DAN MORALES 

ATTORNEYGENERAL 

QBffice of tip !Zlttornep @enera 

&ate of Ptexae 

June 2, 1994 

Honorable Carl E. Lewis 

Nueas County Attorney 

Nueces County Courthouse 

901 Leopard 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401-3680 

Dear Mr. Lewis: 

Opinion No. DM-294 

Re: What information a law enfomement 

agency is authoriaed to give to a public school 

district or private school under article 15.27 of 

the Code of Criminal Procedure (RQ-628) 

You ask us to advise you of the amount of detail that is authorized in a notification 

-fan “arrest or detention” of a student under Code of Crhninal Procedure article 15.27, 

hich was added by the Seventy-third Legislature. See Acts 1993,73d Leg., ch. 461, 8 1. 

Subsections (a) and (e)(l) of article 15.27 provide as follows: 

(a) A Jaw enforcement agency that arrests or takes into custody 

as provided by Chapter 52, Family Code, an individual who the 

agency knows or believes is enrolled as a student in a public prinuny 

or secondary school, for an offense listed in Subsection (h) of this 

article, shall orally notify the superintendent or a person designated 

by the superintendent in the school district in which the student is 

enrolled or believed to be enrolled of that arrest or detention within 

24 hours a&r the arrest or detention, or on the next school day. 

Within seven days after the date the oral notice is given, the law 

enforcement agency shah mail written notification, marked 

“PERSONAL and CONFJDENTL&” on the maiiiig envelope, to 

the superintendent or the person designated by the superintendent. 

The written notification must have the following printed on its face in 

large, bold letters: 

“WARNING: The information contained in this notice is 

intended only to inform appropriate school personnel of an arrest 

or detention of a student believed to be enrolled in this school. 

An arrest or detention should not be construed as proof that the 

student is guilty. Guilt is determined in a court of law. THE 

INFORMATION CONTAJNED IN THIS NOTICE IS 

CONFIDENTIAL!” 

. 

p. 1562 
Honorable Carl E. Lewis - Page 2 (DM-294) 

(e)(l) A law enforcement agency that arrests or detains an 

individual that the law enforcement agency knows or believes is 

enrolled as a student in a private primary or secondary school shall 

make the oral and written notifications described by Subsection (a) or 

this article to the principal or a school employee designated by the 

principal of the school in which the student is enrolled. 

Although the statute does not specify the amount of information that is authorized, 

we are of the opinion that the legislature intended to authorize the communication of all 

information that will enable the school official to “take the precautions necessary to 

prevent tinther violence in the school,” Code Crim. Proc. art. 1527(g), and to further 

educational purposes and protect students and personnel at the school, see id. art. 

15.27(d). We do not agree that the legislature intended the narrow interpretation of the 

statute that you inform us is put forth by some persons: that article 15.27 permits only the 

communication that a particular student has been arrested or detained, without any tkrther 

explanation such as the nature of the alleged offense or the identity of an alleged victim 

who is a classmate of the arrested student. 

We reach our conclusion by analyzing the statute as a court would. “In 

interpreting a statute, a court shah diligently attempt to ascertain legislative intent and 

shall consider at all times the old law, the evil, and the remedy.” Gov’t Code 8 312.005. 

In construing a statute, whether or not the statute is considered 

ambiguous on its face, a court may consider among other matters 

the: 

(1) object sought to be attained; 

(2) circumstances under which the statute was enacted; 

(3)legislativehisto1y; 

(4) common law or former statutory provisions, including laws 

on the same or similar subjects; 

(5) consequences of a particular construction . 

Id. $311.023, 

According to the bill analysis for the Seventy-third Legislature’s House Bill 23, 

which added article 15.27 to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 

[c]ontidentiality laws currently do not allow police and school 

officials to share information concerning crimes in which students are 

involved. During public hearings held by the House Subcommittee 

on Gangs, police and school officials asked that the wnfidentiality 

p. 1563 
Honorable Carl E. Lewis - Page 3 (DM-294) 

laws be changed to allow the sharing of information in order to 

prevent future violence. 

