Texas law on any date › Attorney General opinions
Attorney General Opinion JM-0219
Later treatment: Withdrawn by JM-239 (1984) (from the Attorney General's list of opinions overruled, modified, superseded or withdrawn)
Cites: ED §6, ED §21.483
The Attorney General's page · official PDF
JIM MA?TOX
Attorney General
Supreme
Cowl
Building
P. 0. BOX 1254a
Austin.
TX. 78711. 25.9
51214752501
Telex
QlolS74-1367
Telacooier
5121475-0266
714 Jackson.
Suite 7W
DaIhs.
TX. 75202.4508
2141742-8944
4824 AIWRa
Ave.. Suite 160
El Paso. TX. 799052793
91515333494
. I Texas. Suite 700
HO”SlO”.
TX. 77OQ2.3111
713l2255886
EN
Broadway,
Suite 312
Lubbock.
TX. 79401.3479
SOSi747.5238
4309 N. Tenth. Sutle S
McAlle”.
TX. 785ol.lS85
5121682.4547
203 Main Plaza. Suile
CO
Son Antonio.
TX.
782052797
512/225-4191
The Attorney General of Texas
0::ober
24, 1984
Mr. Reymon L. Bynum
Conrmissioner of Education
Texas Education
Age n :y
201 East 11th Street
Austin,
Texas
78731
Dear Mr. Bynum:
Opinion
No.
m-219
RI?:
Authority
of peace officers
commissioned
by school
districts
You have
askwl
the
following
two questions
regarding
peace
officers
commissiowd
by boards
of
trustees
of
independent
echool
districts:
1.
What
are the responsibilities
of
the Texas
Commission
on Law Enforcement
Officer
Standards
and Education
concerning
such peace officers?
2.
Do such peace
officers
. . . have
all
the
powers,
privileges,
and
immunities
of
peace
officers
whenever they are in the performance
of
their
official
duties
even when they
are not
on
school
property?
([For
example,
during
the]
hot
pursuit
of a person
who has committed a crime
on
school
p’roperty.
the
regulation
of
traffic
on
contiguous
streets,
and
[the]
investigation
of
crimes co:mnitted on school
property.)
You advise
us that
:he first
question
is prompted by the refusal
of
the Commission on Law Enforcement
Officer
Staodards
and Education
to
license
putative
Iwace
officers
commissioned
pursuant
to
section
21.483 of the Education
Code.
This section
provides
as follow:
The board
of
trustees
of any school
district
may
employ campus security
personnel
for
the purpose
of carryiag
out the provisions
of this
subchapter
and
if
the
board
of
trustees
authorizes
any
officer
tc
bear
arma then
they
must connaission
them as peace officers.
Any officer
comissioned
under this
section
is vested
with- all
the powers.
privilege,,,
and immunities of pesce officers
while
on
the pr,>perty under the control
and jurisdiction
of the dis,rrict
or othervise
in the performance
of
his
dutic!ri.
Any officer
assigned
to
duty
and
commissiowd
shall
take and file
the oath required
Mr. Raymon L. Bynum - Page 2
m-219)
of
peace
officers,
aod ahall
execute
and file
a
good
and sufficfent
boad
In the
au0 of
$1,000,
payable
to the board of trustees,
vith
two or more
good and sufficient
sureties,
conditioned
that he
will
fairly,
impsrtlally.
and faithfully
perform
all
the duties
that nay be required
of him by law.
The bond may be sued on from tima to time in
the
name of any person
l.njured until
the whole amount
of
the
bond
is
wcovered.
Any
peace
officer
coaunissioned
under
this
section
must
meet
all
minimum standards
for
peace
officers
established
by
the
Commission
on
Law Enforcement
Officer
Standards
and Education
within
one year
of
his
commission,
or his
commission
shall
automatically
expire.
The explicit
language
of’ section
21.483
establishes
that:
(1)
a
school
district
board of trustees
may employ campus security
personnel
to
carry
out
the provisions
of
subchapter
H of
chapter
21 of
the
Education
Code;
(2)
campus .,wurity
personnel
commissioned
as peace
officers
under section
21.483
possess
“all
the pavers,
privileges,
and
immunities
of peace officers
,rhile
on the property
under the control
and jurisdiction
of
[their
employing
school]
district
or otherwise
In
the
performance
of
[their]
duties”;
and (3)
officers
commissioned
under section
21:483
must, within
one year of
their
cowmission.
meet
all
minimum standards
for
Ilesce
officers
established
by
the
Texas
Cosunission
oo
Law
Enforcement
Officer
Standards
and
Education
[hereinafter
TCLEOSE], or their
commissions
automatically
expire.
Section
6(c)
of article
4413(29aa).
V.T.C.S.,
provides
that
[n]o
person who dowl oot have a license
issued
by
the Commission
[on Law Enforcement
Standards
and
Education]
shall
be
appointed
as
s
peace
officer.
. . .
Section
6(h)
off the same statute
provides:
‘Peace
officer,’
1 cr
the
purposes
of
this
Act,
means only a persor
so designated
by Article
2.12.
Code of
Criminal
I’rocedure,
1965,
or by Section
51.212
or ,5! .214,
Texas Education Code.
It has been suggested
that csapus security
personnel
may not under any
circumstances
be regarded
ac, “peace
officers,”
because
they are
not
vithin
either
article
2.12
of
the
Code of
Criminal
Procedure
or
sections
51.212
or
51.214
cmf the
Education
Code and are
therefore
ineligible
to be licensed
as peace officers
under article
4413(29aa).
