DAN MORALES 

*TTORNEY GENERAL 

@ffice of tip Bttornep QBeneral 

&ate of fEexa$ 

January 23.1992 

Honorable Mark H. Dettman 

Midland County Attorney 

P. 0. Box 2559 

Midland, Texas 79702 

Gpiioa No. DM-77 

Re: Authority of a sheriff to conduct 

investigations and make arrests outside 

his county, and related question 

(RQ-169) 

Dear Mr. Dettman: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the authority of the Midland 

County Sheriff to engage in law enforcement activities outside Midland County. 

You indicate that the sheriff believes “he is entitled to conduct hi law enforcement 

operations anywhere in the State of Texas as well as in other states, which in this 

case have included Arizona, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Illinois.” The activities involve 

“reverse-sting” operations “in which law enforcement agents pose as drug dealers 

and agree to sell confiscated narcotics to willing buyers.” After funds from sale of 

the drugs are seized, “these seized funds are forfeited to the sheriffs department 

and other arresting agencies.” 

Article 5, section 23. of the Texas Constitution provides that the “duties and 

prerequisites, and fees of office [of sheriff], shall be prescribed by the Legislature.” 

Pursuant to such authorization, article 2.17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 

declares, “Each sheriff shall be a conservator of the peace in Iris county.” (Emphasis 

added.) 

In Attorney General Opinion H-1016 (1977), this office was asked whether a 

sheriff was authorized to make a warrantless arrest outside his county, where the 

offense is committed in his presence or within his view.1 Relying primarily on 

hrrcst uodcr warrant extends 30 any part of the State; and any peace officer to whom said 

warrant is directed, or into whose hamis the same has km transferred, shall be authorized to -tc 

the Sam0 in any couoly in this state.’ code trim. Proc art. t5.oL5. 

p. 383 
Honorable Mark H. Dettman - Page 2 (DM-77) 

Hemon v. State, 49 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. Grim App. 1932), the opinion concluded that 

a sheriff, outside his county, had no more authority than did a private individual to 

make warrantless arrests.2 In Henson, the court had declared: 

In the absence of a warrant of arrest issued under the provisions 

of article 223, supra [now article 15.06 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure], a sheriff as such is not authorized to make an arrest 

outside of his county. 

49 S.W.2d at 465. Furthermore, the court said that the statutes 

evidence the intention of the Legislature to confine the 

jurisdiction of the sheriff to his county, except in so far as the 

authority to execute warrants of arrest in any county of the state 

is conferred by article 223, [Code of Criminal Procedure]. 

Id. 

Subsequent to the issuance of Attorney General Opinion H-1016, the 

legislature enacted section (d) of article 14.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

That statute provides: 

A peace officer who is outside his jurisdiction may arrest, 

without warrant, a person who commits an offense within the 

officer’s presence or view, if the offense is a felony or a violation 

of Title 9, Chapter 42, Penal Code [disorderly conduct and 

related offenses]. A peace officer making an arrest under this 

subsection shall, as soon as practicable after making the arrest, 

notify a law enforcement agency having jurisdiction where the 

arrest was made. The law enforcement agency shall then take 

custody of the person committing the offense and take the 

person before a magistrate in compliance with Article 14.06 of 

this code. 

2Article 14.01(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure states, “A peace of&&r or any other 

person, may, witbout a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed io his Presence or 

within his view, if the offense is one classified as a felony or as an offew against the public peace..” 

p. 384 
Honorable Mark H. Dettman - Page 3 (DM-77) 

The question before us is whether the enactment of section (d) of article 14.03 

extended the authority of a sheriff to initiate investigations and make arrests outside 

his county. 

Article 14.03(d) in fact makes clear that a peace offtcer’s authority is, in 

general, .&n&f to his geographical jurisdiction. On its face, article 14.03(d) grants 

to a sheriff no authority beyond that already conferred by article 14.01(a). See note 

2, SZQM.~ h our opinion, the purpose of article 14.03(d) is to make clear that a 

peace officer need not sit idly by while a felony is committed in his plain view. The 

statute provides, however, that the appropriate law enforcement agency of the 

foreign jurisdiction is to be brought in as soon as is practicable. In our view, the 

thrust of article 14.03(d) is to define rather narrowly the limits of a peace officer’s 

authority outside his own jurisdiction. 

