DAN MORALES 

Al-rORNEY GENERAL 

QBffice of tfje Bttornep @enera 

&ate of llCexae 

March 28, 1996 

The Honorable Fred Hill Opinion No. DM-381 

Chair 

House Committee on 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 Honorable Doyle 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-rule city police officers to com& with the provisions of article XV& section 1 every 

-Years. 

Article XVI, section 1 of the Texas Constitution requk elected and appointed 

officers to take an oath of 05ce. An amendment to 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 before taking the oath of office. The statement to be signed by 

appointed officers is 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 (authorizing legislature to provide by law for six-year terms for officers of 
TheHonorableFredHill -Page 2 (DM-381) 

The Honorable Doyle’W& 

state agencies), 30b (two-year term limit not applicable to 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&ment with the w of atate before executing the 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 concluded that 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 officers for a school disk% Attomey General opinion DM-212 (1993) at 2. We 

relied for this conclusion upon the test adopted by the Taas Supreme.Court in A&z 

Indepmdmt School District v. Stamiley, 280 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. 1955). 

inA~~,,thecourthddtthedecirivefactor~apublico~ 

from a public employee is Whether any fmxeign fimctbn of the govemment isconferred 

upontheindividualtobeatacisedby~forthebenehtoftbeplblichrgrly 

in&pen&nt of the control of others.” Id. at 583 (quoting hbar 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 sovereign ihctions, because he could not exercise them 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’s deputies, and securhy 05cers do not hold civil offices.1 Attorney 

p. 2077 
TbeHonorableFredW - Page 3 

The Honorable Doyle 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-2 12 was 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 conclusion that city police 05cers are not as a mattbr of 

law dvu 05cers ofemobent within article XVI, section 40 of the Texas Consdtution. 

How, early judicial decisions cite provisions of the Code of Criminal 

IVocedure as authority for the conclusion that city police 05cers are public 05cers. &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 of Hadan v. hiti, 80 S.W. 

1144 (Tex. Cii. App. 1904. writ refd); CQ of How&m v. Testes, 79 S.W. 848 (Tex. Civ. 

App. 1904,writrefd). IntheAkhecase,tbeTexasSupremehunrefhedtowmeof 

thue decisions, distinguishing Chbines, &es, “and otk CBSCS involving the right to 

disdmge a polim” as follows: 

Cii policmen are expressly declared by the. provisions of Article 36, 

Vemon’s Ann. Code of Grim. Procedw ofTexas,tobe’puce 

05cers’,andpeace05ccrsareexpmsdyde&redtol!einduded 

within the general term ‘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 Criminal Procedure 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 Criminal Proc&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. 2078 
TheHonorableFmdHiU -Page 4 

The Honorable Doyle Was 

(DM-381) 

against the 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 more judicial guidance on the question be&e us, we cammt definiteJy 

predict what test the courts would use in determining whether or not a city police officer 

~fitethe~~t~trketheconstitutionaloathrequindbyrrtideXVI,rectionl 

oftheTenasCon&ution. Wethadonrdviseyoutoarontbed&ofcurtion,mdto 

auRwethatapoliceofficernnurttalretheoathrequindbyrrticleXVI,rectionlofthe 

Texas Constitution until the courts answer this question. Tbe opinion of the Texas Court 

ofCriminolAppealsisespeciJlyimportant,~itisthecourttht~questions 

of the validity of a search and seizure conducted by a police 05cer. See Tar. Const. art. 

V,§S(courtofcriminalappeals~havefinal~ejurisdi*ionin~ca9es). 

Repremdve Hill speoi6cally asks whether the provisions of artide XVI, section 

1 of the Texas Consthution apply to the following employees 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 Criminal Procedure, and nonpolice officer employees of a police department 

such as clerks, custodians, secretaries, jfders, telecommtmications employ#s, and other 

support St& persomlel. As we have already stated, our present advice is that police 

officers should take the oath. 

