OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL . STATE OF TEXAS 

JOHN CORNYN 

May 6,2002 

The Honorable Phil Garrett 

Palo Pinto County Attorney 

P. 0. Box 190 

Palo Pinto, Texas 76484 

Opinion No. JC-0500 

Re: Constitutionality of racial profiling statute 

under article III, section 35 of the Texas 

Constitution (RQ-0467-JC) 

Dear Mr. Garrett: 

You ask whether Senate Bill 1074 of the Seventy-seventh Texas Legislature, relating to the 

prevention of racial profiling by certain peace officers, is unconstitutional for failure to meet the 

“title” or “caption” requirement stated in article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution.’ See Act 

ofMay 24,2001,77th Leg., R.S., ch. 947,200l Tex. Gen. Laws 1900 (codified at TEX. CODECRIM. 

PROCAM. arts. 2.131-.138,3.05 (Vernon Supp. ~OO~);TEX.EDUC. CODEANN. 5 96.641(j) (Vernon 

Supp. 2002); TEX. Oct. CODE ANN. $0 1701.253(e), .402(d) (Vernon Supp. 2002); TEX. TRANSP. 

CODE ANN. 8 543.202 (Vernon 2002)). Senate Bill 1074 does not violate the title requirement in 

article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution. 

Provisions enacted by Senate Bill 1074 provide that “[a] peace officer may not engage in 

racial profiling” and define “racial profiling” as “a law enforcement-initiated action based on an 

individual’s race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than on the individual’s behavior or on 

information identifying the individual as having engaged in criminal activity.” TEX. CODE CRIM. 

PROC. ANN. arts. 2.13 1, 3.05 (Vernon Supp. 2002). The bill establishes recording and reporting 

requirements and education requirements for police chiefs and police officers. See id. arts. 2.132- 

.138; TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. fj 96.641(j); TEX. Oct. CODE ANN. $3 1701.253(e), .402(d); TEX. 

TFUNSP. CODE ANN. 8 543.202. The title of Senate Bill 1074 provides as follows: “An act relating 

to the prevention of racial profiling by certain peace officers.” Act of May 24,2001,77th Leg., R.S., 

ch. 947,200l Tex. Gen. Laws 1900. You argue that the title does not comply with article III, section 

35 of the Texas Constitution and that Senate Bill 1074 is therefore unconstitutional in its entirety. 

Article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution provides as follows: 

(a) No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may 

embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of 

which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject. 

‘See Letter from Honorable Phil Garrett, Palo Pinto County Attorney, to Susan Denmon Gusky, Chair, Opinion 

Committee, Office of Attorney General (Nov. 15,200l) (on file with Opinion Committee). 
The Honorable Phil Garrett - Page 2 (JC-0500) 

(b) The rules of procedure of each house shall require that the 

subject of each bill be expressed in its title in a manner that gives the 

legislature and the public reasonable notice of that subject. The 

legislature is solely responsible for determining compliance with the 

rule. 

(c) A law, including a law enacted before the effective date of this 

subsection, may not be held void on the basis of an insufficient title. 

TEX. CONST. art. III, 5 35. 

Subsection (a) of article III, section 35 was amended and subsections (b) and (c) were 

adopted by the voters on November 4,1986. See Tex. S.J. Res. 33,69th Leg., R.S., 1985 Tex. Gen. 

Laws 3363; “Constitution of the State of Texas Amendments Adopted in 1986 and 1987,” 70th Leg., 

2d C.S., 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 1021. Before the 1986 amendment to article III, section 35, the 

caption requirement was enforceable by the courts, which could declare void any portion of an act 

not encompassed in its caption. See TEXAS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, ANALYSES OF PROPOSED 

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS lo- 11 (1986) ( amendments appearing on the November 4, 1986, 

ballot); TEXAS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL DRAFTING MANUAL 5 (Oct. 2000); see also Exparte Crisp, 

661 S.W.2d 944,947 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (en bane). A caption requirement is included in many 

state constitutions in reaction to the “Yazoo Act” of 1798, in which a Georgia legislature, under the 

guise of an act for the payment of “late state troops,” made large land grants to private persons. See 

Exparte Crisp, 661 S.W.2d at 951; 1 GEORGE D. BRADEN et al., THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE 

OF TEXAS: AN ANNOTATED AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 169 (1977). The purpose of the title 

requirement was to give notice to the public and the legislature of the subject of the bill. See TEXAS 

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, ANALYSES OF PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 10 (1986). This 

requirement was particularly important when bills were handwritten and copies were not readily 

available, but the purpose of giving notice is now better served “by the abundance of information 

available about each bill, including multiple printings, bill analyses, and fiscal notes.” Id. at 11. The 

amendment to article III, section 35 “provide[d] that the legislature is solely responsible for 

enforcing the rule and prohibit[ed] the invalidation of past and future enactments on the basis of a 

defective title.” Id. at 10. Judicial decisions holding a law unconstitutional for a defective title do 

not apply to article III, section 35 as it now reads. 

The Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals have both addressed the 

application of article III, section 35 to titles since the 1986 amendment to that provision. The Texas 

Supreme Court has stated that “laws will no longer be struck down because of a deficiency in title, 

no matter how egregious.” FordMotor Co. v. Sheldon, 22 S.W.3d 444,452 (Tex. 2000). The Court 

of Criminal Appeals has stated that, as a result of the amendment to article III, section 35, “this court 

no longer has the power to declare an act of the legislature unconstitutional due to the insufficiency 

of its caption.” Baggett v. State, 722 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (en bane). 

Accordingly, no enactment of the legislature may be held invalid under Texas Constitution, article 
The Honorable Phil Garrett - Page 3 (JC-0500) 

III, section 35 for a deficiency in title. Senate Bill 1074 is not unconstitutional for failure to meet 

the title requirement stated in that provision. 

SUMMARY 

No enactment of the Texas Legislature may be held invalid 

for a deficiency in title under article III, section 35 of the Texas 

Constitution, as amended in 1986. Senate Bill 1074 is not 

unconstitutional for failure to meet the title requirement in article III, 

section 35 of the Texas Constitution. 

Attorney General of Texas 

HOWARD G. BALDWIN, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

NANCY FULLER 

Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel 

SUSAN DENMON GUSKY 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Susan L. Garrison 

Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee