Texas law on any date › Attorney General opinions
Attorney General Opinion JM-1050
Issued May 30, 1989
Later treatment: JM-1010 ( 1989 ) Overruled in part by (from the Attorney General's list of opinions overruled, modified, superseded or withdrawn)
Re: Clarification of Attorney Enforcement Officer General Opinion JM-1028 (1989) Standards and Education
Cites: CR §7, CR §at, PE §46.03
The Attorney General's page · official PDF
May 30, 1989
Honorable Fred Toler
Opinion No. JM-1050
Executive Director
Texas Commission on Law
Re: Clarification of Attorney
Enforcement Officer
General Opinion JM-1028 (1989)
Standards and Education
(RQ-1715)
1606 Headway Circle, Xl00
Austin, Texas
78754
Dear Mr. Toler:
On March 17, 1989, .we issued Attorney General
Opinion
JN-1028 which.concluded in answer to the last question
that
a judge or magistrate
is not a peace officer for purposes
of section 46.03 of the Penal Code, which
excepts
peace
officers from the prohibition against carrying hand guns set
out in section 46.02 of the code. We have received
letters
questioning this conclusion
on the ground
that article
V,
section 12, of the Texas Constitution provides that judges
are conservators of the peace and that the Court of Criminal
Appeals has held that conservators of the peace are peace
officers within the exemption
from the prohibition
against
carrying guns. &S
Patton v. State, 86 S.W.Zd 774
(.Tex.
Crim. App. 1935) (justice of the peace); Tiao tt
189 S.W. 485
(Tex. Crim. App.
1916) (judge oef
V.
-State,
corporation
court): Hooks v. State, 158 S.W. 808 (Tex. Crim. App.
1913)
(presiding officer of election, with power of district judge
to preserve order): Jones v. State, 65 S.W. 92 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1901) (county judge).
We have
reviewed the conclusion of Attorney
General
Opinion JM-1028
and have determined
that it is correct.
In view of the questions
that have been directed
to us,
however, we will amplify the reasoning that led us to this
conclusion with particular reference to the opinions of the
Court of Criminal Appeals.
Jones v. State, the earliest case on this question,
construed the exemption from the provision
on unlawfully
carrying
arms.
The exemption
provided
in pa*:
"The
preceding
article
shall
officer . . . ,I' Penal Co~~tartaPP~~9 ::89;): ' Tke EztzE
found no indication that the legislature intended to
limit
p. 5458
Honorable Fred Toler - Page 2
(JM-1050)
the exemption
to the peace
officers
listed in the pre-
decessor of article 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Jones court cited article V, section
15, of the
Texas Constitution,
which
designates
a county
judge
as
a conservator
of the peace,
and quoted the
following
dictionary definition:
"A conservator of the peace is an
officer
authorized .to preserve
or maintain
then public
peace."
Jones v. State, suura, at 92. It concluded that it
O'~~~ld therefore seem to followt' that a conservator of the
peace is a peace officer.
L
The court made
it clear that the county
judge's
authority to carry a gun was not granted by the constitution
but was a matter for the legislature to decide, stating
as
follows:
Of course, it would
have been competent
for
the legislature, in enacting the pistol
law,
to have prescribed
what
officers
(naming
them) were authorized
to carry pistols;
but
when they used the general term,
excluding
from the operation
of the law all
'peace
officers,' it applied
as well to those who
were constituted
peace
officers
under
the
constitution as to those who
were
created
peace officers by the act of the legislature.
The courts in &Q&,
Tiouett, and patton felt bound
to
apply the reasoning of Jones to judicial officers designated
conservators of the peace by article V, section 12, of the
Texas Constitution,
but they did not necessarily find it
persuasive.
The opinion in finoett stated as follows:
Were this an original
proposition,
the
writer would hold that the Legislature . . .
intended and
in fact did exempt
only such
officers as'it (the Legislature) had defined
as peace
officers in article 43
[the pre-
decessor of article
2.121 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
Tiooett v. State, suora, at 486.
The Patton court was
"constrained to
with Jones and Tinvett,
that the justice
within the exemption
from the hand gun
State, suDra, at 776.
hold" in keeping
of the peace was
law.
