Constable CPP Report

8/18/2019 Constable CPP Report

1/29

To: Harris County Attorney Vince Ryan and First Assistant Robert Soard

From: Jorey Herrscher

Re: Harris County Precinct 4 Contract Deputy Program

Date: Monday April 4, 2016

Cc: Harris County Precinct 4 Constable Mark Herman

Executive Summary

After a review of the records provided by Harris County Precinct 4 Constables Office in

relation to its Contract Patrol Program, our Office has determined based on such records that; 1)

Harris County Precinct 4 is not in breach of any contracts with any of the associations and is not

liable for any damages under those agreements; 2) there was a period of time where a shortage of

personnel resulted in various contracts not receiving patrol services as frequently as expected; 3)

at least two employees knew of the problem and failed to report it up the chain of command; 4)

measures have been taken to remedy the relevant issues and to insure that the same or similar

problems will not occur in the future.

Summary

In December 2015, Harris County Precinct 4 Constable Mark Herman was contacted by a

former Precinct 4 employee who alleged that there may have been some mishandling of contracts

in the Precinct 4 Contract Deputy Program.


2/29

2

In reaction to those allegations, Constable Mark Herman ordered an internal audit of the

Contract Deputy Program. Constable Herman requested that the Harris County Attorney’s

Office review the Contract Program and the findings of the Constable’s Office.

Contract Deputy Program History

Beginning in the 1980s Harris County developed a Contract Deputy Program, officially

called the Contract Patrol Program (“CPP”), which allows for private associations to contract

with a Harris County law enforcement agency for regular patrol assignments. These contracts

have been determined to be constitutional so long as “(1) the contract has as its predominant

purpose the accomplishment of a public, rather than a private, purpose; (2) the public entity

retains sufficient control to ensure accomplishment of the public purpose; and (3) the public

receives a return benefit.1” To assure compliance with the Texas Constitution, a contract must

not cede county law-enforcement discretion to the nongovernmental association2.

All eight Harris County Constables Precincts and the Harris County Sheriff’s Department

participate in CPPs. The contractual relationship between the County and the associations benefit

the associations, the police agencies and the residents of Harris County. First, CPPs provide

deputies who are in close proximity to certain residential areas, school districts, or other

specialized areas.3 These deputies, maintain faster response time to calls for service within their

assigned areas.4 Second, deputies assigned to an area become familiar with the neighborhood and

1 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0553 (2007).

2 Id.

3 Harris County Attorney’s Office, R EPORT ON GUIDANCE PROVIDED TO CONSTABLES,http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/PICS/APRIL12/ConstablesGuidance.pdf

4 Harris County Constable Precinct 5, PATROL, http://www.constablepct5.com/patrol/

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/PICS/APRIL12/ConstablesGuidance.pdfhttp://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/PICS/APRIL12/ConstablesGuidance.pdfhttp://www.constablepct5.com/patrol/http://www.constablepct5.com/patrol/http://www.constablepct5.com/patrol/http://www.constablepct5.com/patrol/http://dig.abclocal.go.com/ktrk/PICS/APRIL12/ConstablesGuidance.pdf


3/29

3

its residents, which allow them to better identify unusual or suspicious activity that may occur

while these officers are on duty.5 Third, consistent high visibility of a deputy and distinctively

marked patrol cars serve to deter criminal activity.6 CPPs provide additional protection through

vacation watches and special watches for residents who may be out of town or have particular

problems that need to be addressed.7 Vacation watch or special watch information is sent to the

deputies so they are aware that certain residents are not home and can make periodic checks on

residences while homeowners are away.8 CPPs also deter crime significantly in the areas where

these deputies patrol.9

Constable Herman reports that an entire subdivision, district, or school campus can

become safer as a result of the patrolling that occurs because of the CPPA. CPPs enhance not

only the safety of the neighborhoods or associations that pay for the extra protection but the

public safety of all people throughout Harris County by putting more officers on the streets.

These patrol contracts are made pursuant to Section 351.061 of the Local Government

Code, which states: “To protect the public interest, the commissioners court of a county may

contract with a nongovernmental association for the provision of law enforcement services by

the county on a fee basis in the geographical area represented by the association.”

5 Constable Alan Rosen-Harris County Constable Precinct 1, CONTRACT PATROL,http://pct1constable.net/divisions/patrol/contract-patrol/

6 PATROL, http://www.constablepct5.com/patrol/

7 See id ; see also CONTRACT PATROL, http://pct1constable.net/divisions/patrol/contract-patrol/

8 Id.

9 PATROL, http://www.constablepct5.com/patrol/

http://www.constablepct5.com/patrol/http://pct1constable.net/divisions/patrol/contract-patrol/http://pct1constable.net/divisions/patrol/contract-patrol/http://pct1constable.net/divisions/patrol/contract-patrol/http://www.constablepct5.com/patrol/http://www.constablepct5.com/patrol/http://www.constablepct5.com/patrol/http://pct1constable.net/divisions/patrol/contract-patrol/http://www.constablepct5.com/patrol/


4/29

4

Section 351.061 was enacted in 1987 with the stated purpose to allow associations to

contract with law enforcement agencies to provide additional police personnel to “protect the

public interest.”10 The use of these agreements to furnish law enforcement services has become a

common practice throughout the State of Texas, and particularly in Harris County.

In accordance with Section 351.061, Harris County Constable Precincts and the Harris

County Sheriff’s Department enter into agreements with non-governmental associations to

provide law enforcement services in the geographical area covered by the association. These law

enforcement agreements which allow for the provision of additional police personnel to various

associations throughout Harris County are referred to as Contract Patrol Program Agreements

(“CPPA”).

