

In your recent letter requesting the opinion of the 

Attorney General of Texas, y ou outline the following pertinent 

facts: 

Certain peace officers of Cooke County, Texas, hav-, 

ing probable cause for searching an au&amnbll8 believed by 

them to be unlawfully transportina,intoxicating liquor in and 

through Cooke County, a fldry area," sighted the automobile 

being driven in Cooke County. The officers, in their pursuit, 

followed the automobile out of Cooke County, across the State 

line, and into the State of Oklahoma, 

ful in stopping the automobile. 

where they were success 

Upon searching the vehicle 

in Oklahoma a large quantity of intoxicating liqour was found, 

The driver was arrested by the Texas officers, and, together 

with the amtomobile and liqunr, returned to Cooke County. The 

automobile, though moving from Texas to Oklahoma with planetary 

speed, as reflected In your letter was kept in view of the 

pursuing Texas officers, the view being sufficiently close 

enough at times to permit the lodging of several bullets in 

the rear end of the fleeing vehicle from the well-aimed gun 

of the Texas officers. Upon his return to Cooke County, the 

driver of the automobile, referred to in your letter as "a 

negro named 'ackson," voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to 
L -- 

Honorable Ray Winder, page 2 05199 

the charge of unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor 

in Cooke County. Based upon the forgoing facts, you submit 

the following questions: 

"First: Did the officers have the right to 

arrest-son without warrant? 

"Second: Did the officers have the right to 

pursue the fugitive into the State of Oklahoma and 

arrest him there? 

nThird: If the foregoing questions are answered-e negative, does the County Court of 

Cooke County have, proper jurisdiction to proceed 

under Art. 1, Sec. /$+ of the Texas State Liquor Con- 

.trol Act to enforce forfeiture of the automobile 

driven by the fugitive, in view of his final convistion upon the charge of unlawfully transporting 

liqour?" 

The answer to your first two questions must nes%ssarily depend upon the laws of Oklahoma, which laws :,e cannot 

be called .upon to construe. 

"An offense against the law is the justification for an arrest, and since the laws of one 

sovereignty have no extra jurisdictional operation, 

an offense against the laws of one state do not authorize sn arrest therefor in another state, except 

when and as authorized by the laws of the latter 

state, as the legality of an arrest depends on the 

law of the state where it is made." Volume 6, 

Corpus Juris Qecundum, page 609. 

In Texas a sheriff's authority to make an arrest is 

confined to the limits of his own county. .Llttle v. Rich, 55 

Tex. Civ. App. 326, 118 9. W. 1077; Weeks vI State, 132 Tex. 

Grim. 524 106 5. w. (2d) 275; Box V. Oliver, (clv. App.) 43 

5. W. (2dj 979; Hooper v. Deisher, (Civ. App.) 113 S" W. (2d) 

966. A sheriff may not search an automobile in Texas outside 

his own county for he has only the authority of a 

ii 

rivate 

citizen in such case. 

49 s. w. (2d) 463. 

Henson v. State, 120 Grim. ep. 176, 

In McLean v. Mississippi ex rel Roy, 96 Red. (2d) 

741, in which case a writ of certiorari was denied by the 
- - 

Honorable Ray Winder, page 3 O-5199 

Supreme Court of the United States (59 Sup. Ct. 84) it wan 

said: 

"The state of Mississippi has no power to 

extend the authority of its sheriffs into another 

state and we will not suppose she has made the 

attempt." 

In the McLean case, supra, -It waa~held that a recovery could not be had on in official bond of a Mississippi 

peace officer for events taking place in the State of Tennessee 

to which state the Mississippi sheriff took a person arrested 

in Louisiana for a crime allegedly committed in Mississippi, 

since the officer had neither officer nor color of office as 

a Mississippi sheriff while in another state where Mississippi 

laws were not of force. 

Where we will not attempt to state the law relative 

to arrest in Oklahoma your attention is directed to the case 

of Sturat v. Mayberry, 195 Okla. 13, 321 Pac. 491, by the 

Supreme Court of Oklahoma, wherein it was held that an ordinary warrant of arrest issued in one state may hot be executed in another atate, as it has no validity beyond the boundaries 

of the state by whose authority it was issued, Beoause of the 

fact that this case was decided by the highest court of Oklahoma it i.8 not without_persuegiye Imp&.- 4 

From the authorities thus reviewed the general rule 

deductibld appears to be that an officer of Texas is without 

authority to make an arrest in another state either with or 

without a warrant, 

To 'say however that an officer of Texas does not 

have authority to make an arrest in Oklahoma, it does not necessarily follow that a conviction cannot be had as p re8~yZ.f; of 

such unauthorized arrest and subsequent search and 6eie.W. 

This now brings us to your third question as to 

whether the county court of Cooke County has jurisdiction to 

entertain a proceeding under Article 1 of Section 44 of the 

Texas Liqour Control Act to enforce the forfeiture of the 

automobile seized by the Texas officer in the State of Oklahoma. 
-- 

Honorable Ray Winder, page 4 o-5199 

Section 44 of Article 1 of our Texas Liqu~ Control 

Aot provides in part as follows: 

"It is further provided that if any. D D 

automobile. e 0 is used for the transportation 

of any illicit beverage. . .such vehicle together with all such beverages. Q *shall be 

seized. . .by any peace officer who skall arrest any person in charge there. . . 

The statute then continues to outline the procedure to be followed in enforcing the forfeiture which results from the automobile being used in the commission of the unlawful act. See 

our Opinion No. O-5021 wherein the procedure for enforcing 

such a forfeiture is discussed. 

From what has theretofore been said and in view of 

our Opinion No* O-5021 and the particular fncts and circumstances as outlined in your letter, it is the opinion of this 

department that the county court of Cooke County, Texas, has 

jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding to enforce the forfeiture of the particular automobile seized by the Texas of-~ 

ficers in Oklahoma. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

ii+' E. G. Pharr 

Assistant 

EGPedb/PAM 

APPROVED MAY 21, 1943 

OERALD c. MANN 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE 

BY BWH, CHAIRMAN