Patton
V.
P. 5459
Honorable Fred Toler - Page 3
(JM-1050)
.
An officer designated a conservator of the peace by the
constitution does not have the full range of statutory
authority that a peace
officer has, as shown by other
opinions of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
In Satterwhite
v. State, I7 S.W.2d
823 (Tex. Crim. App. 1929), the court
considered the authority of a justice of the peace to arrest
a person without
a warrant.
In addressing this question,
the court was concerned l'solely with appellant's right as a
private person t.o arrest without warrant."
L
at 825. The
Satterwhite court went on to state as follows:
While this court has held that a magistrate
is a peace officer within the meaning of the
terms of article 484, P.C. 1925, which
among
other things,
makes
inapplicable
to peace
officers the provisions of article 483, P.C.
1925, defining
the offense
of unlawfully
carrying arms, we have
also held
that the
duties of peace
officers as defined by the
statute are broader than those of a justice
of the peace. A justice
of the peace is a
magistrate.
Article 33, C.C.P. 1925. Under
the statute relating to the duties of peace
officers, a justice
of the peace
is not
classified as a peace officer.
Article
36,
C.C.P. 1925.
(Citations omitted.)
a;
m
Davis
v. State,
2;; i.;. 1;;; ($I?. Grim. App.
1925); Morawietz
v. State,
. .
. Cram. APP.
1904).~
Thus, it is the legislature's prerogative
to decide
which powers of peace officers
should be granted to con-
servators of the peace.
The Texas .Constitution does not
vest conservators
of the peace with all powers
of peace
officers.
If it did, a Texas judge probably would not be a
"neutral and detached magistrate"
as defined by the United
States Supreme Court, and the arrest and search warrants
he
issued would be invalid because they did not comply with the
requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
See. e.a,
Lo-Ji
Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S.
319 (1979); Shadhick
v.
Citv of m,
407 U.S.
345 (1972): Annot., 32 L.Ed.2d
970
(1973) (law enforcement
officer or peace
officer does not
qualify as a neutral
and detached magistrate).
The narrow
powers that accompany the title "conservator of the peace"
are described on pages 7 and 8 of Attorney General
Opinion
JM-1028 (1989) and also in a Code of Criminal
Procedure
provision first enacted in 1846:
Each sheriff shall be a conservator of the
peace in his county,
and shall arrest
all
P. 5460
Honorable Fred Toler - Page 4
(JM-1050)
.
offenders against the laws of the State,
in
his view or hearing, and take them before the
proper court for examination or trial. . . .
Code Crim. Proc. art. 2.17; Acts 1846, 1st
Leg., § 7, at
265.
The 1973 revision
of the Penal
Code, unlike
prior
versions of the code,
included
a definition
of "peace
officer" for purposes of the code:
(a)
In this code:
.
.
.
.
(25) 'Peace officer' ~means a person
so
designated by the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1965.
Penal Code
5 l.O7(a)(25).
Article
2.12 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure,
which
designates
various
persons
as
peace officers, does not include judges or magistrates.
The Penal
Code provision
construed in Jones,
Hooks,.
Tiooett, and Patton
was not limited by a legislative defini-
tion of "peace 0fficer.l' Section 46.03 of the Penal Code is
subject to the definition
of "peace officer*' quoted
above.
We now look to the statutory definition, and not to pre-1973
case law, to answer
the last question. in JM-1028.
We
reaffirm our answer to the last question in Attorney General
Opinion JM-1028.
SUMMARY
The Penal Code provision construed in Jones
. State, 65 S.W. 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1901) and
its progeny was not limited
by a legislative
definition of "peace officer."
Section
46.03
of the Penal Code is subject to the definition
of "peace officer" in section l.O7(a)(25)
of
the Penal Code. We now look to the statutory
definition, and not to pre-1973
case law, to
answer the last question in JM-1028.
Attorney
General Opinion JW-1028 is affirmed.
JIM
MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
p. 5461
Honorable Fred Toler - Page 5
(JM-1050)
MARYKELLER
First Assistant Attorney General
ImJ MCCREARY
Executive Assistant Attorney General
JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Susan L. Garrison
Assistant Attorney General
p. 5462
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.