OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL . STATE OF TEXAS 

JOHN CORNYN 

July 9,2002 

The Honorable Michael A. McDougal 

District Attorney 

Ninth Judicial District 

301 North Thompson, Suite 106 

Conroe, Texas 77301-2824 

Opinion No. JC-0530 

Re: Whether city police officers acting as 

drainage-district peace officers under section 

49.216 of the Water Code may issue traffic 

citations for traffic violations committed within 

the drainage district (RQ-05 1 0-JC) 

Dear Mr. McDougal: 

Section 49.216(a) of the Water Code authorizes a water district to “contract for or employ 

its own peace officers with power to make arrests when necessary to prevent or abate the 

commission of. . . any offense against the laws of the state.” TEX. WATER CODE ANN. 5 49.216(a) 

(Vernon 2000). Pursuant to this provision and the Interlocal Cooperation Act, the Montgomery 

County Drainage District No. 6 (“MCDD” or the “drainage district”) has contracted with the City 

of Oak Ridge North (the “city”), a Type A general-law municipality, to provide peace officers in the 

district. Under article 14.03(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the authority of a peace officer 

who is outside his or her geographic jurisdiction to make warrantless arrests for traffic violations is 

limited to rangers and officers commissioned by the Texas Department of Public Safety (“DPS”). 

You ask whether city police officers acting as drainage-district peace officers under section 49.2 16 

of the Water Code may issue traffic citations for state-law traffic violations committed within the 

drainage district. We conclude that a city police officer acting as drainage-district peace officer 

under section 49.216 of the Water Code is in fact a drainage-district peace officer and is authorized 

by section 49.216 to make warrantless arrests for state-law traffic violations within the district. 

Article 14.03(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which addresses the authority of peace officers 

to make arrests outside their jurisdictions, does not apply. 

Before we address your specific question, we begin with a brief review of statutes 

establishing the authority of peace officers and the provisions upon which the MCDD-city contract 

is based. Pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the term “peace officer” embraces a variety 

of law enforcement officers, including, for example, sheriffs and their deputies; “marshals or police 

officers of an incorporated city;” “ rangers and officers commissioned by” DPS; and “officers 

commissioned by a water control and improvement district under Section 49.216, Water Code.” 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 2.12(l), (3), (4), (15) (V emon Supp. 2002). A police officer of a 

Type A general-law municipality has “the powers, rights, duties, and jurisdiction granted to or 
The Honorable Michael A. McDougal - Page 2 (JC-0530) 

imposed on a peace officer by the Code of Criminal Procedure.” TEX. Lot. GOV’T CODE ANN. fj 

341 .OOl(e)( 1) (V emon 1999); see also infra note 1. 

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, “[i]t is the duty of every peace officer to preserve the 

peace within the officer’s jurisdiction.” TEX. CODECRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 2.13 (Vernon Supp. 2002). 

The authority of a peace officer to make a warrantless arrest depends upon whether the officer is 

within his or her geographic jurisdiction. Within an officer’s jurisdiction, the officer “shall use all 

lawful means” to, among other things, “in every case authorized by the provisions of this Code, 

interfere without warrant to prevent or suppress crime,” and “arrest offenders without warrant in 

every case where the officer is authorized by law, in order that they may be taken before the proper 

magistrate or court and be tried,” id. art. 2.13(b)(l), (4). Under article 14.01(b) of the Code of 

Criminal Procedure, a peace officer may “arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense 

committed in his presence or within his view,” see id. art. 14.01 (b) (Vernon 1977), but this authority 

is limited to the officer’s geographic jurisdiction, see Angel v. State, 740 S.W.2d 727, 732 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1987) (under section 14.01(b) a peace officer can make a warrantless arrest only within 

his geographic or territorial jurisdiction). Similarly, the Transportation Code authorizes “[alny peace 

officer [to] arrest without warrant a person found committing a violation of’ state traffic laws, TEX. 

TRANSP. CODE ANN. 9 543.001 (Vernon 1999), but courts have limited this authority to the officer’s 

geographic jurisdiction, see Angel, 740 S.W.2d at 732.’ 

A peace officer also has authority to make certain arrests outside of his or her jurisdiction. 

Under article 14.01(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a peace officer, like any other citizen, 

may, without a warrant, “arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within 

his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.” TEX. 