Section 351.061 allows an elected law enforcement official contract with non-

governmental associations while retaining the “authority to supervise the deputies who provide

the services” and to, in the event of an emergency “reassign the deputies to other duties other

than those provided for under the contract.”11

CPPAs specifically provide that a deputy has “no

duty or obligation to the Contractor or the residents of said area other than those duties and

obligations which the [Elected] Officer’s deputies have the public generally.”12

As a result, deputies performing services under CPPAs remain county employees under

the control of the elected county official—not the private entity — have no obligation to devote a

specific amount of time to the Contractor, and must perform their duties under the contract in the

10 Tex. Loc. Gov’t. Code Ann. § 351.061 (West 2015).


12 Cnty. Att’y. Op. No. 19,719 (1985).


5/29

5

same manner as they would if there were no contract.13 The structures of CPPAs ensure that

deputies maintain flexibility, which allows them to provide protection and safety to the public at

large, rather than to function as guardians of private property in residential areas. Because

CPPAs provide additional law enforcement to the public over and above that which could be

funded from traditional sources, and because the security provided under these agreements

benefit the public, CPPAs formed pursuant to section 351.061 are in accordance with the Texas

Constitution.14

CPPs provide a means to furnish officers to neighborhoods and subdivisions that want or

need additional patrol services to supplement existing law enforcement services. Agreements

similar to CPPAs are also executed between Harris County law enforcement agencies and

governmental entities, such as Municipal Utility Districts or school districts, to provide

additional officers and patrol services in accordance with Chapter 791 of the Local Government

Code.

CPPAs provide additional deputy positions throughout the county. These positions allow

for the contracting association to pay 70, 80 or 100% of the salary of a deputy, with Harris

County covering the unpaid portion of the salary, if any, for that deputy.

An additional 835 total peace officers are supplied by CPPAs. In Precinct 1, there are 46

contract officers. In Precinct 2, there are 17 contract officers. In Precinct 3, there are 58 contract

officers. In Precinct 4, there are 263 contract officers, in In Precinct 5, there are 136 contract

officers. In Precinct 6, there are 36 contract officers. In Precinct 7 there are 21 contract officers.


14 See id.


6/29

6

Lastly, at the Sheriff’s Office, there are 258 contract officers. The total revenue brought into

Harris County from employing these officers is $60,771,480.00.

The breakdown of those numbers is as follows:

Department

Monthly

Sum

Annual

Sum

No. of

Deputies

No. of

Sergeants

No. of

Lieutenants Total

Precinct 1 301,567 3,618,804 44 2 46

70% 29,505 354,060 3 1 4

80% 263,031 3,156,372 40 1 41

100% 9,031 108,372 1 1

Precinct 2 113,679 1,364,148 15 2 17

70% 56,684 680,208 9 1 10

100% 56,995 683,940 6 1 7Precinct 3 357,784 4,293,408 50 7 1 58

70% 315,740 3,788,880 47 5 1 53

100% 42,044 504,528 3 2 5

Precinct 4 1,528,326 18,339,912 232 26 5 263

70% 1,310,976 15,731,712 208 21 5 234

80% 6,395 76,740 1 1

100% 210,955 2,531,460 23 5 28

Precinct 5 853,900 10,246,800 121 15 136

70% 402,387 4,828,644 61 7 68

80% 401,475 4,817,700 56 6 62100% 50,038 600,456 4 2 6

Precinct 6 240,820 2,889,840 31 4 1 36

80% 216,838 2,602,056 28 4 1 33

100% 23,982 287,784 3 3

Precinct 7 163,107 1,957,284 20 1 21

70% 27,979 335,748 5 5

80% 135,128 1,621,536 15 1 16

Sheriff 1,505,107 18,061,284 255 3 258

70% 1,474,730 17,696,760 250 3 253

80% 6,395 76,740 1 1

100% 23,982 287,784 4 4

Grand Total $5,064,290 $60,771,480 768 60 7 835


7/29

7

Harris County Precinct 4 Contract Patrol Program

All CPPAs in Harris County are approved by Commissioners Court and are drafted to

meet constitutional and statutory requirements. The Harris County CPPA contracts include

provisions similar to the following:

2.1 The County agrees to authorize the Constable/Sheriff to provide 3 deputies to

devote seventy percent (70%) of their working time to provide law enforcementservices related to the Association’s geographical area (the "area"), as further

defined in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof. "Law enforcement

services" include, but are not limited to, patrolling, preparing reports, appearing in

court, investigating crimes, arresting persons, and transporting suspects.

2.2 As used herein, the phrase "working time" is defined as follows: the usual or

normal hours that the Constable/Sheriff ’s deputies are required to work in any

calendar month and does not include any extra or overtime work. "Working

Time" shall not include vacation or sick leave, and thus, it is not anticipated that

the Constable will authorize substitute deputies to work within the area when theregularly assigned deputies are not available; but it is understood that the

consideration for services, as set forth below, includes a share of the costs to the

County for such times when the deputies are not available. The aforementioned

costs are part of the overall cost to the County for providing the "law enforcement

services" since vacation or sick leave are benefits that are earned through such

services.

2.3 The Constable shall retain control and supervision of the deputies performing

services under this agreement to the same extent as he does other deputies. The

District understands and agrees that this Agreement is not intended, nor shall it be

construed, to obligate the Constable to assign deputies to devote any portion of

their working time to the area.


8/29

8

If any association is not satisfied with the services provided by the Sheriff’s Office or the

Constables Offices in Harris County, their remedies are as follows:

4.3 If the Association is dissatisfied in any way with the performance of the

County, the Sheriff/Constable or the deputies under this Agreement, the

Association’s sole remedy is termination under Section 4.4.

4.4 Either party may terminate this Agreement prior to the expiration of the term

set forth in this Agreement, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days prior

written notice to the other party. The County will submit an invoice to the District

showing the amounts due for the month in which termination occurs. The District

agrees to pay the final invoice within ten (10) days of receipt.

4.5 If this Agreement is terminated at any time other than at the end of a contractmonth, the monthly installment or payment for such contract month will be

prorated, less any expenses incurred by the County.

4.6 In the event the Constable informs Commissioners Court and the District in

writing that due to position vacancy or elimination occurring on or after March 1,

2015, the Sheriff/Constable cannot or will not provide 3 deputies to devote

seventy percent (70%) of their working time to provide law enforcement services

related to the District's geographical area, and provided that the District has

prepaid its sum and further provided that such notice from the Constable identifies

that such vacancy or elimination was of a position that served or facilitated

service to the District, the District shall receive a refund equal to the number of

days between the date of the Constable's notice and a subsequent meeting of

Commissioners Court at which Commissioners Court amends or terminates the

Agreement.

In order for the CPPs to remain constitutional, they must “accomplish a public purpose”

and “benefit the public” rather than promote private entity interests15 and a contract must not

cede county law-enforcement discretion to the nongovernmental association16. In order for there

to be a contract for a peace officer to patrol private property without promoting private entity

15 See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0553 (2007).

16 Id.


9/29

9

interests, the contract language must allow for a peace officer to perform his statutory duty

without constraint. What that means, practically speaking, is that a deputy assigned to a CCP

must be allowed to respond to 911 calls outside of the area defined in the agreement for as long

as necessary to respond to that 911 call. This means that, on occasion, a peace officer will not be

in his contract area for a portion of his shift, including a majority portion on some occasions. A

refund is only available if there is not a deputy assigned to a contract. This provision does not

apply to a contract where a deputy has been assigned to the contract, but is out due to injury,

illness, vacation, on duty training, response to a 911 call or a similar situation.

Precinct 4 has 33 deputies assigned to regular District patrol and 263 deputies assigned to

approximately 94 CPP’s. In other words, approximately 88% of Precinct 4’s patrol force exists

as a result of the Deputy Contract Program.

An examination of the records indicated that during 2015 there were CPPAs where new

deputies were hired to fill contract positions, and the deputy trainee was assigned into the

department’s mandatory field training program. The effect of hiring new deputies for these

positions was that the contracts did not have their assigned deputy patrolling while he/she was

being trained for duty. It was determined that the cause of the personnel shortage was due to

normal attrition, illness, injury and mandatory training for new peace officers. Although there

were times where a deputy was unavailable to patrol a contract for an entire 8 hour shift, each

contract had a deputy assigned to work the contract.

Multiple contracting entities were affected at some point during the field training process

of the newly hired deputies. In order to maintain a police presence in all CPPA defined areas,

resources were moved around and additional resources were assigned to cover those areas. As a


10/29

10

result of the assignment of these additional resources the Constable’s Office has met the goals

under all affected contracts as of the date of this report with the exception of Atasca Woods. This

Association requested that additional patrols cease pending the results of the audit, although it

was within the ability of Precinct 4 to meet this goal as well. While in this instance the goal was

not met, the contract was not breached and a refund is not warranted.

The following is a chart of all Precinct 4 contracts indicating whether that contract was

affected by the shortage of personnel:

CONTRACT NAME

ASSOCIATION

AFFECTED

ATASCA WOODS YES

AUBURN LAKES NO

BLUE CREEK HOA YES

BRIDGESTONE MUD YES

CHAMPION FOREST YESCHARTERWOOD

MUD NO

CUTTEN GREEN NO

CY-CHAMP NO

CYPRESS HILL MUD 1 YES

CYPRESSDALE NO

DOWDELL PUD YES

ENCANTO REAL UD NO

ENCHANTED OAKS NO


11/29

11

FAIRFIELD YES

FAULKEY GULLEY

MUD NO

FOREST NORTH NO

FOUNTAINHEAD NO

GLEANNLOCH

FARMS NO

GREENGATE PLACE YES

GREENTREE

VILLAGE NO

GREENWOOD

FOREST NO

HARVEST BEND NO

HARVEST BEND THE

VILLAGE YES

HC MUD 1 YES

HC MUD 106 YES

HC MUD 154 YES

HC MUD 18 NO

HC MUD 191 NO

HC MUD 200 YES

HC MUD 221 YES

HC MUD 26 YES

HC MUD 281 NO

HC MUD 282 NO

HC MUD 286 NO

HC MUD 368 YES


12/29

12

HC MUD 391 YES

HC MUD 401 NO

HC MUD 412 NO

HC MUD 43 YES

HC MUD 69 NO

HC MUD 82 YES

HC UD 16 NO

HC WCID 110 YES

HC WCID 136 YES

HC WCID 92 YES

HEATHERLOCH MUD NO

HUNTERS GLEN YES

KLEINBROOK YES

KLEINWOOD MUD NO

LAKEWOOD FOREST

FUND YES

LAKEWOOD GROVE NO

LEXINGTON WOODS NO

MEADOWHILL MUD YES

MEADOWVIEWFARMS NO

MEMORIAL HILL NO

MILLS ROAD MUD YES

NORCHESTER YES


13/29

13

NORTHAMPTON NO

NORTHGATE

CROSSING MUD 1 NO

NORTHGATE

CROSSING MUD 2 YESNORTHWEST FRWY

MUD NO

NW HC MUD 5 YES

NW HC MUD 28 NO

NW HC MUD 36 NO

OAKS OF

DEVONSHIRE NO

PONDEROSA FOREST YES

POSTWOOD YES

POSTWOOD MUD NO

PRESTON WOOD

FOREST NO

RANKIN ROAD MUD NO

REID ROAD MUD YES

ROLLING FORK NO

RUSHWOOD NO

SPRING CREEK OAK

CIA NO

SPRING WEST MUD NO

TATTOR ROAD MUD NO

TERRANOVA NO

TIMBERLANE MUD YES

TRAILS OF THE

LAKE MUD YES


14/29

14

WALDEN ON LAKE

HOUSTON YES

WIMBLEDON

ESTATES NO

WINDFERN FOREST YES

WINDROSE YES

WOODCREEK NO

WOODLANDS

TOWNSHIP NO

In response to the aforementioned findings, safeguards have been put into place in an

effort to avoid repeating these and similar problems.

First, Constable Herman discovered that a Captain with the Agency knew of the issue and

failed to report those issues up the chain of command. That employee has been disciplined.