This conclusion is buttressed by a number of other statutes. Section 

411.009(b) of the Government Code, for example, provides that the director of the 

Department of Public Safety 

may require a sheriff or other police officer in a county or 

municipality, within the limits ofthe officer’s jr&%&on, to aid or 

assist in the performance of a duty imposed by this chapter. 

(Emphasis added.) 

Section 411.022(a) of the Government Code contrasts the authority of an officer of 

the Texas Rangers with that of a sheriff: 

An officer of the Texas Rangers is governed by the law 

regulating and defining the powers and duties of sheriffs 

performing similar duties, except that the officer may make 

arrests, execute process in a criminal case in wry county. 

(Emphasis added.) 

Furthermore, chapter 362 of the Local Government Code provides a 

mechanism for a governmental body, including a county, to offer the assistance of its 

law enforcement officers to other jurisdictions. Such authorization would not be 

3Article 14.01(a) permits a warrantless arrest for any felony or “offense against the public 

peace,” while article 14.03(d) authorizes arrest for any felony or violation of the disorderly conduct 

statutes. 

p. 385 
Honorable Mark H. Dettman - Page 4 (DM-77) 

necessary if a sheriff’s general authority extended beyond his county. S&on 

362.002 provides: 

(a) A county, municipality, or joint airport may, by 

resolution or order of its governing body, provide for, or 

authorize its chief administrative officer, chief of police, or 

marshal to provide for. its regularly employed law enforcement 

officers to assist another county, municipality, or joint airport. 

This assistance may be provided only when tbe mayor or other 

officer authorized to declare a state of civil emergency in the 

other county, municipality, or joint airport considers additional 

law enforcement officers necessary to protect health, life, and 

property in the county, municipality, or joint airport because of 

disaster. riot, threat of concealed explosives, or unlawful 

assembly characterized by force and violence or the threat of 

force and violence by three or more persons acting together or 

without lawful authority. 

(b) A county, municipality, or joint airport may, by 

resolution or order of its governing body, enter into an 

agreement with a neighboring municipality, joint airport, or 

contiguous county to form a mutual aid law enforcement task 

force to cooperate in criminal investigations and law 

enforcement. Peace officers employed by counties, municipalities, 

or joint airports covered by the agreement hove or@ the oddidonal 

investigative authority throughout the region (LT set forth in the 

ugreement. The agreement must provide for the compensation 

of peace officers involved in the activities of the task force. 

(c) A law enforcement officer employed by a county, 

municipality, or joint airport that is covered by the agreement 

may make an arrest outside the county, municipality, or joint 

airport in which the officer is employed but within the area 

covered by the agreement. The law enforcement agencies of the 

area where the arrest is made shall be notified of the arrest 

without delay, and the notified agency shall make availablt the 

notice of the arrest in the same manner as if the arrest were 

made by a member of that agency. (Emphasis added.) 

p. 386 
Honorable Mark H. Dettman - Page 5 (DM-77) 

Section 362.003(a) provides that during the time in which a law enforcement officer 

regularly employed by one jurisdiction is in the service of another political 

subdivision, he has “all the powers of a regular law enforcement officer” of that 

political subdivision. In our opinion, the existence of chapter 362, enacted in 1987, 

makes clear beyond all doubt that a sheriff does not have any general authority to 

conduct investigations outside hi county. His authority to make arrests outside his 

county is limited by the conditions imposed in article 14.03(d) of the Code of 

Cdminal Procedure. 

