OFFICE OF THE A-ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

Honorable Albert J. Huteon countyAttornry Trinity couaty Urovston, Texas

Dear air: Opinion Ho* Her Arm 

### o&34 Dl.13‘&Si?l;:!i\~:t;:*- jhiir;\\ Rq ara la receipt --y ‘l whlah you ask ths following letteror ~T$w& data in b” way an 0fri0a warrant, a Feraon f
YOU (261 

### 359,and sited thatit authoriced to

‘qusstlon as 8$hte ) ,without 6 publlo pleas?”
tt va. Statr, 124 S.W. court 8trongly intior conetable ir not ol.raua8tano*s or your pal?8 On ill@ In the Court of asa, in adtlitfon to agein readhietory of the Bennett cam

wea aooortad by a polioa offlasr or thr City the offloar having recaivsd informetlon that ntoxloated aondltionon thepublio strerte. ppsllentwaa In such aondition, arrl attemptad t wlthout a warrant. Appellant resisted and h anaued, ha took the polia8man1ebilly away rusk the officer on the heed, infllatlngpainful wounda. A,

byetender same to the ratcue of thepolicemen, end th6 two 

### overpoweredappellent, hendonf’fed hipp, and tookhim to the police station.

The oaea was eppaalad to the Court of CrlmlnelAppeals on the ground of ineuffieimvap of the e’cldeme, the oontantion being thet einoe ther?wa8 no evidraosof any oonduot on the pert of appellant in tha nature of a breaoh of the paaoo, theRonorablr Albert J. Hutton, Fag4 2

oiiioar hsd no right to arrwt; tharef'ora, appellantwa8 justffiad iAusing reesonabl4 for08 to pl%Vant hi8 Ill4gal arrest. The Stats coctandedthat oinc4 thars was aoideno4 or apperllant's being drunk in 4 pub114 plaa4, the orfIc4r had th4 rie,htto.erreetwithout a warr4nt, drunksnn4aa being 4n offense "againstths public p4ace." Based upon thir intarpretation,th6 Ststs oharg4d appellantwith aA aggra-, vatsd aeeault undar Saction 1 of Artlola 

### 1147,Panal Code.

Th4 rsaord failing to 8howthat notioa of app4al was duly raaordsd in theminutre of the court, an original oonaidarktlon the appsalwas dietissrd (124 S.W. 359). Upon parf4OtiOA of tha rooord, the 4pp4al was rrlnrtatad, and th8 omae rsvarsed ana remendrd. The opinion thus dirsotlng road IApart a8 hollows:

"Itdoes not appear fron thr trstlmony thatprior to the tims of hip arrant, appallant had don4 or said anything whloh would 001~4rithin tha meaning of a br4aoh or di8burb8AO4 of the pace. At the time the offiaer rirat saw him, hs was 8tandllllg 1A thr doorway et th4 4lrvator in the Twymoa Bullding within a blook of the oourthouss. **Art. 212, C. C. F. providea:
*'Apeaer orfloor or any other per8on, nay, without warrant, arrert an oifandar when the offen84 is coxnitted In hi8 prrsonos or within hi8 view, if the oifenre Is on4 olasaedas a l'elony,

or a8 an offsnee against the publiopea~a.~ wTh4r4forethe arrest of appellantwnithcut a w4rrmAt wh4n he was oomnittlngneither a breeoh of the peace or ta tslony ~48 AOt authoriard by law u~lsstp a 10041 ordinanos authorl84d auoh arraet. Sea 'i;llllam v. State, 

### 64 Tax. Criza. Rep., 

### 491. Sines there la no proof in thi8 rooora Of such an orbinanc4, tha question met be doaided by Art. 212, C. C. P., a.8abov4 8(lt out, end the g4n8ral laws o!'this stata. *In the a444 OS Xlng v. State, 

