ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

GREG ABBOTT

January 14, 2009

The Honorable Bobby Lockhart

Bowie County Criminal District Attorney

Post Office Box 3030

Texarkana, Texas 75504

Dear Mr. Lockhart:

Opinion No. GA-0690

Re: Authority of City of Texarkana municipal

officers under various circumstances

(RQ-0717-GA)

You inform us that the Texarkana, Texas Police Department and the Texarkana, Arkansas

Police Department jointly operate a Bi-State Narcotics Task Force and a Metro Swat Team.! In

relation to those units, you·ask questions about the powers that peace officers ofTexarkana, Texas

and Texarkana, Arkansas possess. Request Letter at 1-2.

Your questions address two distinct groups: (1) peace officers ofthe Texarkana, Arkansas

Police Departmentwhile in Texas; and (2) peace officers ofthe Texarkana, Texas Police Department

while in Arkansas. Because the Arkansas courts and the Arkansas Attorney General are bettersuited

to opine on Arkansas law, we decline to comment on your questions to the extent that they implicate

that state's law.2 We therefore limit this opinion to your questions as they relate to Texas law.

You first ask whether peace officers employed by the Texarkana, Arkansas Police

Department have powers in the State ofTexas outside the territorial limits ofthe City ofTexarkana,

Texas, and ifso, how far those powers extend. Article 2. 124(b) ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure

provides:

A commissioned peace officer of a state of the United States of

America adjoining this state, while the .officer is in this state, has

under this subsection the same powers, duties, and immunities as a

peace officer ofthis state who is acting in the discharge ofan official

ISee Request Letter at 1 (available at http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov).

2FormerArkansas Attorney General Mike Beebe issued an opinion that addressed questionsrelating to the arrest

powers that Texarkana, Texas police officers possess while in Texarkana, Arkansas. See Ark. Ope Att'y Gen. 2006-175

(concluding law enforcement officers of Texarkana, Texas have arrest powers in Arkansas under the circumstances

authorized in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-81-115). Likewise here, your questions concerning Texarkana, Texas peace officers

while in Arkansas might be directed to the Arkansas Attorney General for comment.
The Honorable Bobby Lockhart - Page 2 (GA-0690)

duty, but only in a municipality some part ofthe municipal limits of

which are within one mile ofthe boundary between this state and the

adjoining state and only at a time the peace officer is regularly

assigned to duty in a county, parish, or municipality that adjoins this

state.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 2.124(b) (Vernon 2005) (emphasis added). Under a plain

language construction ofthe statute, subsection (b) grants peace officers from an adjoining state

jurisdiction throughout the municipal limits of a municipality that is within one mile ofthe border

but not beyond those municipal limits.3 Although Texas municipal peace officers may have

jurisdiction under specific circumstances beyond the municipal limits, article 2.124, subsection (b)

expressly limits the powers of a peace officer from an adjoining state to the municipal limits ofthe

Texas city and not beyond.4

The powers granted to peace officers from an adjoining state under subsection (b) exist

regardless of whether the cities on either side of the border have entered into an interlocal

cooperation agreement under chapter 791 ofthe Government Code, the Interlocal Cooperation Act

(hereafter "the Act"). See generally TEX. CODECRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 2.124(b) (Vernon 2005); TEx.

GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 791.001-.033 (Vernon 2004 & Supp. 2008). However, the Act allows local

governments to contract with each other to collectively perform certain governmental functions.

TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 791.011(a) (Vernon Supp. 2008). The Act defines "local government"

to mean a "county, municipality, special district, ... or other political subdivision ofthis state or

another state." Id. § 791.003(4)(a) (emphasis added). You inform us that, pursuant to the Act, the

cities of Texarkana, Texas and Texarkana, Arkansas have entered into the Interlocal Cooperation

Agreement for Mutual Assistance in Law Enforcement (hereafter "Interlocal Agreement"), an

agreement whereby the peace officers ofeach city can serve as law enforcement officers ofthe .other

city. Under an interlocal cooperation agreement the officers providing law enforcementservices are

in fact officers ofthe local government receiving the officers' services. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Ope No.

GA-0189 (2004) at 6 ("[D]eputy sheriffs of one county acting as peace officers in another county

under an interlocal agreement would in fact be officers of the law enforcement authority of the

county receiving the officer's service~.").

3you also question whether subsection (b) means that "neither agency can go beyond" one mile into the

adjoining state. LetterBriefat 4 (available athttp://www.texasattorneygenera1.gov). Subsection (b) does not create such

extensive restrictions on peace officers from the adjoining state. The phrase "some part ofthe municipal limits ofwhich

are within one mile" by its terms restricts which cities the statute applies to. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 2. 124(b)

(Vernon 2005); see also TEX. GOV'TCODE ANN. § 311.011(a) (Vernon 2005) (words and phrases shall be read in

context). It does not limit the jurisdiction ofpeace officers from an adjoining state to within one ~ile ofthe border.

40therstatutory provisions grant peace officers from adjoining states limited powers while in Texas for specific

reasons. See, e.g., TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 2. 124(a) (Vernon 2005); ide art. 14.051(a). Such provisions may

grant jurisdiction broader than article 2.124, subsection (b), and this opinion should not be construed as limiting the

jurisdiction granted through provisions other than subsection (b).
The Honorable Bobby Lockhart - Page 3 (GA-0690)

Thus, when peace officers originally employed by Texarkana, Arkansas serve as law

enforcement officers in Texarkana, Texas pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement, they are considered

law enforcement officers of Texarkana, Texas. See ide As such, they have the same powers and

duties as members ofthe Texarkana, Texas Police Department, subject to any limit~tions created by

the Interlocal Agreement itself. It is therefore necessary to look to the terms of the Interlocal

Agreement to determine the jurisdictional limits of those officers. Because this office does not

construe contract terms, we decline to comment on whether the Interlocal Agreement extends the

jurisdiction for peace officers originally employed by Texarkana, Arkansas while they serve in

Texarkana, Texas pursuant to the agreement. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Ope No. GA-0302 (2005) at 2.

We simply observe that such an agreement could provide jurisdiction for those officers equal to that

ofTexarkana, Texas officers.

You also ask whether "peace officers employed by the Texarkana, Arkansas Police

Department have legal authority to use deadly force in the State of Texas while deployed as a part

ofthe Texarkana Metro SWAT Team." Request Letter at 1. You note that article 2.124 ofthe Code

of Criminal Procedure, which addresses the powers of peace officers from an adjoining state, "is

silent on the issue ofdeadly force." Letter Briefat 4. Although that statute does not expressly allow

an officer from an adjoining state to use deadly force in Texas, it gives an officer from an adjoining

state, who otherwise meets the statutory requirements, "the same powers, duties, and immunities as

a peace officer ofthis state who is acting in the discharge of an official duty." TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 2. 124(b) (Vernon 2005).

Based on your Letter Brief, it appears that your question arose because ofthe language of

article 2.124, subsection (a) ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure. See Letter Brief at 4. You suggest

that article "2.124 states that a commissioned police officer from [an] adjoining state has the same

powers, duties, and immunities as a Texas police officer, but then that article sets specificlimits, i.e.

physical custody of an inmate at [a] medical facility; transporting an inmate; regain[ing] physical

custody." Id. However, the "specific limits" that you refer to apply only to the powers granted in

subsection (a), when a peace officer is transporting an inmate to a medical facility in Texas. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 2. 124(a) (Vernon 2005). Subsections (a) and (b) ofarticle 2.124

were enacted at different times and for different purposes, and nothing in the statute itself or the

legislative history suggests that the limits on power in subsection (a) apply to the powers granted in

subsection (b).5 Thus, we conclude that under article 2. 124(b) a peace officer from an adjoining

state, who otherwise meets the requirements of that statute, has "the same powers, duties, and

5See Act ofMay 8, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 156, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 1006, 1006-07; HOUSE COMM.

ON PUB. SAFETY, BILL ANALYSIS, Tex. H.B. 1155, 74th Leg., R.S. (1995) (purpose ofbill was to "allow commissioned

peace officers ofa neighboring state to have the same powers, duties, and immunities as Texas peace officers, but only

while transporting an inmate from a neighboring county to and from a hospital in Texas"); Act ofMay 3, 1999, 76th Leg.,

R.S., ch. 107, § 1,1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 544,544; HOUSECOMM. ON PUB. SAFETY, BILL ANALYSIS, Tex. H.B. 165, 76th

Leg., R.S. (1999) (purpose ofbill was to allow "law enforcement agencies in another state to enforce Texas laws in a

municipality which is split between Texas and another state").
The Honorable Bobby Lockhart - Page 4 (GA-0690)

immunities," including the power to use deadly force, "as a peace officer ofthis state who is acting

in the discharge of an official duty." TEX. CODE CRIM.PROC. ANN. art 2.124(b) (Vernon 2005).6

As discussed above, the powers granted to Texarkana, Arkansas peace officers under article

2.124(b) exist regardless of whether the local governments have entered into an interlocal

cooperation agreement. However, when serving pursuantto the Interlocal Agreement, peace officers

of Texarkana, Arkansas are considered officers of Texarkana, Texas, and they possess the same

authority to use deadly force as members ofthe Texarkana, Texas Police Department, subject to any

limitations created by the Interlocal Agreement. Thus, depending on the specific terms of the

Interlocal Agreement, their authority to use deadly force may be broader than that granted under

article 2. 124(b). Because, our office does not construe contract terms, we decline to comment on

whetherthe Interlocal Agreement extendsthe authority ofTexarkana, Arkansas peace officersto use

deadly force beyond the municipal limits ofTexarkana, Texas.

6The Legislature has articulated standardsregarding the authority ofpeace officersto use deadly force. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.51(a), (c)-(e), (g) (Vernon 2003). Whether the use ofdeadly force is authorized in a particular

circumstance is a fact question, and this office does not resolve fact questions in the opinion process. See Granger v.

State, 3 S.W.3d 36,39 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (quoting Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804,808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987));

Tex. Att'y Gen. Ope No. GA-0620 (2008) at 4-5 (resolution offactual issues not amenable to the opinion process).
The Honorable Bobby Lockhart - Page 5 (GA-0690)

SUMMARY

Article 2.124, subsection (b) ofthe Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure grants limited powers to officers from an adjoining state

while in Texas in circumstances where the municipal limits of a

municipality are within one mile ofthe boundary between this state

and the adjoining state. Under that provision, the jurisdiction of

peace officers ofthe Texarkana, Arkansas Police Department extends

to the municipal limits ofTexarkana, Texas and not beyond.

Article 2.124(b) also grants those officers from the adjoinin~

state the same powers, duties and immunities as an officer of this

state who is acting in the discharge ofan official duty. Thus, officers

ofthe Texarkana, Arkansas Police Department, while in Texarkana,

Texas, have the same authority to use deadly force as an officer of

this state.

Under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, when peace officers of

Texarkana, Arkansas are serving as law enforcement officers in

Texarkana, Texas pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement, they are

considered law enforcement officers of Texarkana, Texas. Thus,

when serving pursuant to that agreement, they have the same

jurisdictional limits and authority to use deadly force as officers ofthe

. Texarkana, Texas. Police Department, except as limited by the

Interlocal Cooperation Agreement.

ANDREW WEBER

First Assistant Attorney General

JONATHAN K. FRELS

Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

NANCY S. FULLER

Chair, Opinion Committee

Virginia K. Hoelscher

Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee