Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Octo'ber 16, 1986

Honorable Gale Warren Opinion No. JM-563
Erath County Attorney
Erath County Courthouse Re: Authority of Tarleton State
Stephenville, Texas 76401 University campus peace officers

Dear Mr. Warren:

You have requested OI;I opinion about the authority of campus
peace officers at Tarleton State University to arrest persons they
observe committing off-campus traffic violations. Your specific
questions are:

1. Does article 6701d. section 153, V.T.C.S.,
authorize the arrest by [such] peace officers for
traffic offenses committed within their view; but
outside their ter'citorialjurisdiction?

2. Are state owned streets and highways passing
through university owned lands considered within
the jurisdiction XE campus security peace officers?

3. Do streets and highways adjoining state
university lands (come within the jurisdiction of
campus security pe.sceofficers?

Do campus security peace officers have
jurkdiction to arrest for violations of traffic
offenses or other minor offenses not involving a
breach of the p,zace committed within their view
while outside the territory of their jurisdiction?

Article 2.12, subdivirion (9), of the Code of Criminal Procedure
identifies officers commisr+med by the governing board of any state
institution of higher edumtion as peace officers. Section 153 of
article 6701d, V.T.C.S.. the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on
Highways, reads:

Any peace officeI.is authorized to arrest without
warrant any person found committing a violation of
any provision of this Act.

p. 2500
Honorable Gale Warren - Page,2 (JM-563)

Although this provisim could be read to authorize any peace
officer, regardless of his normal jurisdiction, to arrest a person
committing a traffic offense at any time and at any place in Texas --
and was so read in Christopher v. State, 639 S.W.2d 932 (Tex. Grim.
APP.-82) -- its meaning is not so broad. The Court of Criminal
Appeals, overruling the Christopher case, held in Preston v. State,
700 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. Crim~~~p. 1985), that a campus peace officer was
not lawfully discharging an official duty when he attempted to arrest
a person for an off-campus traffic offense. This, "because he was
then acting outside of hi;, jurisdictional limits as prescribed by
section 51.203 [of the Education Code]." 700 S.W.2d at 230. Cf. Love
v. State, 687 S.W.2d 469 (Ilex.App. - Houston [lst Dist.] 1985, pet.
ref'd) (city policeman).

Section 51.203 of the Mucation Code provides:

The governing 'mards of each state institution
of higher educatbm may employ campus security
personnel for the purpose of carrying out the
provisions of thl.6 subchapter and may commission
them as peace officers. Any officer commissioned
under this section is vested with all the powers,
privileges, and timunities of peace officers while
on the property under the control and jurisdiction
of the institutia~ of higher education or other-
wise in the pe:?iormance of his duties. Any
officer assigned -ko duty and commissioned shall
take and filh the oath required of peace officers,
and shall execute and file a good and sufficient
bond in the sum o:l$1,000, payable to the governor
and his 8uccesso::s in office. with two or more
good and sufficient sureties, conditioned that he
will fairly, imp~rrtially,and faithfully perform
all the duties th.ltmay be required of him by law.
The bond may be rued on from time to time in the
name of any perscn injured until the whole amount
of the bond is remzovered. (Emphasis added).

In answer to your first ant1fourth questions, in view of the Preston
v. State holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals, we advise that
Tarleton State University campus peace officers are not authorized a~
a part of their official t+ties as campus peace officers to arrest
persons for traffic offenses or other offenses committed within their
view but outside their territorial jurisdiction. Of course, they
retain the authority possc!ssed by every citizen. as recognized in
Preston, to arrest anyone without a warrant for a felony offense or a
breach of the peace committed within their presence or within their
view. Code Grim. Proc. art. 14.01(a). See Rome v. State, 577 S.W.2d
251 (Tex. Grim. App. 1979). However, anysuch arrest may subject that
individual to liability for :falsearrest or other tort.

p. 2501
 Honorable Gale Warren - Page 3 (JM-563)

.-

Your second and third questions ask about the jurisdiction of
such officers on state-owned streets and highways passing through
university property or adjacent thereto.

Home rule cities SUC:I as Stephenville, where Tarleton State
University is located, have exclusive dominion, control and juris-
diction over public streets in the city, subject to the power of the
legislature to place control elsewhere. V.T.C.S. art. 1175; State V.
City of Austin, 331 S.W.Zd 737 (Tex. 1960). However, it is a
dominion, control and juris~i:lction
which the cities have no authority
to delegate to others; that,discretion is lodged in the legislature.
City of El Paso v. Mendosa, 191 S.W.2d 102 (Tex. Civ. App. - El Paso
1945, writ ref'd w.o.m.).

By statute, the legisl~~turehas conferred concurrent jurisdiction
with police officers of the? city of Denton upon commissioned campus
personnel to enforce all lms, including traffic laws, on any public
street running through the property of North Texas State University or
Texas Woman's University, and on any public street immediately
adjacent to property owned, occupied or controlled by the universi-
ties. Educ. Code §§105.91(a), 107.81(a). It has also authorized the
city of Denton, by contract, to delegate to the universities the
authority to regulate parking on those streets. Id. 1105.93. But
similar provisions have not ‘been enacted for the cityof Stephenville
and Tarleton State Universit:y. Cf. Educ. Code gllO.l3(a) (Texas Tech
University and the city of Lubbock)

The failure of the legislature to provide for the exercise of
such concurrent jurisdiction over streets running through or adjacent
to the property of Tarleton State University and other universities,
by contrast, clearly indicates a legislative intent that such
concurrent jurisdiction shculd not exist. Consequently, in response
to your second and third questions, we answer that campus peace
officers of Tarleton State University have no jurisdiction as peace
officers over state owned public streets and highways passing through
university owned lands or a(ijacentthereto.

In sum, campus peace officers at Tarleton State University are
peace officers, but their territorial jurisdiction is limited. See
Preston v. State, supta. Yhey are without authority to make arrex
as peace officers outside Iheir jurisdiction, and the public streets
and highways running through or adjacent to university property are
not within their jurisdiction.

SUMMARY

campus peace officers at Tarleton State
University in Stcphenville are peace officers but
their territorial jurisdiction is limited. They
r‘ are without authority to make arrests as peace

p. 2502
Bonorable Gale Warren - Page 4 (JM-563)

officers outside their jurisdiction, but may make
citizens arrests in proper cases. The public
streets and highways running through or adjacent
university property are not within their
jurisdiction.

Very truly you+l
E I - 1

-G-i MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

JACK HIGBTOWRR
First Assistant Attorney Ger.eral

MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney,General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Bruce Youngbloot,
Assistant Attorney General

p. 2503
 Honorable Gale Warren - Page,5 (JM-563)
.

RQ-607

INDEX HEADINGS

ARRFST
CAMPUS PEACE OFFICERS
CITIZENS ARREST
JURISDICTION
PEACE OFFICER
STEPHENVILLE
TARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY
TRAFFIC OFFENSES

p. 2504