Second, the mandatory reporting policy has been altered so that all information regarding CPPAs

is reported to the Assistant Chief Level. Any issues discovered by the Assistant Chief are to be

reported immediately to the Constable. And finally, the audit revealed an error in software

coding which prevented effective communication between two pieces of reporting software. The

coding error helped conceal the underlying problem. The coding problem has been resolved.

Although under the terms of the contract, Constable Precinct 4 was neither in breach of

contract, nor obligated to “make up” any hours to the associations, Constable Herman sought to

maintain his Office’s relationship with the associations and their residents. From December

2015 through March 2016, Constable Herman assigned additional police resources to the CCPs

affected in an effort to demonstrate his commitment to those associations.


15/29

15

Constable Herman reports: “The Office of Constable Precinct 4 works with homeowners

associations, utility districts, and local residents to ensure that all residents of Precinct 4 receive

the best law enforcement services we can deliver. If a homeowners association or a utility district

has a concern with the county or the precinct about a constable patrol contract, we will work with

the association to resolve any issues.”


16/29

The

Honorable

D.

Matt

Bingham

Smith County Criminal District

Attomey

Smith County

Courthouse

100

North Broadway,

4th

Floor

Tyler,

Texas

75702

A.rtonNBv

GrNeRel

oF

TEXAS

GREC AB30TT

July 9, 2007

Opinion

No. GA-0553

Re: Whether

a

county may constitutionally

contract

under

Local Govemment Code section

351.061

to

provide

a nongovemmental

association

with

a

constable offi ce' s law-enforcement

services

provided

the

contract (1)

allows

the

constable to retain

control

and

supervision

of

the constable's officers

and

(2)

does not obligate the

constable to assign officers to

devote any

portion

of

their

working time to the

nongovemmental

association

(RQ-0559-GA)

Dear

Mr.

Bingham:

You

ask

whether,

under

Local Govemment

Code section

351.061,

a

county

may

constitutionally contract to

provide

a

nongovemmental association

with

a constable

office's

law-

enforcement

services ifthe contract

(

I

)

allorvs

the

constable

to retain control and supervision

ofthe

constable's otficers and

(2)

does not oblige the constable to

assign officers to devote any

portion

of

their working time to the nongovernmental association.l

l.

Background

You

relate

that

a

Smith County

constable

proposed

a contract to the commissioners

court

rvhereby

the county rvould

provide

constable law-enforcement

services to

a

private

entity,

an

apartment

complex, for a

fee. ,See

Request Letter, supra note l, at 2.2

You

state

that

the

proposed

contract is

based

on the ostensible

authority

of

section

351

.061 of the

Local Govemment

Code,

rvhich

concems fee-based law-enforcement services.

Request

Letfer, supra

note 1, at l-2.

From

your

review

of

two

prior

attorney

general

opinions, JM-57 and JM-509,

you

advised

that section

3

5 1.061

ofthe

Local

Govemment

Code

is

unconstitutional,

and any agreement

to

provide

fee-based

r.tee

Lefter

fiom

Honorable

D.

Man

Bingham,

Smith County

Criminal Dist ct Aftomey,

to

Honorable

Creg

Abbott, Aftorney

General

ofTcxas, at

I

(Dec.

22,

2006)

(on

tile with

the

Opinion

Cornlninee,

a/so dtailable

athftp'll

www.oag.state.tx-us)

[hereinatier

Request

Letterl.

:See

a/so Exlibit A attached

io

Request

Letter,.ruprd

note l, at

l-6

(proposed

contract)

[hereinafter

Exhibit

A].


17/29

The

Honorable D. Matt

Bingham

-

Page 2

(GA-0ss3)

county law-enforcement

services

to

a

private

entity would

be

void.

See

id.

at

3-7.1 In Attomey

General

Opinions JM-57 and JM-509,

this office

addressed

county

authority

to

provide

law

enforcement

to

private

entities

by

contract,

voicing

concems about the

constitutionality

of such

contracts under

Texas

Constitution article

III,

section

52

(prohibiting

certain

public

grants

to

private

entities) and article III, section 1

(prohibiting

certain

delegations

oflegislative

power).

See generally

Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos.

JM-509

(1986),

JM-57

(1983);

see 4/so TEx.

CoNsr.

art.

III,

gg

t, 52.

After

you

advised

the commissioners

court

against

the

proposed

contract, you

leamed that

itwas basicallyidentical tocontractsusedinotherTexascounties.,SeeRequestLettet,suprsnote

l,

at 2. Ofparticular

interest, the

proposed

contract

provides:

The

Constable

shall

retain

control

and supervision

of the offrcers

performing

services

under

this

agreement

to

the

same extent

as

he

does other

officers[;

the

nongoverffnental

entity]

understands

and

agrees

that

this

Agreement

is

not

intended,

nor shall

it

be

construed,

to obligate the Constable

to assign officers

to devote any

portion

of

their

working

time to

the area.

If the

[nongovemmental

entity]

is

dissatisfied in any

way

with the

performance

of the

County,

the

Constable

or their

olficers

under this Agreement,

[the

nongovemmental entity's]

sole remedy is termination

.

.

. .

Id.

at

2-3i

see a/so

Exhibit

A,

supra

rlote

2,

at 2

(section

2.3). You

ask

rvhether

such

a

provision

would

obviate

the

constitutional

concems

identified

in JM-57

and

JM-509.

See Request

Letter,

supra note 1, at 7. While

in

general

we do not

construe

particular

contracts,

we may

address broad

principles

oflawapplicable

to apublic

entity's

contracting

authority.

See

generallyTex.

Att,y

Gen.

Op.

No. GA-O176

(2004)

at 2

(attomey

general

opinions

do not construe

contracts,

but may..address

a

public

entity's

authority to

agree

to

a

particular

contract

term,

if

the

question

can be

answered

as

a matter

of law ).

II.

Chapter

351,

Subchapter

D

of the

Local Government

Code

To address the

constitutionality

of section

351.061,

we must first

examine

the terms

ofthe

Legislature's

grant

ofauthority in rhat

section and

related

provisions

in chapter

351, subchapter

D

ofthe Local

Govemment

Code.

section 351.061

provides:

To

protect

the

public

interest,

the

commissioners

court

ofa

county

may

contract

with

a nongovernmental

association

lor

the

provision

of law

enforcement

services

by

the

county on

a

fee

basis in

the

geographical

area

represented

by the

association.