A police dipartmcnt may indude employees other 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.2d 97 (Tea. Crim. App. 1991). the Texas Court of Crimimd 

Appeals considered whether a speci6cjaikr appointed by the sheriffwas a peace officer, 

within the offense of escape from a peace 05cer. See PensJ Code 8 38.06 (formerly Penal 

Code 9 38.07). Although Dehre concems county rather than city law-enforcement 

persom~el, it demonstrates the court’s method of detennimng whether 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 Govermnem Code 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~es the 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 Criminal Procedure 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. 2079 
TheHonorableFredHiU - 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 

traditionally been sworn in only upon graduetion fkom 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%ive 05ce-s 

undaacivilMvioerhllbe~~bythecivilrervice~~onrMdnoSbyutide 

XV& section 30: 

~byvir&eofStatuteorchutaprovisionsappointive 

o5~ofllllymunid~~p~undathe~andproviriono 

ofCivilServiceandrulesare8etupgoverdngrppointmarttoand 

removal ffom such of&s, the provisions of Artide 16, Se&n 30, 

Of~Taclls~~onlimitingtheduntionof~otii~notfixad 

bytheConstitutiontotwo(2)yerrsrhsllnotrpply.buttheduntion 

ofsucho5ces&allbegovemedbytbeprovisionsoftheCii 

Service law or charta provisions appkble thereto.’ 

Tbus,tbetermlimitsofartideXVI,aection30donotapplytomo5cer 

appointodunderamunidpalcivi)ravicesystan~U~by~orchartaif 

appointment to and removal fkom office are governed by 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 civil cavice statute is to secure e5dent 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. 2080 
The Honorable Fred Hill - Page 6 

The Honorable Doyle Wti 

(DM-381) 

Constit&on would apply when these individuals are 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 service city.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& section 1 quires 05cers tc 

fIethe~withtheseKKaryofstatebeforewriqetbeoath. Nothinginthe 

provisionsuggeststhatthe5ingrequimmentapplieswbwtheappointmentwasmnde 

andtheoathwastakmpriortothee5xtivedateoftbel989amendment. 05cersund~ 

aeivilraviasynanwhotooktbeconrtitutionrloathforrppoimedo5cas~~the 

1989amembntneednot5ethestatemmtnow. Ofcoume,iff’orsomereasonsuch 

individuals have been appointed as police 05cers since the amendment was adopted, they 

must 6le the statement Wore taking the oath. 

RepremtativeW~fidlyasks,WhatwiUbetheimpactuponanrstsmsdehy 

these 05cers. which fkll within 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 offense against the laws; 

(2) persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe 

haVeCOlWlittCdlUlassaultnsultingblbOdilYh~tOMOthKpKSOll 

p. 2081 
TheHonorableFredHiU - Page 7 (DM-381) 

The Honorable Doyle Was 

Other sections of article 14.03 also authoh arrests without a warrant in various casas of 

family violence. Article 14.04 pravides 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 Appeals stated 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 

Appeals has adopted the following dcfinith 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 indicated that he had taken the oath. In Hemy v. State, 828 S.W.2d 312.314-15 

(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 constable under the record of this case.” Whethar a police 05cer is 

urotiicade~isa~question,butthe~thattheindivid~hasnot~~theoath 

of o5ce doas not pravat him from being a de facto poke 05cer. 

p. 2082 
TbeHonombleFredHiU -Page 8 

The Honorable Doyle Was 

(DM-381) 

On the basis of the authorities we have cited, we conclude that 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. See M-e v. Con?@ of S@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 of judicial guidance on whether city police 

officersmusttaketheoathand5ethe aatamntrequiredbyartide 

~sectionl,wecMnotd~e~ornotadtypoti~ 

officer is an appointed 05ccr for purposes of these provisions. We 

the&ore advise you to err on the side of caution, and to assume that 

apoliao5cermudtlketheoclthrcquirrdbyutideXVI~onl 

of the Texas Constitution, until the courts answer this 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 Constitution to take 

the oath of office or 5e the &&ment. 

We find no procedure whereby police 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 file the statement required by 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 service provisions. 

p. 2083 
ThcHonorableFrcdHill - Page 9 

The Honorable Doyle Willis 

W-381) 

Arrests made in accordance with statute by de facto police 

05cers an valid. An individual may be a de facto police 05c.q 

even though he has not taken the oath of 05cc. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

JORGE VEGA 

Fii Assistant Attorney General 

SARAH J. SHIRLEY 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

PmparedbySusanL.Garrison 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 2084