OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Eonorablo tiorgr ii. Shrppard
Coaptrollrr or F’ubllo Xaoountl
hurtin, Taxa
Dear Eirr Oplnioa No. O-1622
Thir ~111 aokno
atkily! our opinion as to
my other zambber cr cap1 artmmt 0r rub-
Ii0 ?4f4tJr 16 4UthOriZtd reward for tha ap-
Trahenslon of an
Ycrn2nta Annotat
deat the deaitn
th tb Board’6
quoted article is frcm Title 108 of
tdtutea Of Texas, 1925, ea Em4ad6d
LCtb Leglrrlaturr, 1927, Ch. 212, p.
the Tax46 bison Sy4t43. The rtstuts
orizsr the mensgrr of thr Prison Sys-
rdr -for the eparthrnsion of orininalr
eaoaplng rrom the penltratlsry, the rnounta to be dr-
trrsined b7 the managrr with thr approval of the board,
an6 %a be paid 66 dlrsotd by the Imnagrr.”
Eonorsbla Ceorgr %. Shsppard, par4 2
Obtl0~81~ the statute teats a wide latitude
of 6iSOrStiOn with the manager of the Texas Frbon pya-
tam, the LafcIalatura lridentl~ raco~nlzIn~ the need
tharafor because or the opportunity of that offioIa1
to know tba fact6 ooncarnl~ each Individual. prisoner,
the lericurncea of the offrnaa for whloh oonrioted,
tbe oon4uot and behavior of the conrlot and the poa6ib18
dIffloultlaa llkely to be faced in 6frectlng u raoapturs.
We are of the opinion the Leglslatura bad full authority
to grant such prarogetlvr to the prison manager.
xa hate e p4Wity Of authority in TSX36 upon
thr aubjeot we are now conaldsrlng. X8 hevc bean un6ble
to find any rrcant T4xea decisions applying the law
on the rleht of public orflcers to recaIva raw4rd6, but
ws think the folloWinp uotatlsn from Texas Jurlapru-
danoa (36 Tax. Jur. 9&9p to be apt:
"Aa a ganaral rule, any person Who
has ooapliad with the tars8 cl the offsr
may raoovar the reward. Cn the othsr band,
it I8 settled that a public ofrlcar in not
entltlad to a retard beyond his legal rssa
for eerrlcaa whloh It was his offlciel duty
to perron. Thu8, u paece orflcer Who er-
raetad a criminal while aotlng WIthin the
line or his offlclal duty cannot recover a
rawerd ofrarad for the arrest of ruch ot-
render. This rule ha6 been deolared to be
a sound on4, and it I6 ba6ed upon prinoiplea
or pub110 policy; but it does not apply
where the arrest was made by thr ofiloar
as 6 pritate citizen and not within the
line or h16 official duty.*
The t6Xt Oite8 the early C6688 Or Kasllng P.
Morris, 71 Tax. 58&, 9 S. ‘Z. 739, 10 Aa. St. Rap. 797;
SCUthW86tarn Telegraph k Talaphona Co. Y. Priest, 31
cit. APR. 345, 72 s. K. 241; ~111s Y. stone, 4 Clv.
App. 157, 165, 23 s. H. 405. Al60 see 38 Tax. Juria.
539.
In the KaalIng oars, aupra, the store or de-
fendant blorrir was burglarI6a4; Morris orrerrd $1,000
rarard ror the arrsat and oonrlotlon of the guilty per-
4on or pareons. The pleintirr Kaallng Wea oonatebla
or tba precinot where ths crlma oocurrad. Morris ra-
Honorrbla Oeorga H. Sheppard, psga 3
fused to pey the raward ait8r Ka6ling arractad .tba tblaf
and war lnatrumMt~ In obtaining a oonrlotlon. The dla-
triot oourt &era Jud&mant for the dafsndent, but the Sup-
reme Court rrreraad and remanded tha oaaa ror trial, hold-
lng under tha atetutaa sakiog It tho duty or paaoe officera
to prerarra tba paeoa and axaouto a11 proorsa dlreota& to
them, that aearohl~ for unknown crlmlnals wa6 not a part
of t&air offioial duty, and tbet a oon6tabla may raoovar a
rrward for tba lrrsot and oonvictlon or a orlalnal In hla
om praolnot, the offer having Induced tha oonatabla to
makr the raaroh.
The o6ao of Lllla v. Stone, supra, held e county
surveyor to be entltlad to fees graatar than allowed by
atetutr for locstiag and euneyln& land outalda hi6 ccunty.
In the case of Southv~aetern Telegraph k Talaphona
Co31pany Y. Prlcst, aupra, it appears that tbs telephone
oompenp ofrsrad a rav:ard ror convlotlon of any person eullty
of outtlag its wlrsa in violation of a apcolfic article or
the panel coda. The oourt bald that a constable v&o ar-
r4sta a parson for a miadama6nor, in the discbarge of his
duties as en ofrloar, is not entitled to e rsward.