### 103 S.%'.(2d) 754,this court aaid: "'Dmmk4n~488 la AOt alesaad a8 8 f4lOAy, Aolthsr Is it an ofian agahnst the publlapOa40.' Vh8 only distinotlonbe$w8en th4 iA8t4At 0884Bonorable Albert ;r.HUteon, Fagr 3

end t&m on4 quoted fxm is that th4 o??ioar In the latter ease attempted to error& K~ingrlthout a warrant at his r%8id8no%,Wh%r%68 in the instant 088% the officer attempted to arrest appallant for being drunk in a publicplace. "The state railed to ahow that the pollaeman had a legal right tomaka or att&npt to Plakr the arrest Without 4 warrant. I? the arrest ~a8 lllrgal.appellant had the right to resist, or to extricatehimself rfroA eaid arrest, and under euch circumatanosrhacl a right to resort to suoh foror 4% Was reasonably naoessary to accompllah that objcotlve."

014s 998 prudenoe The State flied a motion ?Or rehearing,Citing Artiand 999, Earls48 Civil Statutes, 1925, I5 

### Texas Juri8- 300 end Fratt vs. Brown, 80 Tax. 608, 16 9.H. 443. 

### G’pon reooA8ld%ration, the COUrt Of Cri.AiAaI Appeals Wltharew lta opinion as partially quoted above, and dlscurelog the authorities olted by the Stat%, granted th4mOtiOa 8Ad 

### ar.rimnd the oasci. The authoritiee cited in the 

### State’s motion for rehearing and diecussed by the court eetabliahed the right of altv marehala and ~01ic8nen to arrest 

### fordnmk%AAess iA a $UbIl4"plao%without warrant on the grotmd that same ooixititutor disorderly conduct per se, irr%op%otlv% o? *ether there is additionalmfeoonduot aonstituting

### a breech a? thepeaoa. That the granting of the State'8AotlOA was founded on-suoh thsory 1s attested~~ty the flaal paragraph8 of Judge Oravee~ opinion: "ThU8 bell%vlugwe hold that pollcenan have thepower under the statute .toarrestwithout warrant parsons Pouod in a state of drtmkanness in n publicplace, wlthln thslr Jurlsdlatlon, and that dmnksnness in such place is dlaordsrly conduct.BonorablaAlbert J. Butson, Feage4

a warrant where the off’enseis commlttrd in suoh ottioera’ presenoe.” (Emphasisours.)
From theabove and r0r4poiag, it ia our opinion that unlrsa there is other and addltionul evidenoe thanmere lntorloation in a public place, ehsrirra and oonatablas do not have the legal right to arrest one so violatingArtlolr f,77, Yanal Oode, unlree much officers firat prooure a warrant of 

### arrest, r&l18 polios orrio0ra or a citymay lawfullynmk8 an arrest without a warrant under the same etato of faots. Althou&h Ii& opinion In Bennett va. State, rupra,was rrlsaard by the aourt prior to our last laglslatlveeeaelon, and appellaut’amotion fir rehearingwas overruladwhile the Leglolaturawas la session,no aznendment to the statutewas passed. 3’0 hare been unable to rind a further rxprrsaionby the Court of Criminalhppsale slnor the Bennett ease. In the ease of Clark va. Qat, 126 s.i”.(26 I 569, the Court or Civil Appeals at 91 Faao held In an opinion mndared January 19, 1939 (rrhearingdenied,Maroh 23, 19391 that ii a deputy shrr

### irr plaoed one **undsr** armfit, without a warrant, on a ohargrof drunkenness In e public plaoe, the arrrat was a lawful one; but inveetlgatlondisoloass a writ oi error was granted by our Supreme Court, and the oeae has not yet been disposed of. Regardlass or the outcome or the civil suit or Clarkvs. Vr’est, since the Court of CrfalnalAppeals is the oourt of 81oluei~r and final juriedlotion in orimlnal oasm, ita interpretation as stated In the Bennett cars8is bfnUfng upon peaoe otrioosr8 in sntororment or t&cd criainal law. 

# I * Yoursvery truly