We note that at least one court, in a decision issued after the enactment of 

article 14.03(d). has confirmed this conclusion. In Lundrum v. State. 751 S.W.2d 530 

(Tex. App.-Dallas 1988. pet. refd), the court held that a city peace officer’s 

jurisdiction to investigate crime extends throughout the county as does his 

jurisdiction to arrest. In dicta, the court said that “[a] county sheriff’s jurisdiction is 

county-wide.” Id at 531. We believe that the court’s emphasis on “investigate,” as 

well as “arrest,” is significant, and confirms our view that the general power of 

investigation granted to a sheriff is limited to the jurisdiction for which he was 

elected: the county. Since the authority of a sheriff to investigate crime is generally 

limited to his county, it is clear that he can exercise no such authority outside the 

State of Texas? 

You also inquire about the proper disposition of funds seized by the sheriff 

while operating in areas outside Midland County. Chapter 59 of the Code of 

criminal Procedure, enacted in 1989, describes the procedures for the forfeiture of 

contraband. Article 59.06 provides for the disposition of forfeited property. Section 

(a) thereof declares that “[a]11 forfeited property shall be administered by the 

attorney representing the state, acting as the agent of the state.” The forfeited 

property must be administered in accordance “with the provisions of any local 

agreement entered into between the attorney representing the state and law 

enforcement agencies.” Id. We have been informed that an agreement exists 

‘Article 14.051 of the Code of Crimhal Procedure autbrkes a peace officer who is 

,” ccmmissioocd and authorized by another state to make arrests for felooies” to make an arrest in Texas 

wkn the officer ‘ls in fresh pursuit’ of a suspected felon. As of 1991,42 other states and the Diitrict of 

Columbia, including all of the. states bordering Texas, have adopted simii statutory provisioos, thus 

cmphasiziq that a peace officer may make ao arrest outside his home state only under spe&cally 

reslrictcd clrcumstanccs. Texas is also a party to the Uniform Crimiial Extradition Act, article 5l.U. 

Code of CZmiaal Procedure. 

p. 387 
Honorable Mark H. Dettman - Page 6 (DM-77) 

between the attorney for the stat@ and the Midland County Sheriffs Office. 

Sections (b), (c), and (d) of article 59.06 furnish a detailed description of the 

procedures that must be followed when an agreement exists. 

We have not been furnished with a copy of the existing agreement between 

the sheriff and the relevant prosecutor. The provision for a “local agreement” 

specified in article 59.06 requires such an agreement between the prosecuting 

attorney “in the county in which a forfeiture proceeding is held” and the law 

enforcement agency. If no “local agreement” controls, section (a) provides that any 

seized property “shall be sold on the 75th day after the date of the final judgment of 

forfeiture at public auction under the direction of the county sheriff.” Any proceeds 

resulting from such sale must be distributed as follows: 

(1) to any interest holder to the extent of the interest 

holder’s nonforfeitable interest; and 

(2) the balance, if any, after deductions of all storage and 

disposal costs, to be deposited not later than the 39th day after 

the date of the sale in the state treasury to the credit of the 

general revenue fund. 

Since there appears to have been no authority for the sheriff to have seized 

the funds in question in the first place, we will not speculate on their proper 

disposition. We cannot, however, imagine any basis for the position of the 

commissioners court that funds seized in out-of-county operations, including those 

outside the State of Texas, should be deposited in the general fund of Midland 

County. In any event, the proper disposition of funds resulting from a forfeiture 

based on the extra-jurisdictional activities of a sheriff requires the resolution of a 

nmber of fact questions that cannot be addressed in the opinion process. 

SUMMARX 

A sheriff has no general authority to investigate criminal 

activities outside of the geographical boundaries of the county 

for which he is elected. His authority to make warrantless 

SAttorney representing the state” is defmed for purposes of chapter 59 as “the prosecutor with 

felony jurisdiction in the county in which a forfeiture proceeding is held under this chapter.’ 

P. 388 
Honorable Mark H. Dettman - Page 7 (DM-77) 

arrests outside his county is circumscribed by the conditions 

imposed in article 14.03(d) of the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

WILL PRYOR 

First Assistant Attorney General 

MARYKELLBR 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY (Ret) 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RENEA HICKS 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Rick Gilpin 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 389