TEx.

Loc. Gov'r

CoDE ANN.

$

351.061 (vemon

2005).a

The

fee must

be

paid

to

the

county

generally

rather

than

to

any

particular

office

or officer.

&e rri.

$

351.062(b).

The

rSee

a/so

Exiibit B

attached

to

Request

Letter,

s,/p,,a

note

l,

at l-

6

(legal

memorandum

to

commissioners

coun

dated

Sepi

22, 2006)

[hereinafter

Exhibia

B]. You inform

us that

the commissioners

court waived

any

privilege

concerning your

legal memorandum.

.t€e

Request

Letter,

J

upra note l,

at

2.

rTte

Local

Government Code

does

not

define

nongovernmental

association.

However,

the

exact

meaning

ofthat term

has

no bearing

on

the

constitutional

questions

you

pose.


18/29

The

Honorable

D. Matt

Bingham

-

Page 3

(GA-0ss3)

commissioners

court may

request

the

sheriff,

aconstable,

or another

countv

law-enforcement

official

to

provide

the services,

limited

to

the

geographical

area

for

which the official

was

elected

or

apfointed.

li.

$

351.063.

If the

official

agrees

to

provide

the

services

by

using deputies,

the

official

retains authority

to supervise

the

deputies

who provide

the services

and,

in

an

emergency,

may reassign

the

deputies

to

duties

other

than those

to

be

performed under

the conlract.

Id.

$

351.06a(a).

Such

a deputy

remains

a county

employee,

and

must

perform

duties

under

the

iontract

in

the same

manner

as

if the

deputy

were

performing the

duties

in

the

absence

of

the

contract.

1d

$

351.064@(c).

III. Article

IU,

Section 52

of

the

Texas

Constitution

Attomey

General

opinion

JM-57,

which

opined broadly

that

a

county

may notcontract

with

a homeou.ners

association

to

provide

law-enforcement

protection by

county

peace

officers,

was

issued

prior

to

the enactment

oflocal

Govemment

Code

section

351.061.

Tex. Att'y

Gen. Op.

No.

JM-57

(1983)

at7;

see id.

at

1

(stating

that

no

statute

extant

.

. .

purports

to authorize

such

contracts );

see

a/so

Tpx. Loc.

Gov',r

CoDE

Ar.{N.

$$

351.061-.067

(Vemon

2005)

(subchapter

D);

Act

of May

20, 1985,

69th

Leg.,

R.S.,

ch. 219,

S

l,

1985

Tex.

Gen.

Laws 1082'

1082-83

(promulgating article

158

i b-2,

of

the Revised

Civil

Statutes);

Act of

May I

,

1987,

70th Leg.,

R S',

ch. 149,

$

l, secs.

351.061-.067,

1987 Tex. Gen.

Laws

707,114647

(tecodifuing

article l58l-2's

provisions into

the Local Govemment

Code

as chapter

351

,

subchapter

D).

As

you

note,

however,

ihe

opinion

raises

public

policy

concems

and

questions

the

constitutionality

ofsuch

contracts under

articie

III,

section

52(a) ofthe

Texas

constitution.

see Request

Letlet,

supra

note 1, at 4-5;

Tex.

Aft'y Gen.

Op.

No. JM-57

(1983)

at 6.'

Article

III, section

52(a)prohibits

the Legislature

from authorizing

a

county or

other

political

subdivision tolenditscreditortogtantpublicmoneyorthingofvalue. ,SeeTEX.CONST.art.

III,

g

52(a);.ree

also

Grimes

v. Bosque

County,240

S.W.2d

5l

l,

514

(Tex.

Civ.

App'-Waco

1951,

writ

reld n.r.e.)

(holding that

article

III, section

52

of

the

Texas Constitution

prohibits

a

commissionen

court

from

making

an

expenditure

solely

to benefit

an

individual).

The

provision

prohibits

,,gratuitous

payments

to

individuals,

associations,

or

corporations.

Tex.

LIun. Leagre

'lntergoverimenral

Risk Pool

v. Tex.

Workers'Comp.

Comm'n,74

S.W.3d 377,

383

(Tex'

2002)'

A

political

subdivision's

conveyance

of

a thing

of

value

is

not

'gratuitous'

if

the

political

subdivision

receives

return

consideratioo.

Id.i see also

Tex.

Att',y Gen. Op.

No. GA-0480

(2006)

at 2

(stating

that a(icle

III, section

52(a)

is

not violated

if the

public

receives consideration

lbr

granting a

thing

ofvalue ).

Moreover,

article

III, section

52(a)'s

purpose is

to

prevent

the

application

of

public

[property]

to

private purposes. tsyrd

v. City

of

Dallas,6

S.W.2d

738,740

(Tex.

1928).

But an

eipenditure

that incidentally

benefits

a

private

entity

is

not

unconstitutional

if

it

is

made to

,The

specific concem

addressed

in

Attomey

General

Opinioo

JM-57

in the context

ofafiicle III,

secrion

52(a)

rvas whether

a iee-based

contract

for

counry

law-enforcement

services

rvould

adequately

compensate a county

for

the

county's

nam€, special

authority,

and

. . .

'good will

'

See

Tex. Att'y Gen

Op. No,

JM-57

(1983)

at

6,

This office

issued

bpinion

JM-57

prior

to

the Texas Supreme

Court's

formulation

ofthe

thIee-part

test for article

ll[,

section

52(a).


19/29

The Honorable D.

Matt Bingham

-

Page

4

(GA-0s53)

accomplish

a

legitimate

public

purpose.

See Walker

v. City of Georgetown,

S6

S.W.3d

249,

260

(Tex.

App.-Austin 2002,

pet.

denied).

The

public-purpose

exception is satisfied if

(l)

the

predominant

purpose

is

to accomplish

a

public

purpose,

rather

than

benefit

a

private party; (2)

the

public

entity

retains

sufficient

control

to

ensure

accomplishment

ofthe

public

purpose;

and

(3)

the

public

receives

a retum

benefit. See Tex.

Mun.

League,14

S.W.3d

at

384.

State

law

independent

of

any

contract

establishes

a county's authority

to

provide

law-

enforcement

services

anywhere

in

the

jurisdiction

of

its officers. See, e.&,

TEx.

CoDE CRIM. PRoc.

ANN.

arts.2.l2(1H2)

(Vemon

Supp.2006)

(establishing

sheriffs,

constables,

and

their

deputies as

peace

offrcers);

2.13

(Vemon

2005)

(imposing

duty

on

every

peace

officer

to

preserve

the

peace

within

the officer's

jurisdiction );

2.17

(designating

sheriff

as

the

conservator

of the

peace

in

the

sheriffs county).

Thus,

it

is

diffrcult to

envision

a

contract to

provide

such

services

to

a

private

entity in which

the

public

purpose

predominates.

However,

we

cannot conclude

as a

matter

of

law

that

no contract under section 351.061

could

make the accomplishment

of

a

public

purpose

its

predominant purpose. Chapter

3

51,

subchapter D

does

not on

its

face

violate article

III,

section 52(a)

of the

constitution.

Nevertheless, we stress that to

comply

with

article

III, section 52(a), a

commissioners

court

authorizing

a

contract

under

section

351.061

must

determine, subject to

judicial

review,

issues

of

the contract's

purpose,

govemrnental

controls,

and

govemmental

benefit.

See

Trx.

LoC.

Gov'T

CoDE

ANN.

$

351.061

(Vemon

2005)

(granting

commissioners courts

authority to

contractually

provide

county

law-enforcement

services

[t]o

protect

the

public

interest ); see

ci.ro Tex. Att'y Gen.

Op. Nos.

CA-0480

(2006)

at

2-3

(advising

that

sheriffhas

discretion

to

allow

deputies to use

county

law-enforcement

vehicles

during

off-duty

employment

consistently with

article

III,

section 52(a)

of

the constitution, subject

to

judicial

review), GA-0088

(2003)

at

5-6

(determining

that

article

lII,

section 52(a) requires

a commissioners court

to determine

in

good

faith

that

a

grant

serves

a

public

purpose

and

to

place

sufficient

controls

on

the

transaction

so

that the purpose is carried

out).

IV.

Article

III,

Seclion I of

the Texas

Constitution

In

Attomey General

Opinion

JM-509,

this

office

determined

that

(l)

articte

l58lb-2

of

the

Revised Civil Statutes-the

predecessor

of chapter

351,

subchapter

D--delegated

legislative

discretion to

a

private

entity to control

the

deployment of law-enforcement

resources

and

(2)

such

a

delegation

violated the

nondelegation

principles

expressed in article III,

section I

of the Texas

Constitution. See Tex. Att'y

Gen. Op.

No. JM-509

(1986)

at

2.6

The Supreme

Court of

Texas

has

explained

that under

article III, section 1,

the

Legislature

may delegate

authority

to

a

private

entity

only

ifthere is

protection

against the entity's

arbitrary

exercise ofpower. See Proclor v.

Andrews,

972

S.W.2d

729,735

(Tex.

1998).

The

court

has

distilled

eight factors that

arc

pertinent

to

the

('Attomey

General Opinion JM-509 also concluded

that

article

1581b-2 was

a

delegation in violation

ofthe

separation of

powers provision

in article

I[,

section

I

of the Texas Constitution. See Tex. Aft'y Gen. Op. No. JM-509

(1986)

at 4. The Supreme Court

ofTexas has

since

explained,

however, that the constitutional

prohibition

against

delegating

governmental

authority to a

private

entity does

not derive

fiom

article

ll,

section I oithe Texas

Constitution.

See Prc)ctor

v.

,1ndretvs,9'12

S,W .2d'129,732-i 3

(Tex.

1998). Rather,

the

coun instructed that a

purported

delegation

ofgovemmental

authority to a

private

entity

should

be analyzed

under

article

lll,

section I

ofthe

constitution.

.9ee

id,

at

713.


20/29

The Honorable

D.

Matt Bingham

-

Page

5

(GA-0553)

constitutionality

ofa

delegation to

a

private

entity, including the

availabitity of meaningful

review

ofthe

private

delegate's

decisions,

the

potential

for conflict between

the delegate's

personal

interest

and its

public

function, and the

existence of

sufficient

legislative standards

to

guide

the

private

delegate.

See

id.;

see

also

Tex.

Boll lleevil

Eradication

Found.,lnc.

v.

Lewellen,952

S.W.2d

454,

472

(Tex.

1997).

But before it

is

necessary

to examine

a statute under

Bol/

lleeyil

standards, it

first must be

determined whether

the statute in fact

delegates

power

to a

private

entity .

See Tex.

Workers'

Comp.

Comm'nv. Patient Advocates

of

Tex.,136

S.W.3d

643,654

(Tex.

2004).

In JM-509

this office

construed article

l58l

b-2

ofthe

Revised Civil

Statutes as necessarily

allowing

a

private

association

to control

the sheriffs

discretion to deploy his

deputies. Tex.

Att'yGen.

Op.

No. JM-509

(1986)

at 2, The

opinion

frrther

explained:

Under a contract

authorized

by

article

l58lb-2...

a

nongovemmental

bodycould insist

that deputies assigned

to

patrol

its

property

remain

there, even

if

the

public

interest

would

be

better

served by

their

deployment elsewhere.

The statute

is

not

a legislative

limit on the sheri{Ps

discretion,

but a legislative

attempt to

authorize

a

private

entity to control the

sherift's discretion.

. . . No statutory

controls

are

included

to insure

that contracts for

law enforcement

services

will

carry

out

the stated

purpose

of

protecting

the

public

interest.

Id.

at

4.

