DAN MORALES

Al-rORNEY GENERAL 

## QBffice

of tfje Bttornep @enera &ate of llCexae

March 28, 1996

The HonorableFred Hill OpinionNo. DM-381 Chair House Committeeon Urban - TausHouseofRep-ves P.O. Box 2910 Austin,Texas 78768-2910 Re: Whetherpoliceo5cersofabomeruIe city must comply with the provisions of uticle XVI, section 1 of the Texas Consthtion every two years, and related questions (RQ-767,RQ-789) The HonorableDoyle

## Wti Chair !3eleacommhteeonveterllnsA5lirs TexasHouseofRepresentatives P.O. Box 2910 Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Repmentative I-MI

asks whether home-rule city police officers end “[n]on-police 05cer employee+”of the police department are “appointed 05cers” under article XVI, section 1 of the Texas Constitution. Rep- Wtis asks on behalf of the Fofl Worth Police Department whether article XVI, section 30 of Texas Constitution requires home-rulecity police officersto com& withthe provisionsof article XV§ion 1 every -Years.

Article XVI, section 1 of the Texas Constitution requk elected and appointed officersto take an oath of 05ce. An amendmentto section 1 approved by the voters on November 7.1989, requires elected and appointed officers to sign and file a statement with the tmretwy of state beforetaking the oath of office. The statement to be signedby appointed officersis as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or a5rm) that I have not dire&
or i&Z$paid, off& or prom&d to pay, contributed, or promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or promised

‘any public 05ce or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment....
Tex. Cons art. XVI, 8 1. Article XVI, section 30 provides, with exceptions,that “[t]he duration of all 05ccs not fixed by this Constitution rhall never exceed two years.” See alw id 85 3Oa(authorizinglegislatureto provideby law for six-yearterms for officers ofTheHonorableFredHill -Page 2 (DM-381) The HonorableDoyle’W&

state agencies), 30b (two-year term limit not applicableto municipal offices under civil SWiCe).
nte~of~ehasinfonnedlawenforcanentlgarciesbylaterthrrtthe 1989 amadment to article XVI, aaction 1 quires elected and appointed 05cers to file a sworn sU&mentwith the w of atate before executingthe oath of 05ce. The letter alsomentionsacasewhereinthe~ureto5ethe stakmentaff&tedtheoutcomeofa pmcecd+bcforeajusticecourL Adeputysheriffwascalledtotesti@aboutissuinga speedhgticket. BecausethedeputyMnot5edtheatatementrequiredbyarticleYM, #ctionloftheTewsCoaPtitution,thejusticeofthepeaceexcludcdhistestimonymd didssedthecharge.

We 6nd no judicial decision or attorney &neral opinion stating whetkr police o5cersarepublicofficerswithinarticleXVLsectionl. Brri~eAttomeyGmeral Opinion H-1027 (1977) (commissioned officers of Depsrcment of Public Safkty are appointedo5casrequimdtotakecoaffitutionaloath). InAttomeyoeneralopinion DM-212, however, we concludedthat article XVI, section 40 of the Texas Constitution, ~chprohibitsone~n~holdingtwocivilo5cesofrmolument,dasnotua matter of law prohibit city police 05cexs and sherifFs deputies from serving as part-time secwity officersfor a school disk% Attomey Generalopinion DM-212 (1993) at 2. We relied for this conclusion upon the test adopted by the Taas Supreme.Court in A&z Indepmdmt SchoolDistrict v. Stamiley,280 S.W.2d578 (Tex. 1955).
inA~~,,thecourthddtthedecirivefactor~apublico~ from a public employeeis Whether any fmxeign fimctbn of the govemment isconferred upontheindividualtobeatacisedby~forthebenehtoftbeplblichrgrly in&pen&nt of thecontrol of others.”

