JIM MATTOX Attorney General

Supreme CourtBuildinQ P.0. BOX12545 Austin. TX. 70711.2545 51214752501 Telex 9104574.1387 Telecopier 512/475-0266

714Jackson. Suits7W Dallas. TX. 75202.4505 2141742.8944

4Q24Alberta Ave..Suite160 You have asked the following two questions regarding peace ElPaso.TX. 799052793 officers commiiwioned by boards of trustees of independent 915/533-3464 school districts:

91Texas. Sub 700 oourton.TX. 77002.3111 713x?235888

606Broadway, Suite312 Lubbaek, TX. 79101.3479 5061747-5238

4309 N.Tanth.SuiteS McAUen.TX. 75501-1585 512M2.4547

200Main Plaza,Suite400 SanAnlonio. TX. 782052797 512l225.4191

An EqualOppotiunityl Affirmalive Action Employer 

# TheAttorney General ofTexas

Dectmber 5. 1984

Mr. RsymonL. Bynum Conmissioner of Education Texas Education Aglmcy 201 East 11th Stre’x Austin, Texas 70701

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Attorney Genwal Opinion JM-219 (1984) is withdrawn and the follotiing is substt.cuted therefor: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. Whatare 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 whohas 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:tonon 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 themas peace officers. Any officer commissioned under this section is vested with al.1 the powers, privile$;es, andimm<ies of peace officers while

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

on the property under the control andjurisdiction of the district o

’cotherwise 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 twoor more good and sufficient sureties. conditioned that he will fairly, imprlrtially, and faithfully perform all the duties th.3.:maybe required of himby law. Thebond maybe ric.edon from time to time In the
nameof any perscn injured until the whole amount of the bond Is recovered. Any peace officer commissioned under this section must meet all minimumstandarda 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:3peace 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:%gschool] 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 minimumstandards 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 whoi,ces not have a license issued by the Commission [OrbLaw Enforcement Standards snd Educetion] shal:L be appointed as a peace officer.

. . . Section 6(h) of the same statute provides:

‘Peace officer,’ for the purposes of this Act,
meansonly 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 maydesignate 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). Whenart1c: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 offleers” 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 ,,fficers” 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. mayconsult

p. 1076Mr. RaymonL. 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 andjurisdiction 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 maybe said to be “on property under the control andjurisdiction of the district or otherwise in the performance of [their] duties” whenthey 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 anduponwhether, 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

DAVIDR. RICHARDS. Executive Assistant Attornc,y General

RICKGILPIN Chairman, Opinion Committer,Mr. RaymonL. Bynum- Page ,5 (m-239)

Prepared by Jon Bible Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEE

Rick Gilpin. Chairman Jon Bible Susan Garrison AnnKraatz JimMoellinger NancySutton

p. 1078