If chapter 3 5 l, subchapter

D

of

the Local

Government

Code is necessarily

construed as

delegating

unbridled

authority to a

private

entity

to

control

the

law-enforcement

official's

discretion

to deploy deputies,

then undoubtedly

the statute would

not satisry

the constitutional

standards

of

Boll

Weevil.

See

Boll

lYeevil,952

S.W.2dat472.

But

when possible, courts

interpret

legislative

enactments in a

mamer

to

avoid

constitutional

infirmities.

Barshop

v.

Medina

County

Unelerground Water

Conservation Dist.,925

S.W.2d618,629(Tex.l996).

A court

would

likely

choose

a construction

ofchapter 351, subchapter

D

that

renders it

constitutional

and

determine

that

the statutes

do not authorize

a

county to

cede

its

law-entbrcement

discretion

to deploy

deputies

to

a

private

entity.

We conclude

that chapter 351,

subchapter

D

ofthe

Local

Govemment

Code does

not on its

lace

violate

either article III,

section 52(a)

or article III,

section I of the

Texas

Constitution.

But a

contract under

the subchapter

must comport with

the

limitations in both

constitutional provisions.

A

contract

provision

that retains

control

and

supervision ofofficers

in the

constable and

that

imposes

no obligation

on officers to

devote their working

time on

a

particular

area does

not

appear

to

be

inconsistent

with

the

constitutional

principles

discussed

above.

see Request

Letter,

supra

note

l,

at 2-3;

see a/so Exhibit

A, sapra

note

2,

at 2

(section

2.3).

We

reiterate, however,

that

we do not

purport

to construe

the

proposed

contract. lloreover,

we

caution that because

a

contract is

construed

as

a

whole,

the

mere

inclusion

of such a

provision

in a

contract under

351.061 of

the Local

Govemment Code is

not a

guarantee

of the

contract's

constitutionality.

Cf. Coker

v.

Coker, 650

S.W.2d

391,

393

(Tex.

1983)

(holding

that

contracts

are construed

as

a whole,

and

no

single

contractual

provision

wilI

be

given

controlling

effect).


21/29

The Honorable

D. Matt

Bingham

-

Page

6

(GA-0553)

SUMMARY

Under

chapter 351,

subchapter

D of the

Local Government

Code,

a

county

may contract to

provide law-enforcement

services

to

a

nongovemmental

association

on a fee

basis,

provided

the

contract

does

not

violate

article

III, section 52(a)

or

irticle

III, section

I

of

the

Texas

Constitution.

Under article

Ill, section

52(a)

the

commissioners

court

must

determine,

in the

first instance,

that

(

I

)

the

contract

has

as

its

predominant

purpose

the

accomplishment

of a

public,

rather

than a

private,

purpose;

(2)

the

public

entity

retains

sufficient

control

to

ensure

accomplishment

of

the

public purpose;

and

(3)

the

public

receives

a

return benefit.

To

comply

with

article

III,

section

1

of

the

constitution,

a

contract

must

not

cede county

law-enforcement

discretion

to

the

nongoverrrmental

association.

Attorney

General

Opinions JM-57

(

I 983) and

JM-509

(

I 986)

are ovemrled

to the extent that

they

are

inconsistent

with

this

opinion.

KENT C.SULLIVAN

First Assistant Attorney General

NANCY S.FUIƒ“

LER

Chair,Opinion Committee

Willitt A.Hill

Assistant Attorney General,Opinion Collmittee

Very

truly

yours,

BOTT

leral of

Texas


22/29

Report on Guidance

provided

to Constables

This

is

intended

to be

a

summary

and

compilation of

guidance

the Office of

the

County

Attorney

has

provided

during

the

past

few

months concerning

issues

that

have

arisen

with

respect

to

various Constable Offices.

Matters

Reviewed

The

following

are

matters reviewed:

o

The

appropriate use

of

county

offices,

equipment and

personnel.

o

The

administration

of

the contract deputy

programs.

o

The service

of

vacate notices.

o

The accuracy

of

timesheet records

for county

employees.

o

The issuance

of honorary badges to

non-deputies.

o

The

use

of

reserve deputies.

Powers and

Duties

of the

Office of the Constable

The

general

powers

and duties

of Constables are

principally

set forth in

Subsections

(a)

through

(e)

of

Section

86.021,

Local Govemment

Code. These include

executing

civil

or criminal

process,

warrants, and

precepts

and

serving as bailiffs in

Justice

Courts.

Harris County

has

eight

Constable

Precincts

with budgets

ranging from

$5,710,000

(Precinct

8) to

$28,175,000

(Precinct

5). Collectively the eight

precincts

are

afforded funds

of

$119,900,000

annually

to

service the

1,703.48 square

miles of

Harris

County.

Use

Of County

Property, Equipment

And

Personnel

For Charitable

Purposes

The

Texas

Constitution

generally prohibits

the

use of

public property

for

private

purposes.

TEX.

CONST.

ART.

III,

$

52(a);

TEX. CONST. ART.

III,

$

51;

TEX.

CONST.

ART.

XVI,

$

6(a).

However, the

courts

have held

that

Article II,

section

52

does

not

prohibit

a

county from

providing public

resources

to

a

private

entity

provided

that

the expenditure serves

a

public

purpose

of the county, the county

receives adequate

consideration,

and

there

are

sufficient controls

to

ensure

that

the

public

purpose

will

be

accomplished.

The Constables'

Offices have a long history of helping various

charities.

County

employees

should

not feel compelled to contribute to any charity whether

or not

it

is

associated

with the elected office. County

employees

should be told in writing

that

no

adverse

consequences

will result

if

an employee

chooses

not

to

contribute

to or

parlicipate in

the

nonprofit's

activities. Procedures should

be

in

place

to

insure

that

such

directives

are followed

by

all employees.


23/29

Use Of County

Property, Equipment, And

Personnel

For Campaign

Purposes

Use

of

county

property

and equipment

for

campaign

purposes

is

prohibited.

See

Tpx.

PpN.

