Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

QBffice oftfje Bttornep @enera &ate of llCexae DAN MORALES Al-rORNEY GENERAL March 28, 1996 The Honorable Fred Hill OpinionNo. DM-381 Chair House Committee on Urban - Re: Whetherpoliceo5cersofabome- TausHouseofRep-ves ruIe city must comply with the provisions P.O. Box 2910 of uticle XVI, section 1 of the Texas Austin, Texas 78768-2910 Consthtion every two years, and related questions (RQ-767, RQ-789) The Honorable Doyle Wti Chair !3eleacommhteeonveterllnsA5lirs TexasHouseofRepresentatives P.O. Box 2910 Austin, Texas 78768-2910 Repmentative I-MIasks whether home-rule city police officers end “[n]on-police 05cer employee+”of the police department are “appointed 05cers” under article XVI, section 1 of the Texas Constitution. Rep- Wtis asks on behalf of the Fofl Worth Police Department whether article XVI, section 30 of Texas Constitution requires home-rule city police officers to com& with the provisions of article XV§ion 1 every -Years. Article XVI, section 1 of the Texas Constitution requk elected and appointed officers to take an oath of 05ce. An amendment to section 1 approved by the voters on November 7.1989, requires elected and appointed officers to sign and file a statement with the tmretwy of state before taking the oath of office. The statement to be signed by appointed officers is as follows: I do solemnly swear (or a5rm) that I have not dire& or i&Z$paid, off& or prom&d to pay, contributed, or promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or promised ‘any public 05ce or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment.... Tex. Cons art. XVI, 8 1. Article XVI, section 30 provides, with exceptions, that “[t]he duration of all 05ccs not fixed by this Constitution rhall never exceed two years.” See alw id 85 3Oa(authorizing legislature to provide by law for six-year terms for officers of TheHonorableFredHill -Page 2 (DM-381) The Honorable Doyle’W& state agencies), 30b (two-year term limit not applicable to municipal offices under civil SWiCe). nte~of~ehasinfonnedlawenforcanentlgarciesbylaterthrrtthe 1989 amadment to article XVI, aaction 1 quires elected and appointed 05cers to file a sworn sU&ment with the w of atate before executing the oath of 05ce. The letter alsomentionsacasewhereinthe~ureto5ethe stakmentaff&tedtheoutcomeofa pmcecd+bcforeajusticecourL Adeputysheriffwascalledtotesti@aboutissuinga speedhgticket. BecausethedeputyMnot5edtheatatementrequiredbyarticleYM, #ctionloftheTewsCoaPtitution,thejusticeofthepeaceexcludcdhistestimonymd didssedthecharge. We 6nd no judicial decision or attorney &neral opinion stating whetkr police o5cersarepublicofficerswithinarticleXVLsectionl. Brri~eAttomeyGmeral Opinion H-1027 (1977) (commissioned officers of Depsrcment of Public Safkty are appointedo5casrequimdtotakecoaffitutionaloath). InAttomeyoeneralopinion DM-212, however, we concluded that article XVI, section 40 of the Texas Constitution, ~chprohibitsone~n~holdingtwocivilo5cesofrmolument,dasnotua matter of law prohibit city police 05cexs and sherifFs deputies from serving as part-time secwity officers for a school disk% Attomey General opinion DM-212 (1993) at 2. We relied for this conclusion upon the test adopted by the Taas Supreme.Court in A&z Indepmdmt School District v. Stamiley, 280 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. 1955). inA~~,,thecourthddtthedecirivefactor~apublico~ from a public employee is Whether any fmxeign fimctbn of the govemment isconferred upontheindividualtobeatacisedby~forthebenehtoftbeplblichrgrly in&pen&nt of thecontrolof others.”Id. at 583 (quoting hbar v. Bramia Cmty, 224 S.W.2d 738, 740-41 (Tex. Cii. App.