1’ OFFICE OF THE ATTORNLY GENERAL . ST.I\TE OF TEXAS 

JOHN CORNYN 

August 7,2002 

The Honorable Danny Buck Davidson 

Criminal District Attorney 

123d Judicial District 

110 South Sycamore 

Carthage, Texas 75633 

Opinion No. JC-0541 

Re: Whether a sheriff in a county that does not 

have a bail bond board has the authority to post in 

the county jail a list of preapproved bondsmen 

(RQ-05 17-JC) 

Dear Mr. Davidson: 

You ask whether a sheriff in a county that does not have a bail bond board has the authority 

to post in the county jail a list of preapproved bondsmen. We conclude that a sheriff is not 

authorized to post such a list. 

You ask about the authority of a sheriff in a county that has not established a bail bond board 

under chapter 1704 of the Occupations Code. That chapter creates a board in each county with a 

population of 110,000 or more, and authorizes, but does not require, the establishment of a board in 

less populated counties. See TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. $0 1704.002-.052 (Vernon 2002). In a county 

with a bail bond board, only a person who holds a license from the board may act as a bail bond 

surety in the county, with the limited exception of an attorney who represents the person in the 

criminal case for which the bond is given. See id. 8 8 1704.15 1, .163. The sheriff must accept the 

bonds of sureties licensed by the bail bond board. See id. 9 1704.201. The bail bond board must 

post “in each court having criminal jurisdiction in the county, and shall provide to each local official 

responsible for the detention of prisoners in the county, a current list of each licensed bail bond 

surety and agent of the bail bond surety in the county.” Id. 8 1704.1 OS(a). In addition, chapter 1704 

permits but does not require the posting of such a list in the county jail. See id. § 1704.105(b) (“A 

list of each licensed bail bond surety in a county may be displayed where prisoners are examined, 

processed, or confined.“). 

In a county without a bail bond board, the taking of bail bonds is generally governed by 

chapter 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See id. 8 1704.002; see also Castaneda v. Gonzalez, 

985 S.W.2d 500,503 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1988, no writ) (in county where no bail bond board 

has been created, chapter 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure controls the taking of bail bonds in 

that county). As chapter 17 governs the taking of bail bonds in the county at issue, we examine its 

provisions in some detail. 
The Honorable Danny Buck Davidson - Page 2 (JC-0541) 

Chapter 17 authorizes an officer taking a bail bond to “require evidence of the sufficiency 

of the security offered.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.11,§ 1 (Vernon 1977). The sufficiency 

of the security offered by a surety is governed by articles 17.11 through 17.14. One surety shall be 

sufficient if 

such surety is worth at least double the amount of the sum for which 

he is bound, exclusive of all property exempted by law from 

execution, and of debts or other encumbrances; and that he is a 

resident of this state, and has property therein liable to execution 

worth the sum for which he is bound. 

Id. The officer taking the bail bond may require an affidavit attesting to the surety’s worth. Id. art. 

17.13. Article 17.14 provides that the officer may require further evidence “if the . . . officer taking 

the bail bond is not fully satisfied as to the sufficiency of the security offered . . . .” Id. art. 17.14. 

Under article 17.11, a person who has signed as a surety on a bail bond and is in default is 

disqualified to sign as a surety “so long as he is in default on said bond.” Id. art. 17.11,§ 2 (Vernon 

supp. 2002). 

Chapter 17 generally governs the taking of bail bonds on a bond-by-bond basis. A person 

acting as surety must be a Texas resident and offer sufficient security. See id. art. 17.11, § 1 (Vernon 

1977). A person is disqualified to act as surety on a bond if in default on a prior bond. See id. art. 

17.11,§ 2 (Vernon Supp. 2002). With these exceptions, chapter 17 does not set forth qualifications 

for sureties. While articles 17.11 through 17.14 give an officer taking a bail bond broad discretion to 

determine whether the security offered by a surety is sufficient, see Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. DM-483 

(1998) at 6 (Code of Criminal Procedure articles 17.11,17.13 and 17.14 authorize sheriff taking bail 

bond to consider other bonds executed by surety), “chapter 17 does not require a person to obtain 

a license to be eligible to act as a surety nor does it authorize an officer taking a bond to require a 

surety to be licensed,” Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-98-105, at 2-3. Furthermore, the authority to assess the 

sufficiency of the security offered is vested in “[elvery court, judge, magistrate or other officer 

taking a bail bond,” TEX. CODE GRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.11, 0 1 (Vernon 1977); see also id. arts. 

17.20-.22 (provisions governing when a peace officer may set and take bail); chapter 17 does not 

vest any special authority in the sheriff. 

And importantly, the authority of an officer taking a bond under chapter 17 of the Code of 

Criminal Procedure is even more limited with respect to some corporate sureties. An officer taking 

a bond lacks authority under articles 17.11 and 17.13 to question the solvency of a corporate surety 

authorized to do business in Texas by the Department of Insurance. See Int ‘I Fid. Ins. Co. v. Sherzjjf 

ofDallas County, 476 S.W.2d 115 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.); see also Tex. 

Att’y Gen. Op. No. M-l 060 (1972) (article 17.11, section 1 does not limit total number or amount 

of bail bonds corporate surety may make). 

Both a judicial opinion and an opinion of this office have expressly concluded that these 

Code of Criminal Procedure provisions do not authorize a sheriff to adopt rules imposing a licensing 
The Honorable Danny Buck Davidson - Page 3 (JC-0541) 

system for bail bond sureties akin to that set forth under chapter 1704 of the Occupations Code. See 

Castaneda v. Gonzalez, 985 S.W.2d 500 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no writ); Tex. Att’y Gen. 

LO-98-l 05. In Castaneda, the court noted that “[i]n counties where a bail bond board exists, the 

board may only adopt such rules as are authorized by and are consistent with statutory authority, and 

may not adopt rules which impose additional burdens, conditions, or restrictions in excess of or 

inconsistent with statutory provisions.” Castaneda, 985 S.W.2d at 504 (citing Tex. Fire & Cas. Co. 

v. Harris County Bail Bond Bd., 684 S.W.2d 177,178 (Tex. App.-Houston [ 14th Dist.] 1984, writ 

refd n.r.e); Bexar County Bail Bond Bd. v. Deckard, 604 S.W.2d 214, 216 (Tex. Civ. App.-San 

Antonio 1980, no writ)). An officer taking bail bonds under chapter 17 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure “is prohibited from adopting rules which exceed statutory authority in the same way bail 

bond boards” governed by chapter 1704 of the Occupations Code are limited to adopting rules 

authorized by and consistent with chapter 1704. Castaneda, 985 S.W.2d at 504. 

The court in Castaneda concluded that the sheriffs authority to require evidence of the 

sufficiency of the security offered by bondsmen under articles 17.11 and 17.14 authorized the sheriff 

to require bondsmen to fill out an application form. See id. at 503. However, the sheriff lacked 

authority to impose substantive requirements not authorized by articles 17.11 and 17.14: 

The rules requiring bondsmen to accept suspension of their authority 

to write bonds when in litigation concerning forfeitures and agree to 

indemnify the Sheriff for expenses and attorney fees in any litigation 

with him are unrelated to the sufficiency of the security offered, and, 

therefore, the Sheriff has no authority to impose these requirements 

under articles 17.11 and 17.14. Similarly, there is no authority for the 

Sheriff to require the pledging of certain collateral. Under article 

17.14, if the Sheriff is not satisfied with the sufficiency of the security 

offered, further evidence shall be required. To require bondsmen to 

actually pledge collateral, as the Sheriff seeks to do in this case, goes 

beyond the statutory authority to require further evidence, and is 

therefore impermissible. 

Id. (citation omitted). 

You ask whether a sheriff is authorized by chapter 17 to post in the county jail a list of 

preapproved bondsmen. You explain that bondsmen in your county submit “an application for proof 

of sufficiency of security” to the county sheriff.’ The list ofpreapproved bondsmen “is derived from 

the application process.” Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2. The sheriff supplies inmates with this 

list and local telephone books: “Inmates are not limited to the list and may contact any person, 

attorney, firm, company, surety, or bondsman they wish.” Id. at 1. 

‘Letter from Honorable Danny Buck Davidson, Crirninal District Attorney, 123d Judicial District, to Honorable 

John Comyn, Texas Attorney General, at 1 (received Feb. 27, 2002) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter 

Request Letter]. 
The Honorable Danny Buck Davidson - Page 4 (JC-0541) 

We conclude that the posting of such a list exceeds the authority of a sheriff under chapter 

17. Clearly, chapter 17 authorizes an officer taking a bond to require proof of the sufficiency of 

security offered by the bondsmen, proof that the officer could require in the form of an application. 

See Castaneda, 985 S.W.2d at 503 (“The rule requiring bondsmen to fill out an application form is 

permissible under the Sheriffs authority to require evidence of the sufficiency of the security offered 

by bondsmen.“). Arguably, chapter 17 might authorize a sheriff to preapprove bondsmen on a 

voluntary basis, provided that the officer taking a bond from a preapproved bondsman verifies 

that the bondsman’s security is still sufficient, see, e.g., TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.11, 

89 l- 2 (Vernon 1977 & Supp. 2002) (“any person who has signed as a surety on a bail bond and is 

in default thereon shall thereafter be disqualified to sign as a surety so long as he is in default on said 

bond”), and provided that those who have not been preapproved are not precluded from executing 

bonds. 

But no provision in chapter 17 expressly authorizes a sheriff to provide a list of preapproved 

bondsmen to inmates, and we do not believe that this authority may be implied. Chapter 17 provides 

authority for the taking of bonds in individual cases; it does not address the sheriffs provision of 

information to inmates. Furthermore, as we have noted, a sheriff is not authorized to question the 

sufficiency ofa state-regulated corporate surety’s security. SeeInt ‘I Fid. Ins. Co., 476 S.W.2d at 120 

(sheriff “does not have any discretion in the determination of the sufficiency of the surety when the 

surety upon the bond tendered for approval is an insurance company authorized to-do fidelity and 

surety business in Texas”). A list of bondsmen whose security has been preapproved by the sheriff 

under chapter 17 would omit corporate sureties that might also be eligible to execute bonds in the 

county. By contrast, the list of licensed bail bond sureties that chapter 1704 of the Occupations Code 

permits to be displayed “where prisoners are examined, processed, or confined,’ includes every 

surety eligible to execute bail bonds in the county. See TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. $5 1704.105(b) (bail 

bond surety list), .152 (licensing requirements for both individuals and corporations qualified to 

write fidelity, guaranty, and surety bonds under the Insurance Code). 

In sum, chapter 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide a statutory basis for 

a sheriff to provide a list of preapproved bondsmen to inmates. A sheriff has only those powers that 

are provided by the legislature. See TEX. CONST. art. V, 8 23 (sheriffs “duties, qualifications, 

perquisites, and fees of office[] shall be prescribed by the Legislature”). We have not located any 

other statute that expressly or impliedly provides such authority. The sheriffs position as the keeper 

of the county jail authorizes the sheriff to provide individuals who are arrested in the county and 

detained in the county jail with information that will enable them to contact potential bondsmen, to 

facilitate their release on bail. See TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. 0 35 1.041 (Vernon 1999) (sheriff 

is the keeper of the county jail); see also TEX. CONST. art. 1, 8 11 (right to bail). The sheriff may 

provide detainees with telephone books and may compile and provide detainees with a 

comprehensive list of all persons who wish to execute bail bonds in the county. But the authority 

to provide information does not authorize a sheriff to provide information that distinguishes between 

preapproved and other potential sureties. Accordingly, we conclude that a sheriff is not authorized 

to post in the county jail a list of preapproved bondsmen. 
The Honorable Danny Buck Davidson - Page 5 (JC-0541) 

SUMMARY 

A sheriff in a county that does not have a bail bond board is 

not authorized to post in the county jail a list of preapproved 

bondsmen. 

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 

Mary R. Crouter 

Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee