Mr. Pat D. Westbrook 

Executive Director 

Texas Commission for 

P. 0. Box 12866 

August 24, 1989 

opinion NO. JM-1089 

the Blind Re: Enforcement of the support dog laws under chapter 

Austin, Texas 78711 121 of the Human Resources 

Code (RQ-1749) 

Dear Mr. Westbrook: 

You refer to the provisions of sections 121.003 and 

121.004(a) of the Human Resources Code. Section 121.003 

prohibits, inter alia discrimination against visually 

handicapped persons acbompanied by support dogs in their use 

of public facilities. Section 121.004(a) provides: 

(a) A person, firm, association, corporation, or other organization, or the agent of 

a person, firm, association, corporation, or 

other organization who violates Section 

121.003 of this chapter is guilty of a 

misdemeanor and on conviction shall be 

punished bv a fine of not le than $100 nor 

more than $300. (Emphasis sized.) 

You say that "there appears to be confusion regarding 

the appropriate legal jurisdiction in enforcing this 

law . . . . It appears as though the City is not sure 

whether the County should prosecute this matter, and the 

County is not sure whether the City should prosecute this 

matter." You ask our advice in this respect. 

Article V, section 19, of the Texas Constitution 

provides in full: 

Justice of the peace courts shall have 

original jurisdiction in criminal matters of 

misdemeanor cases punishable by fine only, 

exclusive jurisdiction in civil matters where 

the amount in controversy is two hundred 

dollars or less, and such other jurisdiction 

p. 5696 
Mr. Pat D. Westbrook - Page 2 (JM-1089) 

as may be provided by law. Justices of the 

peace shall be ex officio notaries public. 

The Code of Criminal Procedure, article 4.11, still provides 

that justice courts have jurisdiction of misdemeanors "where 

the fine to be imposed by law may not exceed two hundred 

dollars." This provision was codified into the current Code 

of Criminal Procedure in 1965. Acts 1965, 59th Deg., ch. 

722, at 331. At that time article V, section 19, of the 

constitution still provided that justice court jurisdiction 

extended to l'criminal matters of all cases where the penalty 

or fine to be imposed by law may not be more than for two 

hundred dollars." S.J.R. 14, Acts 1985, 69th Deg., 8 7, at 

3359. The current provisions of article V, section 19, 

expanding justice court jurisdiction to "misdemeanor cases 

punishable by fine only" were adopted in 1985. Id. 

We think that the current article V, section 19, 

provision in question indicates on its face that it is 

self-enacting, i.e., that its provision for justice court 

jurisdiction over "misdemeanor cases punishable by fine 

onlyto does not require further legislative action to be 

given effect. The public notice given for that constitutional amendment election ("The amendment would provide for 

the jurisdiction of justice courts, which may have additional jurisdiction as provided by law.") as well as the 

explanatory materials prepared by the Legislative Council 

and House Study Group, support, we think, our conclusion. 

that the provision is self-enacting and controls over the 

narrower jurisdictional provision still found in article 

4.11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. a Analyses of 

Proposed Constitutional Amendments Appearing on the November 

5, 1985 Ballot, Texas Legislative Council Information Report 

No. 85-3, August 1985 ("changes . . . redefine . . . justice 

court jurisdictionU*); House Study Group Special Legislative 

Report, 1985 Constitutional Amendments, August 23, 1985 

("The specific constitutional grants of jurisdiction to 

justice-of-the-peace courts in Art. 5, sec. 19, would be 

eliminated, except for original jurisdiction over misdemeanors punishable by fine only . . . ."); see also, Gov't 

Code § 27.031 (providing that justice courts have "the 

jurisdiction and powers provided by the constitution and 

other law"). 

Thus, at the county level, justice of the peace courts 

would have jurisdiction over the offense described in 

section 121.004(a) of the Human Resources Code. 

P. 5697 
Mr. Pat D. Westbrook - Page 3 (JM-1089) 

Also, at the county level, various criminal district 

courts and constitutional and statutory county courts would 

have jurisdiction over such offense depending on the 

particular county in question. &=g Gov*t Code ch. 24, 

subch. E 

(county 

(particular criminal district courtsa;, 1;: ;;.;;z 

court jurisdiction generally), . - . 

(particular county courts), 25.0003 (statutory county court 

jurisdiction generally), 25.0031-25.2512 (particular statutory county courts). 