-Oalveston 1949. writ refd)) (emphasis supplied by court in AU&e). See oh Green v. S&war&516 S.W.2.d 133 (Tar. 1974) (condudiaginreliionA&Iinethatdeputiesintax assessor-cokctor*s 051x are not 05cersbecfUsetheyactedintflx m-collector’s right rather than in their own right). In Hurris Count v. SchorWr, 594 S.W.2d 106 (Tea. Civ. App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 1979. writ refd n.r.e.), the court concluded that the chiefjuvenile probation o5ca was not a public officer, even though the statute conferred upon him authohty to perfhm certain sovereign ihctions, because he could not exercise them largely free of the control of the juvenile board. Attorney General Opinion DM-212 expressed the view that the Tacascourtswould~plythcA~~testMdwouldconcludetht(It~romecity police o5cers, sheriB’sdeputies, and securhy 05cers do not hold civil offices.1 Attorney p. 2077 TbeHonorableFredW - Page 3 (DM-381) The Honorable Doyle Wti General Opinion DM-212 (1993) at 2. Whether a patt+hr police. 05cer. deputy, or school district semrity 05cer held a civil office depended on the resolution of factual issues and therefore could not be demmined in an attonxy general opinion. Id. Alter Attomey Gamal Opiion DM-2 12 was issued, the Texas Court of Criminal ~relisdupontbeA~~tartto~thtndlhamurisuntrttomeygenenl nor~usutarrt~rttonrywrsaplMicoffiarforpuporaoftbeuticleXVI, section4Oprohiiagainatholdingtwocivilo5casofennAmwt. strrtewl.Hillv. P&de, 887 S.W.2d 921 (Xx. Grim. App. 1994). The adoption of the A&he test by the courtofQimiDp~~gives~o~nrpporttowrconclurioninAttonreyGeDenl Opiion DM-212. We a5rm our conclusionthat city police 05cers are not as a mattbr of law dvu 05cers ofemobent within article XVI, section 40 of the Texas Consdtution. How, early judicial decisions cite provisions of the Code of Criminal IVocedure as authority for the conclusion that city police 05cers are public 05cers. &e Yettv. Coo&,281 S.W. 837 (Tex. 1926); Irwin v. we, 177 S.W.2d 970 (Tea. C&n. App. 1944); Er prte Preston, 161 S.W. 115 (Tea. Grim. App. 1913); Ciry of PIpis v. Gzbiness, 98 SW. 925 (Tex. Civ. App. 1906. nc writ); C@vof Hadan v. hiti, 80 S.W. 1144 (Tex. Cii. App. 1904. writ refd); CQ of How&mv. Testes, 79 S.W. 848 (Tex. Civ. App. 1904,writrefd). IntheAkhecase,tbeTexasSupremehunrefhedtowmeof thue decisions, distinguishing Chbines, &es, “and otk CBSCS involving the right to disdmge a polim” as follows: Cii policmen are expressly declared by the.provisions of Article 36, Vemon’s Ann. Code of Grim. Procedw ofTexas,tobe’puce 05cers’,andpeace05ccrsareexpmsdyde&redtol!einduded within the general term ‘05ws’ by Artide SO, Vemon’s AM. Code ofCrim.PmcedureofTexas. Botbthesestmuteswueoperah whenaUtheabovecsseswerededded. A&Sine,280 S.W.2d at 585. The cited statutes are now wpectively artides 2.12 and 3.03 of the Code of CriminalProcedure. Artide 2.12 of the Code of CriminalProcedure idcntiftes police officers as "peace 05cers.” and article 3.03 states that the tam “05cerx” indudes mrgisaates and peace officers. Other provisions of the Code of CriminalProc&reauthizeapeaceo5ccrto ~thepeaceandtomakeanWswithtwunntr~romeciraunstmces,code Crim Proc. art. 2.13. to summon dtiumtoassisthimwhenllscemytooverwme msiuance, id, art. 2.14, and to intervene when so- is about to commit an offense p. 2078 TheHonorableFmdHiU -Page 4 (DM-381) The Honorable Doyle Was against the person or property of another within his view, Id. art. 6.06. See u&o id. arts. 6.05.8.05, 14.01(b). .03 - .04. ThecasesthatrelyonCodeofCXminal Pro&ureprovisionsto6ndthatacity police 05cer is a public 05cer are not recent cases, but they have not been overturned. In the absence of more judicial guidance on the question be&e us, we cammt definiteJy predict what test the courts would use in determining whether or not a city police officer ~fitethe~~t~trketheconstitutionaloathrequindbyrrtideXVI,rectionl oftheTenasCon&ution. Wethadonrdviseyoutoarontbed&ofcurtion,mdto auRwethatapoliceofficernnurttalretheoathrequindbyrrticleXVI,rectionlofthe Texas Constitution until the courts answer this question. Tbe opinion of the Texas Court ofCriminolAppealsisespeciJlyimportant,~itisthecourttht~questions of the validity of a search and seizure conducted by a police 05cer. See Tar. Const. art. V,§S(courtofcriminalappeals~havefinal~ejurisdi*ionin~ca9es). Repremdve Hill speoi6callyasks whether the provisions of artide XVI, section 1 of the Texas Consthution apply to the following employees of a home-rule city: poke 05ccrs who meet the statutory detkition of peace officers ‘asprovided by artide 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and nonpolice officer employees of a police department such as clerks, custodians, secretaries, jfders, telecommtmications employ#s, and other support St& persomlel. As we have already stated, our present advice is that police officers should take the oath. A police dipartmcnt may indude employees other than police officers. See Elfis v. Holcombe, 69 S.W.2d 449,453 (Tot. Cii. App.-Odveston 1934. writ refd); see t&v Hokombe v. Gmto, 102 S.W.2d 1041.1042 (Ten. 1937) (explainingEllis v. Hokornbe). In Dehue v. State, 808 S.W.2d 97 (Tea. Crim. App. 1991). the Texas Court of Crimimd Appeals considered whether a speci6cjaikr appointed by the sheriffwas a peace officer, within the offense of escape from a peace 05cer. See PensJ Code 8 38.06 (formerly Penal Code 9 38.07). Although Dehre concems county rather than city law-enforcement persom~el,it demonstrates the court’s method of detennimng whether or not an individual isapeaceo5cerwithinartide2.12oftheCodeofCrimirAProcedure. Thecourt determined that the jailer was not a peace officer under artide 2.12 of the Code of CriminalProcedurebecausethsevidenceahowsdthathehadnotbeencatifiedllsapeace 05cer under chapter 415 of the Govermnem Code or appointed as a deputy sheriff. 808 S.W.2d at 101-02. The court further noted that ‘[elach case must be determined on its own facts as to the sufiiciency of the evidence that a jailer,. or other law enforcement prsom~el, aatisf~esthe qualihdons of a certi6ed peace officer.” Id. at 102 n.13. Accordingly, we conclude that employees of the police department who are not peace 05ce1-s as de&d by article 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and who sre not public 05cers for any other reason are not subject to the requirements of artide XV& section 1 of the Texas Consthution. p. 2079 TheHonorableFredHiU - Page 5 (DM-38 1) TheHonorableDoyle Wm RqmsadatinHillnextinquiresaboutthec4xrectproceduretomeetthe cons0Monalqukememfortbepoliceo5cerswhoh3vealreadybeenhired. We-no ~e~ti~ply with attide XV& section 1 retroa&vely. We advise that police m and take the constitutiotd oath as soon as possible. RepramutivewtllirasksifdvilBervicepolicedquh&tsofhome-ruledties mu&mquimtheirof6ceratotaketheoatheverytwoyurs. Aktterkomthedkfof poti~ofthecityofFortWorthrtltestbupoliceo5~infiirdepamaenthnn traditionally been sworn in only upon graduetion fkomthe police academy, or upon special appointmes&asinthecaseofthechiefofpolice. Hewishestoknowwhethermembersof apoticefotceina~~cjtyueaibjecsto~deXVI,redionslMd3O,~othat mustteketheoathofo5ceud6ietbeditanaa everytwoyears. ArtideXVI,section 30 of tht Texas Con&u&n provides, witb excqkons, that “[t]he duration of ali oftices not flxed hy this Constitution shall never exceed two years.” However, artide XVI, section 30b of the Texas Con&ution providea that the duration of appob%ive05ce-s undaacivilMvioerhllbe~~bythecivilrervice~~onrMdnoSbyutide XV& section 30: ~byvir&eofStatuteorchutaprovisionsappointive o5~ofllllymunid~~p~undathe~andproviriono ofCivilServiceandrulesare8etupgoverdngrppointmarttoand removal ffomsuchof&s, theprovisions of Artide 16, Se&n 30, Of~Taclls~~onlimitingtheduntionof~otii~notfixad bytheConstitutiontotwo(2)yerrsrhsllnotrpply.buttheduntion ofsucho5ces&allbegovemedbytbeprovisionsoftheCii Service law or charta provisions appkble thereto.’ Tbus,tbetermlimitsofartideXVI,aection30donotapplytomo5cer appointodunderamunidpalcivi)ravicesystan~U~by~orchartaif appointmentto and removal fkom office are governed by civil semia provisions.’ Law enforcement personnel with civil service protection under chapter143 of the Local GovanmentCodehavenos*tamofo5ceMd~ybcnmwedonlyforreaponsand under procedures governed by the statute. Local GotO Code 88 143.021, .051 - .052, .056, .085; see &o id. 5 143.001 (purpose of civil cavice statute is to secure e5dent fire and police departments composed of capable pasOnne with pern~em anployment teme). The oath d filing rquirements of utide XVI, section 1 of the Texas p. 2080 The Honorable Fred Hill - Page 6 (DM-381) The Honorable Doyle Wti Constit&on would apply when these individuals are appointed as city police officers. A poke 05cer would not need to 6le the rtltanent andtaketheoathagainunlesshewas rppointedagain,foracamp)e,ifllefthispositionwithonecivilravicecityudwas hired as a police 05cer by MOthK dvu service city.4 Ibpmmt& Willis also asks whether 05ccxs sworn prior to the 1989 medmentmust6lethe rartanemnowrequiredbys&kXVI,aectionloftbeTexas Conuitution. A conuitutional provision opera&s pmqaidy unless the language, purpose, ornatureoftheprovisiondearlymanif”tbeinteat ofremqe&eopKation. Cm v. Robimwn,150 S.W. 1149 (Tar. 1912). Article XV& section 1 quires 05cers tc fIethe~withtheseKKaryofstatebeforewriqetbeoath. Nothinginthe provisionsuggeststhatthe5ingrequimmentapplieswbwtheappointmentwasmnde andtheoathwastakmpriortothee5xtivedateoftbel989amendment. 05cersund~ aeivilraviasynanwhotooktbeconrtitutionrloathforrppoimedo5cas~~the 1989amembntneednot5ethestatemmtnow. Ofcoume,iff’orsomereasonsuch individualshave been appointed as police 05cers since the amendment was adopted, they must 6le the statement Wore taking the oath. RepremtativeW~fidlyasks,WhatwiUbetheimpactuponanrstsmsdehy these 05cers. which fkll within the mbit of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Arts. 14.01(b), 14.03, [and] 14.04.“’ Theseprovisionsallowpeaceo5cerstomakearrestswithouta WUlWltUlIdK &lCCitk circumstances. Article 14.01(b) authorizes a peace 05cer to arrest anoEendKwi@utawanantforanyo&mecommittedinhispm3ence or within his view. Article 14.03 authorizes a peace.05cer to arres&without a warran& (1) personsfbundinsuspiciousplacesandllndK- whicllreasonablyshowthatsuchpKsonshavebee?lguiltyofsoaIe felony, violation of Tie 9, Chapter 42, Penal Code [disorderly conductandrelatedoffenses],brudloftheperce,oroffenseunder Section 49.OZ.Penal Code [public intoxication], or threats or are about to commit some offense against the laws; (2) persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe haVeCOlWlittCdlUlassaultnsultingblbOdilYh~tOMOthKpKSOll p. 2081 TheHonorableFredHiU - Page 7 (DM-381) The Honorable Doyle Was Other sections of article 14.03 also authoh arrests without a warrant in various casas of family violence. Article 14.04 pravides as hllows: WhKeitisshownbysatisMtoryprooftoapaace05cer.upon the representation of a cradible person, that a felony has been conwitted,md~theoffendKisrbouttoescrpe,x,that~is no time to procure a wamm ad peace officer may, without warran&pursueMdarresttheaccused. Itpa#o5ianinquertionvedefictoo5~underTtxu~w,thdrurrotr madeinacc0&mxwitbtbaseatatutesarcvalid. lnJnvinv.slolo,theTexasCourtof criminsl Appeals stated as follows: Tkeisnoqucstionbutt&tifthatwonamado5~oreithK ofthem,waredeputiesshKiffdejureorde&o,thesearch,inro tkrastheautholityofttleo5cersexeartingtbe~warmntswas cwoaned-I@. 177 S.W.2d at 972; see o&w Burkhrdt v. State, 202 S.W. 513 (Tax. Grim. App. 1918) (de facto deputy sheriff could arrest withoutwarrant). The Texas Court of Criminsl Appeals has adopted the followingdcfinith of “de f&to 05ctr”: Wihms v. State, 588 SW.2d 593 flex. Grim. App. 1979) (citing Wedqbrdv. me. 21 SW. 251 (Tax. Crim. App. 1893)). In lWltoms, relating to a convktion of aggmvated assault on a police 05cer, see Penal Code 5 22.02(a)(2), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals bald that the evidence ~wedthatthcvidim~ade~odepltyshaiff,mnthough~rppointmartmd oath wae not recorded in the .cxnmty &k’s 05cc, as raquired by the statutory predecessor to L0cal Oowmnmt Code section 85.003 and naith~ his deputation card nor bond indicated that he had taken the oath. In Hemy v. State, 828 S.W.2d 312.314-15 (Tu App.-Fort Worth 1992, pet. nfd). the court stated in diua that “[e]ven if [Constable]Browndidnottaketberaquiaiteoathofo5ce...,we6ndtiBrawnrtill quli&d IIS a de facto constable under the record of this case.” Whethar a police 05cer is urotiicade~isa~question,butthe~thattheindivid~hasnot~~theoath of o5ce doas not pravat him from being a de facto poke 05cer. p. 2082 TbeHonombleFredHiU -Page 8 (DM-381) The Honorable Doyle Was On the basis of the authorities we have cited, we conclude that a police 05cer may be shown to be a de facto police 05~4~. even though he has not taken the oath required by wide XVI. section 1 of the Texas Consdtution, and that a de tkto peace 05cer may validlyarrestsomeonewithoutawanantwhereauthorixdbylaw. Anarrestbyan unhe appointed police o&cf who is a de f&to 05cer mda state hw and who may legally make NIX& unda state law would not be an uareasonable seizure Under the Fourth AmeadmeM. See M-e v. Con?@of S@oIk, 968 F.2d 1480 (2d Cii. 1992). SUMMARY Artide XVI, section 1 of the Texas ConstituGonrequkes elected udappointedo5~to~~orthofo5~rad,~tour amendment approved by the voters on November 7. 1989. to’sign and5eastatementwiththexcrBaryofstatebeforetakingtheoath of 05ce. In the absence of judicial guidance on whether city police officersmusttaketheoathand5ethe aatamntrequiredbyartide ~sectionl,wecMnotd~e~ornotadtypoti~ officer is an appointed 05ccr for purposes of these provisions. We the&ore advise you to err on the side of caution, and to assume that apoliao5cermudtlketheoclthrcquirrdbyutideXVI~onl of the Texas Constitution, until the courts answer this question. The opinion of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is especially impo~~~seitisthecourtthatrddressesquestionsofthe validitybfasearchandseizureconductedbyapol.iceofficer. Employeesofthepoiicedepartmentwhoarenotpeacco5cers within article 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sre not required by title XVI, section 1 of the Texas Constitution to take the oath of office or 5e the &&ment. We find no procedure whereby police 05ccrs who have already been hired may comply with the oath provision retroactively. but we rdvisepoliceo5~whohavenotcompliedwiththis~~onto do so as soon as possible. Officersunderaci~serviceaystemwhowereappointedand took the constitutional oath before the 1989 am&dment need not now file the statement required by that mendnmt. Article XVI, section 30b provides that the two-year term limitation of article XVI, section 30 does not apply to an 05~er appointed under a numidpal civil service system established by statute or charter. if appointment to and removal fiom 05ce UC governed by the civil service provisions. p. 2083 ThcHonorableFrcdHill - Page 9 W-381) The Honorable Doyle Willis Arrests made in accordance with statute by de facto police 05cers an valid. An individual may be a de facto police 05c.q even though he has not taken the oath of 05cc. DAN MORALES Attorney General of Texas JORGE VEGA Fii Assistant Attorney General SARAH J. SHIRLEY Chair, Opinion Committee PmparedbySusanL.Garrison Assistant Attorney General p. 2084