House Comm. on Urban Affairs, Bill Analysis, H.B. 23,73d Leg. (1993). The bill analysis 

thus indicates that crime in the schools was the evil within the legislature’s contemplation. 

The analysis also indicates the legislature’s recognition that the old law limited 

wmmunications between law enforcement agencies and schools regarding criminal 

activity, with the result that the schools were unable to take appropriate measures to 

protect students and employees. 

The old law hindered efforts to deter school crime because. it prevented law 

enforcement authorities Tom reporting to a school that there was probable cause to 

believe that one or more students had wmmitted a serious crime and therefore might pose 

a threat to the school environment. 

Both police and school officials reported that gangs would fight offcampus, then, unknown to school officials, rival gang members 

would be in the same classroom the following day, greatly increasing 

the potential for violence. 

Id. Before House Bill 23 amended it, section 51.14 of the Family Code prohibited the 

public disclosure of the contents of law enforcement records relating to delinquency of a 

child except to the juvenile wurt having jurisdiction of the child, an attorney for a party in 

the juvenile-wurt proceeding, or law enforcement officers when needed to perform their 

duties. Fam. Code 9 5 1.14(d) Historical & Statutory Notes. The schools therefore were 

denied access to information that would enable them to take precautions to prevent 

disruption or violence. 

The old law also hindered efforts to deter school crime because it discouraged the 

schools from reporting to law enforcement agencies that serious crimes involving students 

had occurred on campus, with the result that “the juvenile’s record of violence [wa]s not 

completely known by the court which w[ould] decide punishment or rehabilitation.” 

House Comm. on Urban Affairs, Bill Analysis, H.B. 23, 73d Leg. Apparently, school 

officials were reluctant to report suspicions of criminal activity at the schools because they 

feared being held liable for defamation. House Bill 23 added to the Education Code a new 

section 2 1.303. See Acts 1993, 73d Leg., ch. 461, 8 2. This section, among other things, 

requires school principals or their designees to notify local law enforcement authorities if 

they have reasonable grounds to believe that certain criminal activities are occurring on 

school property or at school-related activities. r See Educ. Code $ 21.303(a). Section 

21.303 also immunizes from civil damages persons making reports in good faith under that 

section. See id $21.303(e). 

‘Merely reporting sospded criminal activity Ly stndents does not implicate the federal Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. 8 1232g (“FERF’A”). FERF’A governs the 

availability of “education records.” 
Honorable Carl E. Lewis - Page 4 (DM-294) 

Therefore, the purpose of House Bii 23, as stated in the bill analysis, was “[t]o 

allow police and school officials to share information about drug crimes, reckless conduct, 

the malting of terroristic threats, weapons crimes, and gang-related crimes, in which 

students are involved.” We believe that to tklSll this purpose, the statute should be 

interpreted as authorizing notitication of all the circumstances surroundmg an arrest or 

detention that would be relevant to the consideration of necessary precautions to protect 

students and employees and prevent disruption of school activities. 

The committee-hearing statements of the author and the sponsor of House Bill 23 

support a broad reading of the notification provisions in accordance with the purpose 

stated in the bii analysis. In a public hearing of the House Committee on Urban A&irs, 

Representative de la Gatza, the author, explained the scope. of the provisions in response 

to a question as follows: 

Q: When the school is notified that a student has a potential 

legal problem, then you are providing that information for 

educational purposes. In the testimony that came up in the hearings, 

what hinds of suggestions were made for those “educational 

purposes”? 