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 14.01(a) (Vernon 1977). This authority under article 14.01(a) to make 

a warrantless arrest for a felony or an offense against the public peace committed in the officer’s 

presence extends statewide and is not limited to acts that take place within the officer’s jurisdiction. 

See Romo v. State, 577 S.W.2d 251,253 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). 

Article 14.03 gives peace officers specific authority to make warrantless arrests for certain 

offenses anywhere in the state. See Yeager v. State, 23 S.W.3d 566,571-72 (Tex. App.-Waco 2000, 

pet. granted) (holding that subsections (d) and (g) of article 14.03 extend peace officers’ geographic 

authority). Article 14.03(d) specifically authorizes a peace officer “who is outside his jurisdiction” 

to arrest without a warrant a person who commits an offense within the officer’s presence or view 

“if the offense is a felony, a violation of Title 9, Chapter 42, Penal Code [disorderly conduct], a 

breach of the peace, or an offense under Section 49.02, Penal Code [public intoxication].” TEX. 

‘See also Yeager v. State, 23 S.W.3d 566, 571 n.3 (Tex. App.-Waco 2000, pet. granted) (noting that “the 

continued viability of the specific jurisdictional holding in AngeZ [that city police officers’ jurisdiction is coextensive 

with the county sheriffs] may be open to question” because the court based its decision on precise language in former 

articles 998 and 999 equating the jurisdiction of city police officers with that of the city marshal, whose jurisdiction 

matched that of the county sheriff; that language was carried over into Local Government Code section 34 1 .OO 1 but then 

amended in 1995 to provide that a Type A general-law city police officer’s jurisdiction is that “granted to or imposed 

on a peace officer by the Code of Criminal Procedure”). 
The Honorable Michael A. McDougal - Page 3 (JC-0530) 

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 14.03(d) (V emon Supp. 2002). In addition, article 14.03(g) provides 

in pertinent part as follows: 

A peace officer listed in Subdivision (l), (2), (3), (4), or (5), 

Article 2.12, who is licensed under Chapter 415, Government Code 

[now chapter 1701 of the Occupations Code], and is outside of the 

officer’s jurisdiction may arrest without a warrant a person who 

commits any offense within the officer’s presence or view, except 

that an officer who is outside the officer’s jurisdiction may arrest a 

person for a violation of Subtitle C, Title 7, Transportation Code, 

only if the officer is listed in Subdivision (4), Article 2.12. 

Id. art. 14.03(g) (footnote omitted). The last phrase of subsection (g) limits the authority to make 

extrajurisdictional arrests for state-law traffic offenses to rangers and officers commissioned by the 

DPS. See id. art. 2.12(4) (,‘ rangers and officers commissioned by the Public Safety Commission and 

the Director of the Department of Public Safety”); TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. chs. 541-600 (Vernon 

1999 & Supp. 2002) (title 7, subtitle C, “Rules of the Road,‘). 

Subsections (d) and (g) of article 14.03 have been construed to authorize officers to make 

arrests outside their jurisdictions but not to make investigative detentions. See Yeager, 23 S.W.3d 

at 572 (“We do not believe that article 14.03 itself grants a peace officer the right to conduct an 

investigative detention outside of her jurisdiction.“). An officer who is outside his or her jurisdiction 

must have probable cause to make an arrest under article 14.03. See id. at 568 (“an officer must have 

probable cause to arrest before he can detain a citizen under article 14.03 when outside of his 

geographic jurisdiction”). 

We understand that the MCDD is a drainage district subject to chapters 49 and 56 of the 

Water Code* and that the drainage district has contracted with the city to provide peace officers in 

the district pursuant to section 49.216 of the Water Code and the Interlocal Cooperation Act. See 

Brief, Exhibit A (contract).3 Section 49.216 of the Water Code authorizes a district to contract for 

or employ peace officers as follows: 

2Chapter 49 defines the term “district” as “any district or authority created by authority of either Sections 

52(b)( 1) and (2), Article III, or Section 59, Article XVI, Texas Constitution, regardless of how created,” TEX. WATER 

CODE ANN. 9 49.001(a)( 1) (V emon 2000), and applies to “all general and special law districts to the extent that the 

provisions of this chapter do not directly conflict with a provision in any other chapter of this code or any Act creating 

or affecting a special law district,” id. $49.002(a). “In the event of such conflict, the specific provisions in such other 

chapter or Act shall control.” Id. Chapter 56 provides that a drainage district may be created “either under and subject 

to the limitations of Article III, Section 52, of the Texas Constitution, or under Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas 

Constitution.” Id. 5 56.011 (Vernon 1972). It does not contain a provision regarding peace officers. 

