JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court BuildinQ 

P. 0. BOX 12545 

Austin. TX. 70711. 2545 

51214752501 

Telex 9104574.1387 

Telecopier 512/475-0266 

714 Jackson. Suits 7W 

Dallas. TX. 75202.4505 

2141742.8944 

4Q24 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 You have asked the following two questions regarding peace 

El Paso. TX. 799052793 officers commiiwioned by boards of trustees of independent 

915/533-3464 school districts: 

91 Texas. Sub 700 

oourton. TX. 77002.3111 

713x?235888 

606 Broadway, Suite 312 

Lubbaek, TX. 79101.3479 

5061747-5238 

4309 N. Tanth. Suite S 

McAUen. TX. 75501-1585 

512M2.4547 

200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 

San Anlonio. TX. 782052797 

512l225.4191 

An Equal Oppotiunityl 

Affirmalive Action Employer 

The Attorney General of Texas 

Dectmber 5. 1984 

Mr. Rsymon L. Bynum 

Conmissioner of Education 

Texas Education Aglmcy 

201 East 11th Stre’x 

Austin, Texas 70 701 

Dear Mr. Bynum: 

Opinion No. a-239 

Re: Reconsideration of JM-219 

authority of peace officers 

comissioned by school districts 

Attorney Genwal Opinion JM-219 (1984) is withdrawn and the 

follotiing is substt.cuted therefor: 

1. What are the responsibilities of the Texas 

Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards 

and Education concerning [such] peace officers? 

2. Do [such] peace officers . . . have all the 

powers. privileges, and immunities of peace 

officers whenever they are in the performance of 

their off’icial duties even when they are not on 

school property? ([For example during the] hot 

pursuit of a person who has connnltted a crime on 

school property, the regulation of traffic on 

contiguous streets, and [the] investigation of 

crimes committed on school property.) 

You advise us that the first question is prompted by the refusal 

of the Commis~3:ton on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and 

Education to Hcense putative peace officers commissioned 

pursuant to sec:t:ion 21.483 of the Education Code. Thls section 

provides as follows: 

The board of trustees of any school district may 

employ campus security personnel for the purpose 

of carr],i.ng out the provisions of this subchapter 

and if the board of trustees authorizes any 

officer to bear arms then they must commission 

them as peace officers. Any officer commissioned 

under this section is vested with al.1 the powers, 

privile$;es, and imm<ies of peace officers while 

p. 1074 
Mr. Raymon L. Bynum - Page I! (JM-239) 

on the property under the control and jurisdiction 

of the district o’c otherwise in the performance of 

his duties. Any officer assigned to duty and 

commissioned shall take and file the oath required 

of peace offfcern, and shall execute and file a 

good and suffici’znt bond in the sum of $1,000, 

payable to the bo.l:rd of trustees, with two or more 

good and sufficient sureties. conditioned that he 

will fairly, imprlrtially, and faithfully perform 

all the duties th.3.: may be required of him by law. 

The bond may be ric.ed on from time to time In the 

name of any perscn injured until the whole amount 

of the bond Is recovered. Any peace officer 

commissioned under this section must meet all 

minimum standarda for peace officers established 

by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer 

Standards and Education within one year of his 

commission, or hds commission shall automatically 

expire. 

The explicit langutlg;e of section 21.483 establishes that: 

(1) a school district ‘aoard of trustees may employ campus 

security personnel to ciirry out the provisions of subchapter H 

of chapter 21 of the Education Code; (2) campus securfty 

personnel commissioned ,a:3 peace officers under section 21.483 

possess “all the powerc:, privileges, and ilmrmnf.ties of peace 

officers while on the property under the control and jurisdiction of [their employi:%g school] district or otherwise in the 

performance of [their] duties”; and (3) officers commissioned 

under section 21.483 mu8t. wlthin one year of their commisslon, 

meet all minimum standards for peace officers established by the 

Texas Commission on Lav# Enforcement Officer Standards and 

Education, or their commissions automatically expire. 

Section 6(c) of article 4413(29aa). V.T.C.S., provides that 

[nlo person who i,ces not have a license issued by 

the Commission [Orb Law Enforcement Standards snd 

Educe tion] shal:L be appointed as a peace 

officer. . . . 

Section 6(h) of the same statute provides: 

‘Peace officer,’ for the purposes of this Act, 

means only a person so designated by Article 2.12, 

Code of Criminal Procedure. 1965, or by Section 

51.212 or 51.214, Pexas Education Code. 