Id. at 583 (quotinghbar v. Bramia Cmty, 224 S.W.2d 738, 740-41 (Tex. Cii. App.-Oalveston 1949. writ refd)) (emphasis supplied by court in AU&e). See oh Green v. S&war&516 S.W.2.d 133 (Tar. 1974) (condudiaginreliionA&Iinethatdeputiesintax assessor-cokctor*s 051x are not 05cersbecfUsetheyactedintflx m-collector’ s right rather than in their own right). In Hurris Count v. SchorWr, 594 S.W.2d 106 (Tea. Civ. App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 1979. writ refd n.r.e.), the court concluded that the chiefjuvenile probation o5ca was not a public officer, even though the statute conferred upon him authohty to perfhm certain sovereignihctions, because he could not exercisethem largely free of the control of the juvenile board. Attorney General Opinion DM-212 expressed the view that the Tacascourtswould~plythcA~~testMdwouldconcludetht(It~romecity police o5cers, sheriB’ sdeputies, and securhy 05cers do not hold civil offices.1 Attorney

p. 2077TbeHonorableFredW - Page 3

The HonorableDoyle Wti (DM-381)

General Opinion DM-212 (1993) at 2. Whether a patt+hr police.05cer. deputy, or school district semrity 05cer held a civil office depended on the resolution of factual issues and therefore could not be demmined in an attonxy general opinion. Id.

Alter Attomey Gamal Opiion DM-212was issued, the Texas Court of Criminal ~relisdupontbeA~~tartto~thtndlhamurisuntrttomeygenenl nor~usutarrt~rttonrywrsaplMicoffiarforpuporaoftbeuticleXVI, section4Oprohiiagainatholdingtwocivilo5casofennAmwt. strrtewl.Hillv. P&de, 887 S.W.2d 921 (Xx. Grim.App. 1994). The adoption of the A&he test by the courtofQimiDp~~gives~o~nrpporttowrconclurioninAttonreyGeDenl Opiion DM-212. We a5rm our conclusionthat city police 05cers are not as a mattbr of law dvu 05cers ofemobent withinarticleXVI, section40 ofthe Texas Consdtution.
How, early judicial decisions cite provisions of the Code of Criminal IVocedureas authority for the conclusionthat city police 05cers are public05cers. &e Yett v. Coo&, 281 S.W. 837 (Tex. 1926);Irwin v. we, 177 S.W.2d 970 (Tea. C&n. App. 1944); Er prte Preston, 161 S.W. 115 (Tea. Grim. App. 1913); Ciry of PIpis v. Gzbiness, 98 SW. 925 (Tex. Civ. App. 1906.nc writ); C@v ofHadan v.hiti, 80 S.W. 1144 (Tex. Cii. App. 1904.writ refd); CQ ofHow&m v.Testes, 79 S.W. 848 (Tex. Civ. App. 1904,writrefd). IntheAkhecase,tbeTexasSupremehunrefhedtowmeof thue decisions, distinguishing Chbines, &es, “andotk CBSCS involvingthe right to disdmge a polim” as follows:

Cii policmen are expresslydeclaredby the. provisionsof Article 36, Vemon’ s Ann. Code of Grim. Procedw ofTexas,tobe’puce 05cers’ ,andpeace05ccrsareexpmsdyde&redtol!einduded within the generalterm ‘05ws’ by Artide SO, Vemon’ s AM. Code ofCrim.PmcedureofTexas. Botbthesestmuteswueoperah whenaUtheabovecsseswerededded. A&Sine, 280 S.W.2d at 585. The cited statutes are now wpectively artides 2.12 and 3.03 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

Artide 2.12 of the Code of CriminalProcedure idcntiftes police officers as "peace 05cers.” and article 3.03 states that the tam “05cerx” indudes mrgisaates and peace officers. Other provisions of the Code of CriminalProc&reauthizeapeaceo5ccrto ~thepeaceandtomakeanWswithtwunntr~romeciraunstmces,code Crim Proc. art. 2.13. to summon dtiumtoassisthimwhenllscemytooverwme msiuance, id, art. 2.14, and to intervene when so- is about to commit an offense

p. 2078TheHonorableFmdHiU -Page 4

The HonorableDoyle Was (DM-381)

againstthe person or property of another within his view, Id. art. 6.06. See u&o id. arts. 6.05.8.05, 14.01(b). .03 - .04. ThecasesthatrelyonCodeofCXminal Pro&ureprovisionsto6ndthatacity police 05cer is a public 05cer are not recent cases, but they have not been overturned. In the absence of morejudicial guidance on the question be&e us, we cammt definiteJy predict what test the courts would use in determiningwhether or not a city police officer ~fitethe~~t~trketheconstitutionaloathrequindbyrrtideXVI,rectionl oftheTenasCon&ution. Wethadonrdviseyoutoarontbed&ofcurtion,mdto auRwethatapoliceofficernnurttalretheoathrequindbyrrticleXVI,rectionlofthe Texas Constitutionuntil the courts answerthis question. Tbe opinion of the Texas Court ofCriminolAppealsisespeciJlyimportant,~itisthecourttht~questions of the validity of a search and seizure conductedby a police 05cer. See Tar. Const. art. V,§S(courtofcriminalappeals~havefinal~ejurisdi*ionin~ca9es). Repremdve Hill speoi6callyasks whether the provisions of artide XVI, section 1 of the Texas Consthution apply to the followingemployees of a home-rule city: poke 05ccrs who meet the statutory detkition of peace officers ‘as provided by artide 2.12 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, and nonpolice officer employees of a police department such as clerks, custodians, secretaries,jfders, telecommtmicationsemploy#s, and other support St& persomlel. As we have already stated, our present advice is that police officers shouldtake the oath.

A police dipartmcnt may indude employeesother than police officers. See Elfis v. Holcombe, 69 S.W.2d 449,453 (Tot. Cii. App.-Odveston 1934. writ refd); see t&v Hokombe v. Gmto, 102 S.W.2d 1041.1042 (Ten. 1937) (explaining Ellis v. Hokornbe). In Dehue v. State, 808 S.W.2d97 (Tea. Crim.App. 1991).the Texas Court of Crimimd Appeals considered whether a speci6cjaikr appointed by the sheriffwas a peace officer, withinthe offense of escapefrom a peace 05cer. See PensJCode 8 38.06 (formerlyPenal Code 9 38.07). Although Dehre concems county rather than city law-enforcement persom~el,

it demonstratesthe court’ s method of detennimngwhether or not an individual isapeaceo5cerwithinartide2.12oftheCodeofCrimirAProcedure. Thecourt determined that the jailer was not a peace officer under artide 2.12 of the Code of CriminalProcedurebecausethsevidenceahowsdthathehadnotbeencatifiedllsapeace 05cer under chapter 415 of the GovermnemCode or appointed as a deputy sheriff. 808 S.W.2d at 101-02. The court further noted that ‘ [elach case must be determined on its
own facts as to the sufiiciency of the evidence that a jailer,. or other law enforcement prsom~el, aatisf~esthe qualihdons of a certi6ed peace officer.” Id. at 102 n.13. Accordingly, we conclude that employees of the police department who are not peace 05ce1-s as de&d by article 2.12 of the Code of CriminalProcedure and who sre not public 05cers for any other reason are not subject to the requirements of artide XV& section 1 of the Texas Consthution.

p. 2079TheHonorableFredHiU - Page 5

TheHonorableDoyle Wm (DM-38 1)

RqmsadatinHillnextinquiresaboutthec4xrectproceduretomeetthe cons0Monalqukememfortbepoliceo5cerswhoh3vealreadybeenhired. We-no ~e~ti~ply with attide XV& section 1 retroa&vely. We advise that police

m and take the constitutiotd oath as soon as possible. RepramutivewtllirasksifdvilBervicepolicedquh&tsofhome-ruledties mu&mquimtheirof6ceratotaketheoatheverytwoyurs. Aktterkomthedkfof poti~ofthecityofFortWorthrtltestbupoliceo5~infiirdepamaenthnn traditionallybeen sworn in only upon graduetionfkom the police academy, or upon special appointmes&asinthecaseofthechiefofpolice. Hewishestoknowwhethermembersof apoticefotceina~~cjtyueaibjecsto~deXVI,redionslMd3O,~othat mustteketheoathofo5ceud6ietbeditanaa everytwoyears. ArtideXVI,section 30 of tht Texas Con&u&n provides, witb excqkons, that “[t]he duration of ali oftices not flxed hy this Constitution shall never exceed two years.” However, artide XVI, section 30b of the Texas Con&ution providea that the duration of appob%ive05ce-s undaacivilMvioerhllbe~~bythecivilrervice~~onrMdnoSbyutide XV§ion30:

~byvir&eofStatuteorchutaprovisionsappointive o5~ofllllymunid~~p~undathe~andproviriono ofCivilServiceandrulesare8etupgoverdngrppointmarttoand removal ffomsuch

of&s, the

provisions

of Artide 16, Se&n 30, Of~Taclls~~onlimitingtheduntionof~otii~notfixad bytheConstitutiontotwo(2)yerrsrhsllnotrpply.buttheduntion ofsucho5ces&allbegovemedbytbeprovisionsoftheCii Servicelaw or charta provisionsappkble thereto.’ Tbus,tbetermlimitsofartideXVI,aection30donotapplytomo5cer appointodunderamunidpalcivi)ravicesystan~U~by~orchartaif appointment

to andremoval

fkomoffice aregovernedby civil semia provisions. ’ Law enforcement personnel with civil service protection under **chapter**143 of the Local GovanmentCodehavenos*tamofo5ceMd~ybcnmwedonlyforreaponsand under procedures governed by the statute. Local GotO Code 88 143.021, .051 - .052, .056, .085; see &o id. 5 143.001(purpose of civilcavice statute is to securee5dent fire and police departments composed of capable pasOnne with pern~em **anployment** teme). The oath d filing rquirements of utide XVI, section 1 of the Texas

p. 2080The HonorableFred Hill - Page 6

The HonorableDoyle Wti (DM-381)

Constit&on would apply when these individualsare appointed as city police officers. A poke 05cer would not need to 6le the rtltanent andtaketheoathagainunlesshewas rppointedagain,foracamp)e,ifllefthispositionwithonecivilravicecityudwas hired as a police 05cer by **MOthK**dvu servicecity.4
Ibpmmt& Willis also asks whether 05ccxs sworn prior to the 1989 medmentmust6lethe rartanemnowrequiredbys&kXVI,aectionloftbeTexas Conuitution. A conuitutional provision opera&s pmqaidy unless the language, purpose, ornatureoftheprovisiondearlymanif ”tbeinteat ofremqe&eopKation. Cm v.Robimwn,

150 S.W. 1149 (Tar. 1912). Article XV§ion 1 quires 05cers tc fIethe~withtheseKKaryofstatebeforewriqetbeoath. Nothinginthe provisionsuggeststhatthe5ingrequimmentapplieswbwtheappointmentwasmnde andtheoathwastakmpriortothee5xtivedateoftbel989amendment. 05cersund~ aeivilraviasynanwhotooktbeconrtitutionrloathforrppoimedo5cas~~the 1989amembntneednot5ethestatemmtnow. Ofcoume,iff’orsomereasonsuch individualshave been appointed as police 05cers sincethe amendmentwas adopted, they must 6le the statementWore taking the oath.
RepremtativeW~fidlyasks,WhatwiUbetheimpactuponanrstsmsdehy these 05cers. which fkllwithin the mbit of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Arts. 14.01(b), 14.03, [and] 14.04.“’ Theseprovisionsallowpeaceo5cerstomakearrestswithouta WUlWlt

**UlIdK &lCCitk**  circumstances. Article 14.01(b)authorizes a peace 05cer to arrest anoEendKwi@utawanantforanyo&mecommittedinhispm3ence or within his view. Article 14.03 authorizes a peace. 05cer to arres&

without a warran& (1) personsfbundinsuspiciousplacesandllndKwhicllreasonablyshowthatsuchpKsonshavebee?lguiltyofsoaIe felony, violation of Tie 9, Chapter 42, Penal Code [disorderly conductandrelatedoffenses],brudloftheperce,oroffenseunder Section 49.OZ.

Penal Code [public intoxication], or threats or are about to commit some offenseagainstthe laws; (2) persons who the peace officerhas probable cause to believe haVeCOlWlittCdlUlassaultnsultingblbOdilYh~tOMOthKpKSOll

p. 2081TheHonorableFredHiU - Page 7 (DM-381) The Honorable Doyle Was

Other sections of article 14.03also authoh arrests without a warrant in various casas of familyviolence. Article 14.04pravides as hllows:

WhKeitisshownbysatisMtoryprooftoapaace05cer.upon the representation of a cradible person, that a felony has been conwitted,md~theoffendKisrbouttoescrpe,x,that~is
no time to procure a wamm ad peace officer may, without warran&pursueMdarresttheaccused. Itpa#o5ianinquertionvedefictoo5~underTtxu~w,thdrurrotr madeinacc0&mxwitbtbaseatatutesarcvalid. lnJnvinv.slolo,theTexasCourtof criminsl Appealsstated as follows:

Tkeisnoqucstionbutt&tifthatwonamado5~oreithK ofthem,waredeputiesshKiffdejureorde&o,thesearch,inro tkrastheautholityofttleo5cersexeartingtbe~warmntswas cwoaned-I@.
177 S.W.2d at 972; see o&w Burkhrdt v. State, 202 S.W. 513 (Tax. Grim. App. 1918) (de facto deputy sheriff could arrest without warrant). The Texas Court of Criminsl Appealshas adopted the followingdcfinith of“de f&to 05ctr”:

Wihms v. State, 588 SW.2d 593 flex. Grim. App. 1979) (citing Wedqbrdv. me. 21 SW. 251 (Tax. Crim.App. 1893)).