‘Brief from Honorable Michael A. McDougal, District Attorney, 9th Judicial District, to Honorable John 

Comyn, Texas Attorney General (Feb. 8,2002) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter BriefJ. 
The Honorable Michael A. McDougal - Page 4 (JC-0530) 

(a) A district may contract for or employ its own peace officers 

with power to make arrests when necessary to prevent or abate the 

commission of: 

(1) any offense against the rules of the district when the 

offense or threatened offense occurs on any land, water, or easement 

owned or controlled by the district; 

(2) any offense involving injury or detriment to any property 

owned or controlled by the district; and 

(3) any offense against the laws of the state. 

TEX. WATER CODE ANN. 8 49.216(a) (Vernon 2000). Under section 49.216, “[a]ny peace officer, 

before beginning to perform any duties and at the time of appointment, must take an oath and 

execute a bond conditioned on faithful performance of such officer’s duties in the amount of $1,000 

payable to the district. The oath and the bond shall be filed in the district office.” Id. 5 49.216(e). 

The Interlocal Cooperation Act, chapter 791 of the Government Code, authorizes a “local 

government” to contract with another local government to perform “governmental functions and 

services. . . that each party to the contract is authorized to perform individually.” TEX. GOV’T CODE 

Am. 8 791.01 l(a), (c) (V emon Supp. 2002). In the Interlocal Cooperation Act the term “local 

government” includes a municipality or special district. Id. 0 791.003(4). The term “governmental 

functions and services” includes “police protection and detention services.” Id. 5 791.003(3)(A); 

see also id. 8 791.006(b) (“In the absence of a contract, if a municipality or county furnishes law 

enforcement services to another municipality or county, the governmental unit that requests and 

obtains the services is responsible for any civil liability that arises from the furnishing of those 

services.“). 

In Letter Opinion 98-079, this office concluded that, given its authority under section 49.216 

of the Water Code, a municipal utility district could enter into a contract under the Interlocal 

Cooperation Act with a county for the provision of law enforcement services in the district by county 

deputy constables or sheriffs. See Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-98-079, at 3. Similarly, the district here is 

authorized to contract for peace officers under section 49.2 16 of the Water Code, and the city is 

authorized to provide police protection under section 34 1 .OO 1 of the Local Government Code, which 

authorizes the “governing body of a Type A general-law municipality [to] establish and regulate a 

municipal police force.” TEX. Lot. GOV’TCODEANN. 0 341.001(a) (Vernon 1999). We assume that 

the arrangement between the district and the city complies with both section 49.2 16 of the Water 

Code and the Interlocal Cooperation Act. See, e.g., TEX. GOV’TCODEANN. 5 791 .Ol l(d)-(f) (Vernon 

Supp. 2002) (terms of interlocal cooperation agreement); TEX. WATER CODE ANN. 0 49.216(e) 

(Vernon 2000) (“Any peace officer, before beginning to perform any duties and at the time of 

appointment, must take an oath and execute a bond conditioned on faithful performance of such 

officer’s duties in the amount of $1,000 payable to the district. The oath and the bond shall be filed 
The Honorable Michael A. McDougal - Page 5 (JC-0530) 

in the district office.“). This office does not generally review or construe contracts4 and, moreover, 

you have not asked about the validity of the contract. Rather, you ask about the authority of city 

police officers acting pursuant to the contract within the drainage district. 

You state that city police officers acting as drainage-district peace officers under the contract 

have arrested drivers for traffic offenses committed within their view within the district, but the 

justice of the peace has “dismissed the water district’s traffic tickets for want ofjurisdiction.” Brief, 

supra note 3, at 2. Apparently there is some concern that article 14.03(g) of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure, to the extent it provides that “an officer who is outside the officer’s jurisdiction may 

arrest a person for a violation of Subtitle C, Title 7, Transportation Code, only if the officer is listed 

in Subdivision (4), Article 2.12 [i.e. a DPS commissioned ranger or officer],” precludes city police 

officers from enforcing state traffic laws within the drainage district. 

Accordingly, you ask whether “water district peace officers have jurisdiction in the regular 

course of their law enforcement duties to make warrantless arrests for traffic violations committed 

on the streets within the area encompassed by the water district.” Id. at 3. We conclude that 

drainage-district peace officers are authorized to make wart-antless arrests for state-law traffic 

violations within the district. Under section 49.216 of the Water Code, a drainage-district peace 

officer has the “power to make arrests when necessary to prevent or abate the commission of: (1) 

any offense against the rules of the district when the offense or threatened offense occurs on any 

land, water, or easement owned or controlled by the district; (2) any offense involving injury or 

detriment to any property owned or controlled by the district; and (3) any offense against the laws 

of the state.” TEX. WATER CODE ANN. 8 49.216(a) (V emon 2000) (emphasis added). The phrase 

“any offense against the laws of the state” includes traffic offenses under title 7, subtitle C of the 

Transportation Code. See TEX.TRANSP. CODE ANN. 8 542.301(a) (Vernon 1999) (“Aperson commits 

an offense if the person performs an act prohibited or fails to perform an act required by this 

subtitle.“). Furthermore, a peace officer for whom a district has contracted under section 49.2 16 of 

the Water Code who makes a warrantless arrest within the district under the authority of section 

49.216 is in fact a drainage-district peace officer and makes the arrest as a drainage-district peace 

officer acting within his or her geographic jurisdiction. Article 14.03(g) of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure, which addresses the authority of peace officers while outside their jurisdictions and 

allows only certain peace officers to make warrantless arrests outside their jurisdictions in certain 

cases, does not apply. 

We note that this office has concluded on a number of occasions that the Interlocal 

Cooperation Act “does not provide a mechanism for a city or any other local government to extend 

its police power beyond its statutory jurisdiction. Nor does the Act permit a local government to 

delegate to another entity a power it does not have.” Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0219 (2000) at 5 

(citing Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JM-191 (1984) at 1; Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-97-055, at 3 n.3). The 

4See, e.g., Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JC-0032 (1999) at 4 (contract interpretation beyond purview ofthis office); 

DM-383 (1996) at 2 (interpretation of contract not appropriate function for opinion process); DM-192 (1992) at 10 

(“This office, in the exercise of its authority to issue legal opinions, does not construe contracts-“); JM-697 (1987) at 

6 (“review of contracts is not an appropriate function for the opinion process”). 
The Honorable Michael A. McDougal - Page 6 (JC-0530) 

contractual arrangement here does not extend the police power of the city beyond its statutory 

jurisdiction. The law enforcement authority exercised by peace officers within the drainage district 

pursuant to the arrangement is the authority of the district under section 49.2 16 of the Water Code, 

not the authority of the city under section 341 .OOl of the Local Government Code. 

Finally, the Code of Criminal Procedure lists as peace officers “officers commissioned by 

a water control and improvement district under Section 49.216, Water Code,” TEX. CODE CFUM. 

PROC. ANN. art. 2.12(15) (Vernon Supp. 2002) (emphasis added), but does not list officers 

commissioned by drainage districts and other districts that may contract for or employ peace officers 

under section 49.216, see id. art. 2.12. Given that section 49.216 of the Water Code provides the 

authority for drainage-district peace officers to make warrantless arrests for state-law traffic offenses, 

we do not address the significance of that omission, if any. We also note that for purposes of the 

Penal Code, “‘ [p]eace officer’ means a person elected, employed, or appointed as a peace officer 

under Article 2.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 5 1.2 12 or 5 1.2 14, Education Code, or other 

law.” TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. 8 1.07(36) (Vernon 1994) (emphasis added). This definition would 

include peace officers employed or appointed under section 49.2 16 of the Water Code. 
The Honorable Michael A. McDougal - Page 7 (JC-0530) 

SUMMARY 

Section 49.2 16 of the Water Code and the Interlocal 

Cooperation Act authorize a drainage district to contract with another 

local government for law enforcement services within the district. A 

city police officer acting as peace officer in a drainage district under 

such a contract is in fact a drainage-district peace officer. A drainagedistrict peace officer is authorized by section 49.216 to make 

warrantless arrests for state-law traffic violations within the district. 

Yo rs very trul 4d”-i , 

FL 05 

du 

JOHN CORNYN 

Attorney General of Texas 

HOWARD G. BALDWIN, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

NANCY FULLER 

Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel 

SUSAN DENMON GUSKY 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Mary R. Crouter 

Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee