OF TE=XAS 

AUSTIN. TNXAS 78711 

January 16, 1974 

The Honorable Wilson E. Speir, Director Opinion No. H- 210 

Texas Department of Public Safety 

Box 4087 Re: Whether “evidence” money 

Austin, Texas 78773 may be used in an “Imprest 

Fund” for use in undercover 

Dear Colonel Speir: work? 

Your request for an opinion states: 

“Undercover work today occasionally requires the 

utilization of a ‘flash roll’ in obtaining delivery of large 

quantities of narcotics and dangerous drugs. It is sometimes necessary for agents to borrow up to Five Thousand 

Dollars ($5,000) for purchase of evidence. When they do 

this, they must pay interest for a period of four (4) to six 

(6) weeks at their personal expense with no provisions 

for reimbursement of the interest cost. Often agents do 

not have the capabilities to borrow a sufficient amount of 

money to effectively conduct undercover investigations of 

this type. This is curtailing and restricting the effectiveness of the Narcotics Service. 

“We are therefore interested in obtaining vour opinion as 

to whether part of the ‘evidence’ money provided by the 

appropriation bill . . . could be set up as an ‘Imprest Fund’, 

with appropriate accounting safeguards, so that it could be 

drawn with proper authorization and used in undercover work. 

“The money for this fund would be drawn on warrant and 

placed in an approved bank to be used when and as needed 

for this purpose. The account, of course, would be a revolving one as in many cases the money would be recovered, used 

p. 986 
. 

The Honorable Wilson E. Speir, page 2 (H-210) 

as evidence and then returned to the account to be 

used the next time the occasion arose. The money 

for the undercover work would be drawn and accounted 

for as required in advance. The difference from the 

present system is that the agent would be using State 

money from this fund instead of borrowed money entailing the occasion for interest expense. ” 

The current Appropriation Act (H. B. 139, Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 

111-134) states: 

“From the amounts appropriated out of the 

Operator’s and Chauffeur’s License Fund for the support 

and maintenance of the Department of Public Safety, an 

amount not to exceed Two Hundred and Forty Thousand 

Dollars ($240,000) for each year of the biennium beginning September I, 1973, is hereby designated for the 

purchase of evidence and/or information and surveillance 

expenses deemed necessary by the Department of Public 

Safety; and accountability for expenditures as set forth 

above shall be governed by such rules and regulations as 

the Director of the Department of Public Safety may recommend. . . . ” (emphasis added) 

There is ample pre-existing law, in our opinion, to support such provisions. See Articles 4413(4a), 4413(6), 4413(11), 4413(1~,44,13(16), .V..T. C. S. We 

believe this falls within the “miscellaneous operating expense” category of 

Article 4413(4a), V. T. C. S. The money is used to combat crime, a proper 

public purpose. 

The cost of “purchasing” evidence under the circumstances you describe 

is an expense of the agency and nol an individual expense of the employee acting for it. The Department should bear the financial burden and risk - not the 

employee. See Att,orney Gcncral Op:~nion H-74(1973). 

So long as adequate safeguards arc observed and there is str&t adherence 

to appropriate departmenl~al rules and regulations, we thj,nk a rev&ing “Imprest 

p. 98’7 
The Honorable Wilson E. Speir, page 3 (H-210) 

Fond” such as you contemplate might be lawfully funded from the above 

noted appropriation item. The use of revolving accounts is widely recognized and approved as an accounting procedure, and the Director has been 

given broad rule-making and regulatory powers to control the Department. 

Article 4413(b)(2), V. T. C. S. See Attorney General Opinions O-2215 (1940), 

S-103 (1953), WW-1207 (1961). H-74 (1973). 

We therefore answer your question in the affirmative. 

SUMMARY 

The Department of Public Safety, under appropriate 

departmental rules and regulations, may establish a 

revolving “Imprest Fund” from which money may be furnished agents to “purchase” narcotics evidence. 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 988