OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS

AUSTIN

Tsxas State forksDomd Austin,Texas

Gentlemsn: Attention: Hon. ‘Sill Xaan Chief Glerk '!

,^.~ ,,,, opiniod. Fo. mo-s71gK -.-~‘---.. Richardson,

Ret Authority of keepers ot State Farks to arrestor eject for~disburbingthe peaoe and bo arrest or eject,aporsou disobeyingrules and reGu.lafions ot ParKBoard I

This will aoknov&ebge~rsoelptor your request that this Deparfunent giveyoults opinion relative to the authoritp.ofkeepers,~apgod.uted by the Texas State Parka Board,,by

suthority of~.+rtSqle 6069, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas&lqa5, and‘-its,>answer to certain questions:,

whloh v~.hava.

for conveniencerestated as r0ii0~63: \ 1,

>\, Alld *ih‘B, ketaper arrest a yareon
,/' i' "~%stur&xg the peaoe In a State Park, and take

,~~,hfio: before',?

Just&e of the Feoce? ,,' ." / ,' i ((' ,& Vou&,a keeperbe justified inusing \ 'x. \, for? to.tject from the Ferk suoh a disturber '\\,,,of

th? poaae?

, :' \ '\, 5. Could suah a keeper arrest e person for &il?g or using intorlaatingbevarages in a statepark in violation of a rule or rules, promulgatedby the board, prohibiting same2

4. Could such a keoper,eject from the park,
a person found violating tha' rules or rules referred to in r:uestfon Z~above?

The power aad duties of the State.ParksBoard
are set out in Artioles 8007-6077, inclualve,and Article. .,

Texas State Parks Eoard. Pape 2

608le, sections 3-5, 2,.C. s. of Texss, 1925. The authority for hiring a keeper is contained in the secondperaercrph

of Article 6009, 3upr2, -hiohwe quote:

*It shall further be tho duty of sold 3on::dto 3rranC;o

for or employ a keGper in each oi‘the Stste i;arks under the control of Yeld Stuta Perks Eoard, .xhoshallbe clothedwith all the powers and authority of s peace officer of the county, for the purposes of oaring for snd proteoting the property wlthin **aald** parks.*

The last olause in the above quotedparagraph suggests the question,whathur it should be interpreted
as llmitihg the exercise of'the keeper'spowers and authority as a peaoe officer to "caring for and proteoting the property within asi. Farits", or whether It aerely explainswhy the Legislature sm fi?. to provide for a keeper. In our opinion, the latter interpretation is proper. This view io etrenathenedby the probabllity that large nwnbers of people will congragate In the parks from tine to time, %ho should be given some protection, in addition to that normally furnishedby the aounty peaoe otficera. xl'the-clause In question
were interpretedto so liait the keeper'spowers **and** authority es a peaoe offlaer, hewould have no more authority to protectpersons seeklugrest, recreation, and pleasure in the parks, thanwould any otherprivate citizen.
The~powers and duties of a county peace offiaer
are ooinoidentwith those of sheriff' and constable. Code of CriminalPro&, 1925, Art. 36. They are those set out in the Constitution and Statutes of this state, subject, of aourse,to the constructionplsoed upon them by the aourts.

My questionas to the oonstStuti.onallty of a statute clothingothers than thosa set out in the Constltutionpriththe powersol s peace ofricer, is settledby the case ofheff Y. i;l;in,270 2. .;. ii73(xritof error rcfussd), .&eroin the court said:

"There is no provision of the Zonstltution expressly denying to the Leclslature the power and authority to cr,eute other agencies than those noned in the Constltutisn for the prcaervation of lm and~theTexas State Parks Eoard, ?aga 3

SUppr8SsiOIl

3f Cri3l8.There is nothing in the Constitutionthat by legitimate implication forbidsother agenciee %han those named for upholdingand enforcing law and preserving orderand peace." Coning now to your first ;uestlon, it is our opinion that the Zeeper of a state park. not only aan arrest a person fordisturbing the peeoe in the **Dark,** but that it is his dut to do so; and further, &at h8 -Ii-$ Oalltak8 the p8rSOn e ore a Justice Of th8 P8fiO8 iOr trial.