The officer performing the criminal law duties of the 

county attorney has responsibility for prosecuting offenses 

in the above-mentioned courts of the county. Code Crim. 

Proc. art. 2.02 (regarding county attorney's duties in 

courts of the county "below the grade of district court") . 

In some counties these duties are performed by the officer 

known as the criminal district attorney. w Gov't Code ch. 

44 (for duties of criminal district attorneys in particular 

counties). In a few counties they are performed by a 

district attorney. m Gov't Code ch. 43 (for duties of 

district attorneys in specific counties: particularly, for 

example, g 43.180 regarding duties of Harris County District 

Attorney to represent the state in criminal cases pending in 

district and inferior courts of the county). 

Thus, in answer to your question, at the county level 

the prosecutor responsible for representing the state in 

justice of the peace courts, and in the criminal district 

courts and constitutional and statutory county courts where 

those latter courts also have jurisdiction over the offense 

in question, would be responsible for prosecuting such 

offense.1 

1. We also note that various particular district 

courts are given concurrent jurisdiction with county courts 

in criminal matters. In such cases the district attorney 

responsible for prosecuting cases in such courts may 

prosecute the offense described in section 121.004(a) of the 

Human Resources Code. m Code Crim. Proc. art. 2.01 

(district attorney#s duty to represent the state in district 

court): Gov't Code SS 24.101-24.276, 24.351-24.507 

(regarding particular district courts and judicial 

districts). 

p. 5698 
Mr. Pat D. Westbrook - Page 4 (JM-1089) 

Also, in a few cities the city attorney would have 

concurrent responsibility with the county level prosecutor 

for prosecuting the offense in question. While the jurisdiction of municipal courts proper with respect to criminal 

cases arising under state law is limited to offenses 

punishable by a fine not to exceed $200 under section 

29.003(b) of the Government Code, and such courts would thus 

have no jurisdiction over an offense under section 

121.004(a), the legislature has authorized certain municipalities to create a distinct tribunal called the municipal 

court of record. In some instances the legislature has 

expanded the jurisdiction of such municipal courts of record 

beyond that provided for municipal courts proper, which, as 

noted above, have no jurisdiction over the offense you ask 

about. 

For example, the city of Austin is authorized to create 

municipal courts of record having concurrent jurisdiction 

with the justice court over criminal cases punishable by 

fine only. See Gov*t Code 5 30.323. Thus a municipal court 

of record created in Austin could have jurisdiction over a 

section 121.004(a) offense, and the city attorney or his 

deputies or assistants would be responsible for prosecuting 

such case. Gov't Code §§ 30.329, 30.490; see. e.0 id. 

55 30.381, 30.383 (a Dallas Municipal Court of Record has 

concurrent jurisdiction with justice court over offenses 

punishable by fine only). But see id. SS 30.262-30.263 

(Houston Municipal Court of Record jurisdiction over 

offenses for which justice court has jurisdiction only where 

punishable by fine not to exceed $200), 30.141, 30.143 (Fort 

Worth Municipal Court of Record jurisdiction over offenses 

under state law limited to that of municipal court proper). 

my See id. ch. 30 (the provisions for particular 

municipal courts of record). 

We also understand that you are concerned about apparent confusion among municipal police and county sheriff#s 

office personnel as to their respective responsibilities for 

responding to reports of violations of section 121.004(a). 

A peace officer, whether a sheriff or sheriff's deputy or a 

municipal police officer, has the duty to act to keep the 

peace and to report to a magistrate u offenses under state 

law committed within his jurisdiction. Code Crim. Proc. 

arts. 2.12, 2.13. Therefore it would be appropriate for a 

person wishing to report a violation of section 121.004(a) 

to contact the sheriff's office or, if the offense was 

committed in an incorporated area, the municipal police. 

p. 5699 
Mr. Pat D. Westbrook - Page 5 (JM-1089) 

SUMMARY 

The prosecutor at the county level -- the 

county attorney or in some cases the criminal 

district attorney or district attorney -- has 

responsibility for prosecuting the offense 

described in section 121.004(a) of the Human 

Resources Code, relating to discrimination 

against visually handicapped persons using 

support dogs in public facilities. Where the 

offense is committed in a city having a 

municipal court of record with jurisdiction 

over such offense, the city attorney may also 

prosecute such offense in that court. 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

MARY KELLER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

mu MCCREARY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

JUDGE ZOLLIE STKAKLEY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by William Walker 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 5700