It has been suggested ,:hat campus security personnel may not 

under any circumstances be regarded as “peace officers,” because 

they are not within eltf,er article 2.12 of the Code of Criminal 

p. 1075 
!4r. Rayma L. Bynum - Page 3 (JM-239) 

Procedure sections 51.:!12 or 51.214 of the Education Code and 

are therefore ineligible to be licensed as peace offlcers under 

article 4413(29aa). 

We agree that campus security personnel commissioned as 

peace officers under se,:tion 21.483 of the Education Code are 

not eligible to be licensed 8s “peace officers” by the comrdssion under article 4413(29aa). The express language of sections 

6(c) and 6(h) of artif::le 4413(29aa) dictates this conclusion. 

This does not mean, however, that such personnel may not be 

designated as “peace olificers” by a different statute. Section 

6(h) of article 4413(2’)aa) provides only that “for purposes of 

this Act,” &. artic,le 4413(29sa), the term “peace officer” 

includes only those persons so designated by the enumerated 

statutes; it does not rule out the possibility that some 

other act may designate someone as a “peace officer.” And this 

office has held on several occasions that various sratutes other 

than article 4413(29aa:m designate certain individuals as “peace 

officers.” See, e.g., A.ttorney General Opinion MW-54 (1979) and 

opinions cited therein. 

Section 21.483 e:rpressly designates as “peace officers” 

campus security persmnel commissioned as such under that 

section, and this statute is on an equal footing with article 

4413(29aa). When art1c:l.e 4413(29as) and section 21.483 are read 

together and harmonize&, ss they must be, Calvert v. Fort Worth 

National Bank, 356 S.‘iJ.2d 918 (Tex. 1962). the conclusion 

inevitably follows thn: section 21.483 peace officers are a 

separate and distinct kind of peace ofiicer. They are not 

“peace off leers” under article 4413(29aa). but they are “peace 

officers” nevertheless. Of course, they enjoy their status as 

peace officers only in certain instances, i.e.. “while on the 

property under the control and jurisdlctionTthe district or 

otherwise in the performance of [their] duties.” Educ. Code 

521.483. 

In answer to your first question, therefore, because campus 

security personnel cmm~issioned as “peace officers” under 

section 21.483 of the Education Code are not eligible to be 

“peace officers” as defined by article 4413(29aa), the 

comission has no 1:LcensIng responsibility concerning such 

officers. Under the express terms of section 21.483, the boards 

of trustees of the school districts of this state, not the 

commission, have the discretion to decide whether to comlssion 

individuals as “peace ,,ff icers” under that statute and the power 

to issue such commissj,ans if they choose to do so. The boards 

of trustees must require that anyone commissioned as a “peace 

officer” under sectLc#n 21.483 must satfsfy the “minimum 

standards for peace o:ificers established by” the commission. 

including medical, educ,ntional. testing, and other requirements, 

within one year. The commission. in its discretion. may consult 

p. 1076 
Mr. Raymon L. Bynum - Page di (JM-239) 

with such boards on :Ile implamentatiou of the standerds. 

V.T.C.S. art. 4413(29aa), 02(a)(6). 

Your second questlou cannot be answered in the abstract. 

As noted, campus security personnel may be employed “for the 

purpose of carrying out the provisions of [subchapter h of 

chapter 21 of the Educal::.on Code].” They are clothed with the 

powers, privileges, and immunities of peace officers “vhile on 

the property under the control and jurisdiction of the district 

or otherwise in the performance of [their] duties. Whether 

campus security personnel are authorized to engage in the 

particular activities you describe Is a fact question. The 

resolution of this questi,>n is dependent upon the scope of their 

duties as defined by their employing school boards and upon 

whether they may be said to be “on property under the control 

and jurisdiction of the district or otherwise in the performance 

of [their] duties” when they engage in such activities. 

SUMMARY 

The Texas Comtafssion or4 Law Enforcement 

Standards has no licensing responsibility 

concerning “peace officers” commissioned under 

section 21.483 o:I the Texas Education Code. The 

scope of the powers of section 21.483 peace 

officers depends upon the nature and scope of 

their duties as defined by their employing school 

district boards of trustees and upon whether, when 

they engage in particular activities, they are 

carrying out the provisions of subchapter M of 

chapter 21 of thl: Education Code and are “on the 

property under the control and jurisdiction of 

[their employing] district or [are] otherwise in 

the performance of [their] duties.” 

JIM MATTOX - 

Attorney General of Texas 

TOM GREEN 

First Assistant Attorney General 

DAVID R. RICHARDS. 

Executive Assistant Attornc,y General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committer, 
Mr. Raymon L. Bynum - Page ,5 (m-239) 

Prepared by Jon Bible 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Rick Gilpin. Chairman 

Jon Bible 

Susan Garrison 

Ann Kraatz 

Jim Moellinger 

Nancy Sutton 

p. 1078