A: Well, what they’re talking about is-when you use the phrase 

“educational purposes”-they’re talking more along the lines of 

informing the school officials that this particular person, who is a 

juvenile, who is in the classroom, has wmmitted a crime, perhaps 

against a. .person in the same school-usually that happens; it’s 

someone that they know-or has been charged with a crime dealing 

with the delivery of narcotics, of wntrokd substances. . The 

purpose of this is to inform the school so they can provide a safer 

enviromnent for the students in the class, and the teachers. And if 

that student is near or around the person that he or she has assaulted, 

them you do take steps to remove that threat so there’s no 

wntinuation of the threat. 

Hearings on H.B. 23 Before the House Comm. on Urban Affairs, 73d Leg. (Feb. 16, 

1993) (tape available from House Video/Audio Services). In the same vein, the sponsor, 

Senator Shelley, answered a question as follows during a public hearing of the Senate - 

Committee on Criminal Justice: 

Q: There are some pretty tight regulations on what you do with 

information on juveniles, and--would you just address that? Are we 

going to run into some problems? 

A: What this is going to do, it’s going to amend the Family 

Code, those restrictions, so it’ll allow it. It also is going to amend the 

Education Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. And it has 

P. 1565 
Honorable Carl E. Lewis - Page 5 (DM-294) 

provisions for wntidentiality with regard to that information that 

would be given to the school districts, the superintendent or the 

principal or their designated person to receive that information.2 

Hearings on H.B. 23 Before the Senate Comm. on Grim. Just., 73d Leg. (h4ay 11, 1993) 

(tape available from Senate StatT Services) (footnote added). 

We believe that a narrow interpretation of article 15.27, permitting only the report 

that a student has been arrested for a crime within the scope of subsection (h) of the 

article, without further explanation, would be of little assistance to a school. Subsection 

(h) includes the following offenses: murder, capital murder, aggravated kidnapping, 

sexual assault, aggravated assault, aggravated sex~&assault, injury to a child or elderly 

individual, arson, robbeq, aggravated robbery, burglary, certain violations of the 

Controlled Substances Act, terroristic threat, unlawtkl possession of certain weapons or 

devices, and organized crhninaJ activity. See Code Crim. Proc. art. 1527th). The mere 

fact of an arrest would provide little help&l information to the school because article 

15.27 wvers a great variety of crimes and the school’s wurses of action to maintain a safe 

enviromnent conducive to learning would vary greatly depending on the type of alleged 

crinkl activity and the identification of actual and potential victims. A cautious school 

administrator might assume every possible offense and might take multiple unnecessary 

actions in regard to the student, in spite of the provision in subsection (g) of article 15.27 

that the “school official may take the precautions necessary to prevent tkther violence 

but may not penalike a student solely because. a notification is received about the student.” 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that article 15.27 authorixes a law 

enforcement agency to wmmunicate to the proper school official the nature of the charges 

against an arrested or detained student, the identities of any alleged victims who are 

students or school personnel, and all other information about the arrest or detention of a 

student that will enable the school official to take appropriate action to prevent violence, 

protect students and school personnel, and further educational purposes. 

2Artick 15.27(f) provides, in part, as follows: “Aperson who receives information under this 

article may not disclose the information except as specifically authorized by this article.” We note thathe 

provisions of FERF’A giving a student’s parents access to the shdent’s “education records” may limit the 

scope ofthis eontidentiaiity provision. 

p. 1566 
Honorable Carl E. Lewis - Page 6 (DM-294) 

SUMMARY 

Article 15.27 of the Code of CriminaJ Procedure authorizes a 

law enforcement agency to wnmnmicate to the proper school official 

the nature of the charges against an arrested or detained student, the 

identities of any alleged ktims who are students or school 

personnel, and all other information about the arrest or detention of a 

student that will enable the school official to take appropriate action 

to prevent violence, protect students and school personnel, and 

further educational purposes. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

JORGE VEGA 

Fii Assistant Attorney General 

DREW DURHAM 

Deputy Attorney General for Crinrinal Justice 

WJLL PRYOR 

Special Counsel 

RENEA HICKS 

State Solicitor 

SARAH J. SHJRLEY 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by James B. Pinson 

As&ant Attorney General 

P. 1567