The qUOt8dal-tic18 giV8S the k88&W the POlrerS and authority of a oountypeaoe 0rri08rbut doss not 8xPreSSly inpOe **UpOn** him the **dUti0S Of**  **s pea08**  **OfricsL -.**  However, the articlewhioh provides t 8 'peeoeoffioer, Code.of Grin.eroo. 2 **pOW8rS Or**  **a** 19 3, Arti 39, also Imposesupon him certain duties, and WC thinkthey sre corollaries, **one** of the other. These **dUti8a bposed**  **on a1.l**  **p9808 OffiO-erS**  **Would,** therefore,b8 impOS8dOR a keeper. obviously, the pUlZ9OS8 of the LegialatIlre in oonferring the **poW8I7S** and authority **0r** .apeace **olfloer** On the keeper of 8 Stat8 parkwas to aid in Oaring for and protecting the propertywithin the pa~rks and to proteot thosepersons ohoosing to come there for reoreation. Can it be Said that the failure of the Legielature.~o~,erpressly Impose the **dUti8S** or a peace orrioar on such a keeper has the Srf8Ot of making it optionalwith him, either to arrest or not to arrest, for'sviolation of the law wlthin the park? To ask the question Is to answer It.

With reference t0 your SeOOnd question, it iS
our opinion that the keeper of a state parkwould not be authorized to **US8** rorce to ejeot **a** m fromthe -park
ror disturbing the peaoe. His olcar **duty** in suah an in**etanoe** would be to arrest theviolator. He would be authorized to **us8** suoh rOrQ8 es ressonably **necessary to**  **eff8Ot the**  **arrest,** and no more. Skidmore V. State, 43 Tex. 93. The authority of a **peace OffiCSr**  **t0 use**  **for08** obtalne only during the course of an arrest, and the use of force to eject e disturberof the peace trom the park not as a part of an arzcst,rould bo without the limits
or that privilege. Hudley V. Jtatx?, 01 Tez.,Zrlm. 28&J. .Ts 39, 194 S. !J.

160. Ghould S keeper attempt to forcefully eject a person, not as a part of an arrest,hexould be guilty or an assault and battery. 2kidmorc v. State, supra.%ex:2aStste l,arks?oard,Taqo 4

‘The‘I‘ox~c

3tst.e Tarks Zo:.!

:d 91s the right to promulgaterules and regulations uncer Artiolo 5070e, **::. 7.**  **2. or**  **TexS8,** 1925,pslji?ch abbe quote in part:

“Sac. 1. The Ztrsta Park Poerd is hcrcby :mthorlzedto grent oonoession in &ate ?arks and to make oonoession oontrscts for any causeWY. beach drive or othar iimrovementsin connebtionwith Stat8 Park sites,wherever **feasi** ble. The IfACnfeiI

tall 88m8d by the Stcte Parks Board shall.when oolleotod be plaozd In the ststcTr8aslry. The Poerd xay **mke** suoh rules andr*maletions for the carrying out of c kat antithe la 8 **or** this State relative to State Packs, as ft away**d8CIU** neoesscry not In oonrllotwith law.* (zmpiibJE+l ours).

Rut, has the keeper the right to make an arrest :‘or the violation of the rules an suoh, th-t is, if x rightto arrest **k0ula sxist**  exoept for the rule, **00Uia** the rule alons oonfsr that right on the keeper, or any pedce offluer? Clearly, a violation of a rule of the Roard alone OennOt to the pr8diaat8 for an ulT8at..Theremustbtr
some other authorlty&the eot must have been made a penal offenseby statute. &ma1 Code, 192S, **hrticles** l-3.

Bi%~h- :eqa?d to a keeper’s **maklng an**  arrest for a violation of the rule prohibiting the posaeaeion of~an lntoxloctlngBetasago in a state perk, It Is our opinion, and you are so advfecd, that he aould not legelly do ao beoausa lpere, uae of intoxicatingliquor is not a orime inTexas; the manner in whioh l,tla sl:d or the aotion end oonduot of a person aoccmpang?ng or reaulting lram suoh **~8% mey**  **or zay**  **not OCnStitUt8**  **the** bs.sisfor an ervest. The Ler~lsleturre has not seen fit to uake mere use Of intoxioetingbeVera@ 3 pMal **Off%RS8v** nor 'ma it mde it a ~ennl offense to violate cartein rulea end r,~nulatlons of the Yt*>te

Ca:,ks Eoerd. I4af

or4
an set Is onevhlch will justify an arrest :nTexoa. it xust have besn lladc c r:enal

**crf3w8** am E ;unIshr?lent **p70viba, 5~**  3t..3ttm3. **?e:nal ..:a:~,**  **1$:!5, iL~t!cles**  **l-3;** Kerley v. St2te, 89 .:'ex. :r.'T::-,p.

199, 230 ‘. -.163.Jw(~ar5ln~the authority of a ks*~or to arrest
2 yrson 5or 3eiiin.r intoxfcoting teuerl~qe3 :A e sty-:to park, hs n:Fht ri>vw.?uch >$uthorlty,

but i:would hot be bcc?use it constituteda violation or tho rule promulCated by the Eoard. It would be because it saa prohlblted by 3me provision of thaTexas Liquor Control .:&at., Title II, :ha?twr 8, ,;rtlcloe 606 and 667, Penal -ode, 1325, or other statutoryprovisionprohlbltlng sme. IP a peraon vere cau6ht in a state park violsting the statutory lm Ath regard to thesale of.intoxicating liquor, Y keeperwould have the ~XW right to arrest as would any peaae offloer.

. *.e gusn hem to note thnt the rule of the State Parks Roard reR3rdlhg the ml0 of intoxicantsin the parks is not nholly ineffective.,it doas deiine the policy of the Board,wlthregurd to the sale of intoxloants in state parks. For example, the oonoesaionalrws ogarating as they do under contracts 4th the ?.?oard,~rould be subjeot to such rules and regulations, ifmsdaoonditlons in their contracts. artlole 60708, b, aupra. Ylthout a,right to sell on the pra?nises- desoribed in their applloatloa, they could cot get a permitfrom the Texas Liquor Control Eoard. They, like any otherperson selling 1Lquor in the garks,without auoh a permitwould be subjeot to errest. /.rtiole666, supra.

Then, in snsmr to your **third** question, ft la
our opinion that the keeper ot a stste park oannot legally arrest a person forvlolatlnC the rule promulheted by the Fonrd prchibitingthe able OS liquor in state parks, **as** buoh,but oan legally srrest **a** personwhen a violation of the rule also constitutesa violationof the lar reguletlnf:

the srle intoxicatingbevercpes Fenerolly.

Tour fourth questionhas been sns*eredunder :!uestiona

two and three. You did not use the term force in your :curth Questionbut *ue do not think thatwould altar cur ~As,.er a3 the aord eject, au us& in this iAstaAC9, connotr?s that such zeana till1 ba used 33 nacesssry to aocomplisha physIci ejection. IhiS, to lq,36:ms fdrae, ilot verbal persuaalon. ~3len (~asent?liAg that gcumean 3jeotionby ioroe, it ?a our opinion tkizt the ko,sper

ar a state Fork cermot ,l-r~:lly eject
a prson therefromfor violating the Emrb*a rule prohibitinp the s::lo or uae of lntoxioatl~fi beveracos in the ~33cic

for the reason3 riven in ~~3;:er t.2.pestion numbel.two.

In this oonnectiott, however,yl'e

wish to dimot your ettsatlon to the laot that ?-hen usinv the tern, "3~ arrest*,we retwr to a 'le+l'* mrsst. 'The1sz.e of Tex-a expressly zmke legalarrests of on ofrdader xlthout warrant, In oertain oaeea only, e.-g. hhon the otisnae is **oomnltted** 1A the presence or xlthln the VBW oi the offioer, if the-offense Is one alsamd RS -2falouy,or as BA ~'offenaa e@IiAst the public 3enae*. (zt. 212 C.C.2. 1933, st.seq.) iiksrlae, on 0f:tioer cayarrest, **rftbout** warmnt, **on** tbe rerbol order of a mgiatrcte IS **the** felony or breuchOS the peeae has been mmmittcd "In the presence or within the view" of auob aa~iatrota. There are other exoeptlonaxhere an srreet nit&out warrant Is gemltted (auoh ea tar violation of the lame rwpulatfng 

### motoroehlales, f~lona shout to esoqae, persons 

### carrying ille& firaerm, 

### sto.), **but** my erreat withoutwarrant to tmleeal auat UOIP,vitbfn 

### the acop of tha exoeptiona to the general rule. Ctberwise, the officer, to lm protested, ffiust procure **a** we+ rant. See nuthe%;ford YQ. state, Z83 2. :;. $12; Lynob
**vs.** 8tate. **57 1.**  **it.** 1120; '-fi.lllsaa ra. 3+xte, 14.2

5. ;::* 900.

e ::ust that this satisfsatorilyazxa=?r8:our inquiry.

Yours very truly

CXXZ'::&

SFTlfX.S