We agree
that
campus tiecurity
personnel
commissioned
as peace
otficers
under section
21.483
of the Education
Code are not eligible
p. 984
Mr.
Raymon
L. Byoum - Page 3
(JH-219)
to be
licensed
aa “peace
officers”
by the commission
under
article
4413(29aa).
The express
language of
sections
6(c)
and 6(h)
of article
4413(29aa)
dictates
this
conclusion.
This
does
not
meao. however,
that
such personnel
may not be designated
as “peace
officers”
by a
different
statute.
Section
6(h)
of
article
4413(29aa)
provides
only
that
“for
purposes
of this
Act,”
&,
article
4413(29as),
the term
“peace
off ice?’
---
includes
only
those
persons
so
designated
by
the
enumerated
statutes;
it
dew
not rule
out
the possibility
that
some
other
act may designate
somwne as a “peace
officer.”
And this offlce
haseld
on severs1
occasions
that
a variety
of
statutes
other
than
article
4413(29aa)
designat,?
certain
individuals
as “peace
officers.”
See,
e.g.,
Attorney
GeneraIL Opinion
MU-54 (1979)
and opinions
cited
therein.
Section
21.483
expresrily
designates
as “peace
officers”
campus
security
personnel
commissioned
as such
under that
section,
and this
statute
Is oo an equal footing
with article
4413(29aa).
When article
4413(29aa)
and section
21.M
are
read
together
and harmonized.
as
they‘must
be,
Calvert
v.
Pwt
Worth Nat&al
Bank, 356 S.W.Zd- 918
(Tex.
1962).
the
conclusion
inevitably
follows
that
section
21.483
campus security
personnel
are peace officers
who by the very terms of
‘section
21.483
must meet .1:11 TCLEOSE minimum standards
within
one
year.
Those standards
include
licensure
by TCLEOSE. Of course,
they
enjoy
their
status
as peace officers
ouly
in certain
instances,
i.e.,
“while
on
the
property
under
the
control
and jurisdiction
of
the
district
or otherwise
in t’w
performance
of
[their]
duties.”
Educ.
Code 521.483.
In
answer
to
your
f::rst
question,
therefore,
because
campus
security
personnel
commissioned
as
“peace
officers”
under
section
21.483
of the Education
Cods are not eligible
to be “peace
officers,”
as
defined
by article
4413(29aa),
the
commission
has oo licensing
responsibility
coecerning
t’wse
officers.
Under the express
terms of
section
21.483,
the boards of trustees
of the school
districts
of this
state,
not
the commission,
have the discretion
to decide
whether
to
commission
individuals
as “peace
officers”
under that statute
and the
power to issue
such commissions
If
they choose
to do so.
The boards
of trustees
must require
that anyone
commissioned
as a “peace
officer”
under section
21.483 satisf:r
the “minfmum standards
for peace officers
established
by”
the
cowission,
including
medical,
educational.
testing.
and other
requirenents,
within
one year.
The cocaaission
in
its
discretion
may consult
with such boards
.on the
implementation
of
these standards.
V.T.C.S.
art.
4413(29aa),
12(a)(6).
Your
second
question
cannot
be
answered
in
the
abstract.
As
noted,
campus security
personnel
may be employed “for
the purpose
of
carrying
out
the provisions
of
[subchapter
M of
chapter
21 of
the
Education
Code] .‘I
They are clothed
with the powers.
privileges,
and
immunities
of
peace
officer:5
generally
“while
on the property
under
the
control
and jurisdict:cln
of
the
district
or
otherwise
in
the
performance
of
[their]
duties.”
Whether campus security
personnel
p.
985
Hr. Rsyaon L. Bynum - Page 4 (m-219)
would
be
authorized
to
eagnge
in
the
particular
activities
you
describe
is a fact
question.
The resolution
of this
question
depend8
upon the scope
of
their
duttes
as defined
by their
employing
school
boards
and vhether
they
maI’ be
said
to be “on
property
under
the
control
and
jurisdiction
wf
the
district
or
otherwise
in
the
performance
of [their]
duties;”
vhen they engage in such activities.
2’ u n n A u Y
The
Texas
Colnlission
on
Law
Enforcement
Standards
has
no
licensing
responsibility
concerning
“peace
officers”
commissioned
under
section
21.483
of
the Texas Education
Code.
The
scope
of
the
pouczs
of
section
21.483
peace
officers
depends
upon the
nature
and
scope
of
their
duties
as defined
by their
employing
school
district
boards
of trustees
and upon whether,
when
they
engage
in
pclrticular
activities.
they
are
carrying
out
the
Ilrovisions
of
subchapter
M of
chapter
2 of
the
Mucation
Code and are “on
the
property
under
the
control
and jurisdiction
of
[their
employing]
district
or
[are]
otherwise
in
the performance
of
Itheir]
duties.”
JIM
MATTOX
Attorney
General of Texas
TOM GREEN
First
Assistant
Attorney
General
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive
Assistant
Attorney
General
Prepared by Jon Bible
Assistant
Attorney
General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMHITTEE
Rick Gilpin,
Chairman
Jon Bible
Susan Garrison
Ann Kraatx
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton
Bruce Y oungb load
I
.
p. 986
Attorney General opinions are persuasive, not binding on courts, and answer questions of law, not fact. Text extracted from the official PDF. Not legal advice.