'IheHonorableCscarB. I4cInnis C@nion No. H-751 CriminalDistrictAttorney Hidalgo County RZ: Whether a sheriff'sbond mclburg, Texas wouldcover shortagesin the cash izondsand fines paid the sheriffand his deputies.
You have requestedour cpinioncomcerhihgthe liabilityof a sheriff and his bonding curpanyfor shortagesof fines and cash bonds paid to jailemwxking underthe sheriff'ssupervision. Youalso ask whetherthe answertoyourfirstquesti~~d~~fferentiftbe prisonerwas arrestedby aromaagencyother than the sheriff'soffice.
Article 6870, V.T.C.S.,provides:
Sheriffsshall be responsiblefor the official acts of their deputies,and they shall have ~rtore&refrantheirdeputiesbohdand security;and they shall have the sama rsmdies against their deputiesand suretiesas any person canhave againsta sheriffandhis sureties.
See also V.T.C.S. art. 5116. under these statutesa sheriffandhis -- suretyhaveheenheld liable forthemalfeasameof deputiesperfomu.ug officialacts. Bracken v. Cato, 54 F.2d 457 (5thCir. 1931);-- Rxh v. Graybar Electxic~4%~ 708 (T=x.Sup. 1935);--- see also Aetna Casualty h Surety Co. v. Clark, 150 S.W.Zd 78 U'ex.Sup. 1941).
The collectionof bail bonds and fines is clearlyan officialact. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 17.20,17.21;AttorneyGeneralCpinionsU-183 (1973),WX-1326 (1962),V-1548 (1952). Accordingly,in our opinion the sheriffwould be liable under article6870 for the misappropriationof these funds by his deputies. - See AttorneyGeneral OpinionH-360 (1974).
p. 3152 The RnncrableOscar 8. &X.nnis - page 2 (H-751)
Article6866, V.T.C.S.,prwides:
Rvezy person elected to the office of sheriffshall, baforeenterbqqxm the duties of hisoffice, give abond. ..amditicmedthathewillaaxnmtforand paymertc thepexscms authorizedbylawto receive the same, all fines, forfeituresand penaltiesthat he my collect for the use of the Stateor any county, . * . al-dthathewill faithmlyp?rfoIm allsuchdutiesasmybereguiredofh3mby law. . . .
Ccncerningthe liabilityof thsbrding canpany,thegeneralrule 1s that"[ilnordertoholdsuchasurety,there~tbeaviolationofthe amditicnof thebnd." AetnafCasuai ,ty & SuretyCo. v._Clark, =a.&, 80. Sincetheatxcun~~~isanexpre~~~l~n~f and since the acccunting-forbail bands is a-dutyrequiredof sheriffs bylawandthusalsoa wrditionof thebnd, inouropinion the surety wmldbs liablefor the failureof the sherifftcacanmtforthese fundswhetherornotthe failure tm aconmtisduetoade@y.
Yoursecazdquesti~iswhether~~wouldreachthesameresultas toba.ilkondsi.ftheprisone.r~arrestedbyanagencyotherthanthe sheriff'soffice. Since thenatureof t3eccllectionofbailbnds as au officialduty of t&e sheriff is not dqeudent upm.his havixg arrested the primmer, in our opinion the result ramins the s&e where ix has not.
SUMMARY
w;thnrt regsrd to the psrson arfesting the prismer,asheriff andhis surety are iiable for themisappropriationof fines andbaiibcuds collectedby a deputy sheriff. 'IYeHonorableOscar B. llcInnis- page 3 (H-7511
APPIOED:
Opinion CannitGe
j*
p. 3184