In lWltoms, relating to a convktion of aggmvated assault on a police 05cer, see Penal Code 5 22.02(a)(2), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals bald that the evidence ~wedthatthcvidim~ade~odepltyshaiff,mnthough~rppointmartmd oath wae not recorded in the .cxnmty &k’ s 05cc, as raquired by the statutory predecessor to L0cal Oowmnmt Code section 85.003 and naith~ his deputation card
nor bond indicatedthat he had taken the oath. In Hemy v. State, 828 S.W.2d312.314-15 (Tu App.-Fort Worth 1992, pet. nfd). the court stated in diua that “[e]ven if [Constable]Browndidnottaketberaquiaiteoathofo5ce...,we6ndtiBrawnrtill quli&d IIS a de facto constableunderthe record ofthis case.” Whethar a police 05cer is urotiicade~isa~question,butthe~thattheindivid~hasnot~~theoath of o5ce doas not pravat himfrom beinga de facto poke 05cer.

p. 2082TbeHonombleFredHiU -Page 8

The HonorableDoyle Was (DM-381)

On the basis ofthe authoritieswe have cited,we concludethat a police 05cer may be shown to be a de facto police 05~4~. even though he has not taken the oath required by wide XVI. section 1 of the Texas Consdtution, and that a de tkto peace 05cer may validlyarrestsomeonewithoutawanantwhereauthorixdbylaw. Anarrestbyan unhe appointed police o&cf who is a de f&to 05cer **mda state**  **hw and**  **who may**  legally make NIX& **unda** state law would not be an uareasonable seizure **Under the**  Fourth AmeadmeM. SeeM-e v. Con?@ofS@oIk, 968 F.2d 1480(2d Cii. 1992).

SUMMARY
Artide XVI, section 1 of the Texas ConstituGon requkes elected udappointedo5~to~~orthofo5~rad,~tour amendment approved by the voters on November 7. 1989. to’ sign and5eastatementwiththexcrBaryofstatebeforetakingtheoath of 05ce. In the absence ofjudicial guidance on whether city police officersmusttaketheoathand5ethe aatamntrequiredbyartide ~sectionl,wecMnotd~e~ornotadtypoti~ officer is an appointed 05ccr for purposes of these provisions. We the&ore adviseyou to err on the side of caution, and to assumethat apoliao5cermudtlketheoclthrcquirrdbyutideXVI~onl of the Texas Constitution,until the courts answerthis question. The opinion of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is especially impo~~~seitisthecourtthatrddressesquestionsofthe validitybfasearchandseizureconductedbyapol.iceofficer.
Employeesofthepoiicedepartmentwhoarenotpeacco5cers within article 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sre not required by title XVI, section 1 of the Texas Constitutionto take the oath of officeor 5e the &&ment.

We find no procedure wherebypolice 05ccrs who have already been hired may comply with the oath provision retroactively. but we rdvisepoliceo5~whohavenotcompliedwiththis~~onto do so as soon as possible.
Officersunderaci~serviceaystemwhowereappointedand took the constitutional oath before the 1989 am&dment need not
now filethe statementrequiredby that mendnmt.

Article XVI, section 30b provides that the two-year term limitation of article XVI, section 30 does not apply to an 05~er appointed under a numidpal civil service system established by statute or charter. if appointment to and removal fiom 05ce UC governed by the civil serviceprovisions.

p. 2083ThcHonorableFrcdHill - Page 9

The HonorableDoyle Willis W-381)

Arrests made in accordance with statute by de facto police 05cers an valid. An individualmay be a de facto police 05c.q
even though he has not taken the oath of 05cc.

DAN MORALES Attorney GeneralofTexas

JORGEVEGA Fii AssistantAttorney General

SARAHJ. SHIRLEY Chair, OpinionCommittee PmparedbySusanL.Garrison AssistantAttorney General

p. 2084