In 611 or ths above Texas oaa4a the Off6r4r yra6
6 private ind~ridU61 or corporation. Thsr8 16 a dIatlnc-
tlon be&wean the right of en offloar to teka 4 rawsrd ~I%XI
a private lndItiduel for the pertormanor of his Official
duty and his right to auoh e reward when orfared by atatu-
tory authority. See 5& C. J. 788; United Stat46 v. etthaw6,
at al, 173 U. S. 361, 19 S. Ct. kl3, 43 L. Ed. 738; Barry
Y. Crolo, 8 Pa. Dint. & Co, 54; Com%onweelth v. O’Brien,
22 Pa. Diet. 1045, i.1 Pa. Co, 255, and other oaaaa cltad
in Corpus Jurla; 2) R. C. L. 112e.
The United States Supraze Court ca68 of U. S.
v. Mettbam, at al, rupra, seams analogous to our situation.
'ha plaintlrra ~4~4, ona a r4gular and the othar a special-
ly appointed U. s. deputy marshal. Thsy olalnad five hun-
dred dollars, tbo sum of l reward offered by tha Attorney
Gtnard ror the arrsst and conviction of on4 haa MOWail,
who we6 aoouaed of having bean conoarnad In ths killing of
one or more ravanua ofrIoar6. Tha OrriOar6 arrs8tad Uc-
~411, and ha tram tried and oonrlotad. Suit wee brought
in oon6aquanoe of a rafuaal to pay the reward. Th6 Court
Honorable Caorga 8. ShSPFard, paea L
or Clalaa gave judgment for the plalntirra an4 the unitad
State6 appralrd.
In a nlblr opinion by li’hlta, a majority
Suatloa
of the Oourt held’ tha ofrloara antltlad to mootar, af-
ridag tha court 0r Clalnu, The oourt held that a reward
lxpraaaly offered by oomprtrnt le&alatIra and rxaoutira
authority for the arraat of a crlnln&l by a pub110 orfleer,
even though it would be thr duty of the officer to arrest
said Orlmlnal, IS not oontrary to public pOllOy; that tha
statute gave the Attorney Oenaral diaoration t0 whim to
offer the reward and that a general ortar of a raward l.~-
oludrd dSPUtf mmrsbalr wh0 bad the right to take the otrared
reward for tbs Srr46t; and that when the reward we8 sang-
tionrd by an appropriation act end was within tha Offar of
the Attorney Ceaarsl, it wee raaoarad rrom the provislom
Of other statutas danyinq, extra oompan6ation to OffiSara.
The court further held that the Attornry Oaneral
could bare reatrIotad tbr offer 60 as to oxoluda officers,
an6 such raatrIctIon nmld huva bean binding upon thaa,
but not bavlng ssda such r’C8arf3tlon, the owrt bed no
power to Inscrt it.
We quota from Juaticr V!hlta~a opinion in part:
“It la undoubted thrt both in England and
in this oountry It has been held that It la
contrary to pub110 polloy to rntoroa in a oourt
or law, in ravor ar a pub110 orfloSr, whose duty
by rlrtua or his amploymnt raquIrad the doing
or a partloular sot, any agrremnt or oontract
aadr by thr ofrioar with a private lndlvIdu81,
stipulating that the offloar lhoul4 r4081v8 6a
extra oompanaetion or reward tor the dolry~ of
auoh sot. in agrramant or this oharaotar was
cocaidarad at ooaaon law to be a apaci4a of
quarI axtortlon, and partaking of the ohamc-
tar or a brlba. l + + (citing oaa4a.) Thr
broad differsnor between tie right of an Officer
to take rrom a prlteta lndlvldual a raward or
ooappuraation for t&r perromanoo of hir official
duty, and the capaolty 0r auoh orriosr to ra-
Sai+a a reward l xpra6al~ authorized by oomPOt*nt
1agialatira authority and aanotlonad by the
lagielatira offloar to whom tho laeial*t~~*
. ’
Nonorahlr Georee 8. Cbrppard, pare 5
power ha8 drlrgatrd amplo dlrarrtlon to orrer
the reward, Is too obvious to rsqulrb anything
but rtatrment.w
Vpon Inrprotlon of thr drpartmmtal ap9roprla-
tion bill (8. E. 427, Aotr 46th LegialatUra),
we ilBd th.
sum of 4375,OOO.OO appropriated ror aaoh rear or the
bIennIUm iOr Wonoral Support and MalntexLanoa; ll#o In-
oludee~ tramportation, r8ca turr oontiagrnt expense8 and
liablllty lnsurenoo prem
+--hi
urns. e would 8eem to in-
oludr thr rewardr authorized by Artlola 616bz-3.
It Is our o9lnIori that If the prison znnna.gor*a
orfsr to pay reward8 for the recapture of rsoaprd oomlcta
ae wthorlzed by Article 61662-3, Vernon’8 Annotated Civil
statutes, la a general on*, there la no prohIbitIon in our
law againat the aocaptsncr of such reward, if rarnrd by a
highway patrolman or other b~9loper of the Department ot
pub110 Saf rty.
Trusting the alxwr ratiaraotorily amwere your
inquiry, we ara,
Yours vrry truly