TEE AT%oRNEY GEIXTEISAL 

OF TEXAS 

Au- 11. - 

Honorable LB. Iiand 

Criminal District Attorney 

Weatherrord, Texae 

Dear Sire Opinion MO. O-7342 

Rer Whether 8 conatable 1s allared an 

arrut itt In cast8 where the arreet 

it m8de by Et&t offIaU% arid the 

aonst8blt dot8 mot p&IcIpMt ln 

the urut, uld related qutetIontl. 

Your l.+ttr of October 17, 1946, rtqut~tlng an opinion of 

this department, prentnt8 the Zollowlng three questions uhiah ue quote: 

'Piratx Is a conekblt 8ervl.n~ on a fee bula~ 

allowtd~t @+ or any amount l e,an 8rre8t fee in 

bhanat~ uhtllb arrest8 were made by state offiaum, 

.and In which arreate the constable dote not partialpate? 

It is my opinion that an arreat fee cannot be charged 

ux0.e~ the conetable actually arresta or partlcipattm 

In the arrest. 

“hcondt In event tn arrtat Is made by 8ktt 

offIeer8~n turn over the 8couud to the oirmrttblt 

for the aonskble to lodge In jail and rtlttat upon 

propardbptsition #my the aorut8bla uharse forrirtat, 

oomltmtnt, and rtitut? In m opinion the conrtabl+, 

In Ilroh e8m~nouU be entitLed to ahargt on4 ior CCIEmltmtnt and release. 

"Third: IO the cormtable, under any circumst.mcea, 

allowed ZilZiXt of 20 cents enroute to pick up 8 prlmntr 

and 25 cents for return trip with prisoner? It appears to 

me that thIa quemtlon ie anmmred by Article 1029, ulth 

respect to a felony, and Article 1065, with reapeat to 

misdemanor camtag and It appears to me 14 cents per mile 

In felow ea8tt, with 8 cents additional for each prirrontr, 

la the muImua allowable under the statute." 

Y!hIa dep8rtaent haa ruled relative to your first question and 

a copy of such rulirq, Opinion No. O-106, dated January 18, 1939, le 

htrenith tncloaed. 

Under the facts first above state, It Is our opinion that 

the aonatable is not tntlthd to any arrest fee. 

Article 1065, Code of Criminal RPocedure, In part 

provldear 
Honorable I.& Xand, Page 2 (COPY) o-7342 

"!l!he following gees shall be allowed the sheriff, 

or other peace officer preforming the same services In 

mirrdaeeanor cases, to be taxed against the defendant on 

convlctlonr 

" 

. , l . . . . . 

“5. Par each oommitment or relea88, one 

dollar. 

* I( 

. l . . . . . . 

In vftn of your irrtt qut8tIon and OUT answer given above, 

we coluldtr only In your 8ttoad queation.whethtr the cormtable In such 

aaae is entitled to a aomaitment 8nd ml8a8e feePI .oplnlon Xo. O-m, approved October 24, 1940, this depsrtmeat held that the‘constable Is antitled to 41.00 for txeautlng each 

-'lid COIRd~t hMiSd~83UX'C88~8~, We alu, held in thh oplnlon, 

that tht oon8table * not entitledto a release r08 unltsa he ha8 the 

deftndant in hlt 8ctual and legal austtdy It the time the defendant pays 

his flit and easta or satfaflts. awe by l&.ng It oub %n jail and the 

con&able then and there relea8es the dafaadant from the fixwe and effect 

of a jId@yent res$raInln&him. ata.tem %eleaae", conteatplatee afull, 

fInal a&3 oo@ttt release and disohaqe fYom the ju&mmt rcstrdning 

the defendant. 

AtuwtrAng your rtcond quwtdon, the fact that a prIsonor 

under legal arrest by a S&&t offlab ia tumtd over to the oonetable 

to be jailed, denying the oenatablo an arrest fee, would not prohAbit 

the toatkbllt from being rrllowtd'a preptr aamitment or release fee, 

d~ujmn.tht facts of the (QOrn BWec 

w* connot auslrer you? third que8tLon without ~BpeClfiC racts. 

l%tmtIng the r0rtg0htg ammmr8 Me ~QurrtQotst,:wt art 

Yw??s very tFu1y 

APPHWBD NUV 8, 1946 

a/ Xmrls Toltr 

?Irat Aaslatant 

Attorney &moral 

Approved Opinbn Committee By Ir/ByB Chainnan