'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