MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

The Attorney General of Texas 

September 9, ‘1989 

James P. Iiury, Jr. 

Criminal District Attorney 

Qnlves~on County Courthouse 

Galveston, Texas 77550 

Dear Mr. Hury: 

. 

Opinion No; ‘m-2 3 6 

Re: Authority of a deputy sheriff 

to act as en independent contractor 

in his off-duty hours to transport 

funds from a mad district’s toll 

bridge to the benk 

You 3&e requested our opinion regardhg the authority of a deputy 

sheriff to act ss an independent. contractor to collect and deposit funds 

generated by a mad district’s toll bridge. 

Galveston County Road District No. 1, created in 1957, Acts 1957, 55th 

LegMature, chapter 66, at 152, operates the S.sn Luis Pass-Vacek Briae, a 

toll facility. On Jsnuary 1,1980, the District entered into a written contract 

with a Galveston County deputy sheriff to adleet the bridge tolls at 

designated intervaJs and &liver such funds as directed. The contract 

specified that the deputy would “pmviQ personal automobile end own 

personal time for this ser~ice.~ You first esk whether the Road District is a 

subdivision of Galveston County. In Hill v. Sterrett, 252 S.W. 2d 766, 769 

(Tex. Civ. App. - DaRas 1352, writ rePd hr.e.), the court de&red: 

‘A mad distriit is but a s&division of the county, 

created for the purpoes of taxation within the district 

fa county purposes, that is, the construction of 

rods. The affairs of the district are almost 

exclusively conducted by the oommissioners’ court, 

end for all practical purpcees it is a bmnch~ cr 

&division of the county within its territorial limits.1 

In our opinion, this rationale is applicable to Galveston County Road District 

No. L It is therefore cur view that the Road District Is a s&division of 

Galveston County. 

Ycu also ask whether the deputy sheriff may be paMcompensation in 

addition to -his regular salary for transport&road district ftmds.- It-is clear 

that a peace officer is not entitled to any compensation, other than fees and 

salary, for perform& acts which it is his official duty to perform. Kesli 

v. Morris, 9 S.W. 739, 740 (Tex. 1888); Crosby County Cattle -id! 

p. 747 
James P. Iiury, Jr. - Page Two HN-236 

McDermett 281 S.W. 292, 294 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo l926, no writ). No statute, 

however, &poaes lpon sheriffs cs their deputies the &ty of collecting and 

transporting mad district funds. The commissioners court itself contends that the 

deputy is not acting within the scope of his official duties when hs performs these 

pick-ups. In addition, he performs these rta on his own time and with his own 

nutomobile Finally, in Kasliw v. Morris, s. the Supreme Court held that even 

detective work which results in the spprehensmn of a burglar “is only incidental to the 

official duty of the constable or sheriff,” and that, as n result, ha may accept 8 reward 

from n private indivickml,~ ~.Since, cooecli_?g and transporting mnd district fmds is not a 

duty required of him by law, cf. Attorney Gtierai Gpiiiion.0-773 U933x-we believe%+--- -- - 

Road District may contractto pay the deputy additional compensation for such 

services. See Attorney General Opinion G5586 (19435 We note that City of Edinburg 

v. Ellis, 59s.W. 2d 99 (Tex Comm’n. App. 1933) contains dictum stating that mrniclpal 

contracts in which officers or employees of the city have a personal pecuniary interest 

are void The opinion was not adopted by the Supreme Cwrt, and an examination of 

the authorities cited by the court for this proposition indicates that the rule is 

intended to apply where the public official or employee making the contract on behalf 

of the governmental body is himself a beneficiary of the contract. That situation is 

not present here since the deputy &es not have the power to make the contract on 

behalf of the governmental body or influence the making of the contract. e 10 E. 

McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, S29.98 nt.477-478 (3rd ed. l966Z Thus the pnnciple 

discussed in City of Edinburg v. Ellis, slgra, does not apply in this case.’ _ 

SUMMARY 

Galveston County Road District No. 1 is a s&division of 

Galveston’ County. The commissioners court of Galveston 

County may validly contract with a Qputy sheriff to collect 

and deposit ftmds generated by the Road District’s toll briclge. 

- 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared ty Rick Gnpin 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

C. Robert Heath, Chairman 

Walter Davis 

Susan Garrison 

Rick Gilpin 

p. 748