DAN MORALES

ATTORNEYGENERAL 

## QBffice oftip !Zlttornep

@enera &ate ofPtexae

June 2, 1994

Honorable CarlE.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 ofCriminal Procedure (RQ-628)

You askusto adviseyou ofthe amount ofdetail that isauthorized in anotification -fan “arrest or detention” of a student under Code of Crhninal Procedure article 15.27, hich was added bythe Seventy-third Legislature. SeeActs 1993,73d Leg., ch. 461, 8 1. Subsections (a) and (e)(l) ofarticle 15.27provide asfollows:

(a) AJawenforcement agency that arrests or takes into custody
as provided by Chapter 52, Family Code, an individual who the agency knows or believes isenrolled 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 ofthat 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 havethe following printed on its face in large, bold letters: “WARNING: The information contained in this notice is intended only to inform appropriate school personnel ofan 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. 1562Honorable CarlE. 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 andwritten notifications described by Subsection (a) or this article to the principal or a school employee designated by the principal ofthe school inwhich the student isenrolled. Although the statute does not specify the amount ofinformation that isauthorized, we are ofthe 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 usisput forth by somepersons: that article 15.27permits only the communication that aparticular student hasbeen arrested or detained, without any tkrther explanation such as the nature of the alleged offense or the identity of an alleged victim who isaclassmate ofthe 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 alltimes the old law,the evil, andthe remedy.” Gov’tCode 8312.005.

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 ofaparticular construction

. 

### Id. $311.023, According to the bill analysis for the Seventy-third Legislature’s House Bill 23, which added article 15.27to the Code ofCriminal Procedure,

[c]ontidentiality laws currently do not allow police and school officials to share information concerning crimes inwhich students are involved. During public hearings held by the House Subcommittee on Gangs, police and school officials asked that the wnfidentiality

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

laws be changed to allow the sharing of information in order to prevent future violence. House Comm. onUrban 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 ormore students had wmmitted a serious crime and therefore might pose athreat 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 inthe same classroom the following day, greatly increasing the potential forviolence. 

### Id.Before House Bill 23 amended it, section 51.14 of the Family Code prohibited the public disclosure ofthe contents oflaw enforcement records relating to delinquency of a child except to thejuvenile wurt havingjurisdiction ofthe child, an attorney for aparty in thejuvenile-wurt proceeding, or law enforcement officers when needed to perform their duties. Fam. Code 951.14(d) Historical & Statutory Notes. The schools therefore were denied access to information that would enable them to take precautions to prevent disruption orviolence.
The old law also hindered efforts to deter school crimebecause it discouraged the schools from reporting to law enforcement agencies that serious crimes involving students had occurred on campus, with the result that “thejuvenile’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 ofcriminal activity atthe schools because they feared being held liablefor defamation. House Bill 23 added to the Education Code a new section 21.303. SeeActs 1993,73dLeg., ch.461, 82. 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 ingood faith under that section. See 

### id$21.303(e).

‘Merely reporting sospded

criminal activity Lystndents

does not implicate the federal Family Educational

Rights andPrivacy

Actof1974,

20U.S.C.

81232g(“FERF’A”).

FERF’Agoverns

the availability

of “education

records.”Honorable CarlE. 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 ofnecessary precautions to protect students and employees and prevent disruption ofschool activities.
The committee-hearing statements ofthe author and the sponsor ofHouse Bill 23 support a broad reading of the notification provisions in accordance with the purpose stated in the bii analysis. In a public hearing ofthe House Committee on Urban A&irs, Representative de la Gatza, the author, explained the scope.ofthe provisions in response to aquestion asfollows:

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 inthe hearings, what hinds of suggestions were made for those “educational purposes”? A: Well, what they’retalking 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 isnear or around the person that he or shehas assaulted, them you do take steps to remove that threat so there’s no wntinuation ofthe 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 onjuveniles, and--would youjust 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’llallow it. It also isgoing to amend the Education Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. And it has

P. 1565Honorable CarlE.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 StatTServices) (footnote added).
Webelieve that anarrow 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 15.27wvers agreat variety ofcrimes andthe school’swurses ofaction 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 inregard to the student, in spite ofthe provision in subsection (g) of article 15.27 that the “school official maytake the precautions necessary to prevent tkther violence but may not penalike a student solelybecause.anotification isreceived 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 ofthe 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, andfurther educational purposes.

2Artick 15.27(f) provides, inpart,as follows:

“Aperson

whoreceives

information

under this article maynot disclose the information

except as specifically

authorized

bythis article.” We note that he provisions

of FERF’A giving astudent’s

parents access to the shdent’s “education

records” maylimit

the scope ofthis eontidentiaiity

provision.

p. 1566Honorable CarlE.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 ofthe charges against an arrested or detained student, the identities of any alleged ktims who are students or school personnel, and allother 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 ofTexas
JORGE VEGA Fii Assistant Attorney General
DREW DURHAM Deputy Attorney General for CrinrinalJustice
WJLLPRYOR Special Counsel
RENEA HICKS State Solicitor
SARAH J. SHJRLEY Chair, Opinion Committee Prepared byJames B.Pinson As&ant Attorney General

P. 1567