. .- -

Honorable Ray 'winder

County Attorney Cooke County Gainesville, Texas
Dear Sir: OpiniT;JNk O-219 Be: 8exas peace offioers'havz authority tomake arrests outside of Texas, .(2) Whether county court has jurisdititionto entertain a proceeding to enforce forfeit-' ure of authomobile seized outside of ,Texas.
Inyour recent letter requesting the opinion of the Attorney General of Texas, you outline the following pertinent facts:Certain peace officers of Cooke County, Texas, hav-, ingprobable cause for searching an au&amnbll8 believed by them to be unlawfully transportina,intoxicating liquor in and through Cooke County, a fldryarea," 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 thevehicle inOklahoma a large quantity of intoxicating liqour was found, The driver was arrested by theTexas officers, and, together with the amtomobile and liqunr, returned toCooke County. The automobile, though moving from Texas toOklahoma with planetary speed, as reflected Inyour letter was kept inview of the pursuing Texas officers, theview being sufficiently close enough at times topermit the lodging of several bullets in the rear end of the fleeing vehicle from thewell-aimed gun of the Texas officers. Upon his return to Cooke County, the driver of the automobile, referred to inyour letter as "a negro named 'ackson," voluntarily entered aplea of guilty toL --

Honorable Ray Winder, page 2 05199

the charge ofunlawful 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 theright to pursue the fugitive into the State of Oklahoma and arresthim there? nThird: If the foregoing questions are answered-e negative, does the County Court of Cooke County have,proper jurisdiction toproceed under Art. 1, Sec. /$+of theTexas State Liquor Con- .trolAct to enforce forfeiture of the automobile driven by the fugitive, inview ofhis final convistion upon the charge ofunlawfully transporting liqour?" The answer toyour first two questions mustnes%ssarily depend upon the laws of Oklahoma, which laws :,ecannot be called .uponto 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 donot 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 ismade." Volume 6, Corpus Juris Qecundum, page 609.
In Texas a sheriff's authority tomake an arrest is confined to the limits ofhis own county. .Llttlev. Rich, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 326, 118 9. W. 1077; Weeks vI State, 132Tex. Grim. 524 106 5. w. (2d)275; BoxV. Oliver, (clv. App.) 43 5. W. (2dj979; Hooper v.Deisher, (Civ.App.) 113 S" W. (2d) 966. A sheriff may not search an automobile in Texas outside his own county forhe has only the authority of aii rivate citizen in such case. 

### 49s. w. (2d) 463. Henson v. State, 120Grim. ep. 176,

In McLean v. Mississippi ex rel Roy, 96 Red. (2d) 741, inwhich case awrit of certiorari was denied by the- -

Honorable Ray Winder, page 3 O-5199

Supreme Court of the United States (59Sup. Ct. 84) itwan said:
"The state of Mississippi has no power to extend the authority of its sheriffs into another state andwe will not suppose shehas made the attempt."
In the McLean case, supra,-Itwaa~held that arecovery could not behad on in official bond of aMississippi peace officer for events taking place in the State ofTennessee towhich state the Mississippi sheriff took aperson arrested inLouisiana for a crime allegedly committed inMississippi, 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 isdirected to the case of Sturat v. Mayberry, 195 Okla. 13, 321 Pac. 491, by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, wherein itwas held that an ordinary warrant of arrest issued in one statemay hot be executed in another atate, as ithas no validity beyond theboundaries of the state by whose authority itwas 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 anofficer ofTexas iswithout authority tomake an arrest in another state either with or without awarrant,

To 'sayhowever that an officer of Texas does not have authority tomake an arrest in Oklahoma, it does not necessarily follow that a conviction cannot be had asp re8~yZ.f; of suchunauthorized arrest and subsequent search and 6eie.W.

This now brings us toyour third question as to whether the county court of Cooke County has jurisdiction to entertain aproceeding under Article 1 of Section 44 of the Texas Liqour Control Act to enforce the forfeiture of the automobile seizedby theTexas 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 inpart as follows:

"It is further provided that if any. D D automobile. e 0isused for the transportation of any illicit beverage.

. .suchvehicle together with all such beverages. Q *shallbe seized.

. .byany peace officer who skall arrest any person in charge there.

. . The statute then continues to outline theprocedure to be followed in enforcing the forfeiture which results from the automobile being used in the commission of theunlawful act. See our Opinion No. O-5021 wherein the procedure for enforcing such a forfeiture is discussed.

From what has theretofore been said and inview of our Opinion No* O-5021 and theparticular fncts and circumstances as outlined inyour letter, it is the opinion of this department that the county court of Cooke County, Texas, has jurisdiction to entertain aproceeding to enforce the forfeiture of the particular automobile seized by theTexas of-~ ficers inOklahoma.
Yours very truly
ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS ii+' E. G. Pharr Assistant EGPedb/PAM
APPROVED MAY 21, 

### 1943
OERALD c. MANN ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE BY BWH, CHAIRMAN