Coop

$

39.02(a)(2). In

addition,

threatening or intimidating

a

govemmental

employee

with retaliation

for refusing

make

a campaign

contribution

or

work

in

a

political

campaign

constitutes

an act of official

oppression

and

is

a Class A misdemeanor.

See

Tpx. PpN. CooE

$

39.03.

The

following

is an example

of

a

directive

issued

which may

serve as a

guide:

1. No Harris County

resources

should be

used for

political purposes,

including

county buildings, fax

machines,

phone

lines,

office

equipment, vehicles,

computers,

and

e-mail.

2. All

employees

who volunteer

their time to

political

work must

do

so off-duty

on

their

own

time.

No

campaign

money, tickets, literature,

gifts,

or donations

should

be distributed

or collected on

county time

or on county

property

or

in a county

vehicle.

Off

duty

personnel

should

not wear

their uniforms

at

political

events.

We

suggest

that the names and addresses

of

county employees

should not

be on

campaign mailing

lists,

unless the employee expressly requests

inclusion.

No

in-person

solicitation should

be made

directly

to a county employee, whether

it is

done

on

county

property

or

another

location. County work

addresses

and

county email

addresses

should

also be excluded

from

campaign

mailing

lists.

County

employees

may

participate

in campaign activities

if

they wish,

but

management should

be

sensitive to the

appearance of coercion, and

all such

activity

must

be

carried out

while

off

duty.

Management

should

strictly

enforce restrictions

against use

of county

resources

for campaign activity.

Policies

such as

the

campaign

prohibitions

in

the Harris

County

Statement of

Ethics.

attached,

should

be adopted by individual

Constable

Offices and

enforced by

effective

oversight.

Contract Deputy Program

Pursuant to section 351.061

of

the

Local

Government

Code,

Harris

County enters

into agreements

with

non-governmental associations for law

enforcement

services

in the

geographical

area

represented

by the association. Pursuant to the Interlocal

Cooperation

Act

found at

Chapter 791

of

the

Government Code,

the County

enters

into

substantially

similar

agreements

with

govemmental

entities.

A

law

enforcement services

agreement is

sometimes

referred

to

as

a Contract Patrol Program Agreement

(CPPA).

The

contract deputy

program

allows MUDs,

school districts,

homeowners

associations

and other

groups

to

pay

to have

Sheriffs or Constables'

deputies

assigned to

specific

areas

or neighborhoods.

a

J.

4.

2


24/29

While

initially

determined

as unconstitutional

by attorney

generals

during the

1980s,

and

prior

to the

passing

of Local Government

Code Subsection 351, Attorney

General

Greg

Abbott

in 2007 found the

programs

constitutional

so long

as

county

commissioners

ensure

a

contract's

main

purpose

is to benefit the

public,

not a

private

group,

and

further

provided

that the contract

did not improperly

cede an elected

official's

authority over his or her

deputies.

CPPAs

are designed

to hire additional

law enforcement officers that cannot be

funded

with

existing

county

revenue.

Governmental

and non-governmental

entities

supply

these

funds to

place

additional officers

in

specific

patrol

areas. Through the

use

of

the CPPA,

Harris County

is able

to increase

the number

of

patrol

officers on duty by

more

than eight

hundred deputies

without resorting to a

general

tax increase

or by

reducing

services

elsewhere.

As

a

result, the CPPA

program

is

considered

to

be

highly

effective

and successful.

According to

the

most recent report

covering the

program,

295 CPPAs

supply

852

additional

officers.

Of

these

officers,

185 are

reimbursed

at

100yo

of

the

cost,

163

are

reimbursed

at80oh,

and 504 are reimbursed

at70o/o.

The CPPA

contracts

mandate

that all

decisions as

to the deployment

of officers

shall

remain under

the exclusive supervision

of

the

law

enforcement

agency. This is

required

under

Tex. Loc. Gov'T Conp

$

351.064(a)

and

by

the

Texas Constitution

which

generally

prohibits

an elected

official from

delegating

his

discretion

and duties

to a

private

organization.

CPPAs

are

entered

into on

an

annual basis.

Recently, the effective

date

of the

CPPAs

was realigned to be

consistent with the County's fiscal

year,

beginning

on

March

I't

and

terminating

at

the

end

of

February the

following

year.

Vacate

Notices

Section

24.005 of the

Texas

Property

Code

requires

a

landlord

to

give

a

tenant

who

defaults

or

holds over

the end

of

the

term

of a

lease

a

notice to

vacate

the

property

prior

to filing a forcible

entry

and detainer

suit.

See

TEx. PRoP.

CooE

$

24.00. This

is

known

as a

vacate

notice.

The

Texas

Local

Government

Code

states

that

such vacate

notices required

by

Section 24.005, Property Code,

are

process

for

purposes

of this

section

that may be executed

by a

constable.

Section 86.021(a)

of

the Texas

Local

Government Code

states that

vacate

notices

may be served

the

same

as

other

civil

process;

however Section 154.005(d)

places

limitations on

the method by

which

constables may serve vacate notices.

For

example,

Section

154.005(d)

of

the

Texas Local

Government Code

states

that

a

constable may

receive a

fee for serving a

vacate notice,

but

notices

may

only be delivered when

not in

conflict

with the official

duties and

responsibilities

of

the

constable.

The

section

reads

further that,

A

constable delivering said

notices must not

be wearing upon his

or

her

person

a

uniform or

any insignia

which would

usually

be associated

with

the

position

of

constable nor may

the

constable

use

a

county vehicle

or county equipment

while


25/29

delivering

said

notices.

For

purposes

of collecting

fees

for

serving said notices, a

constable is considered

a

private

process

server.

As

a

result

of

uncertainty

in

the

law,

different

policies

and

procedures

developed

among

the

Constables can

lead

to

further

uncertainty and confusion.

Constables

should

be

wary

of

running afoul of the restrictions

imposed

by section 154.005(d)

the

Texas

Local

Government

Code.

The following is

a summary of

guidelines

issued

by

our Office

previously:

L Deliver

notices

to

vacate

during off-duty

hours.

2.

Wear street clothes when delivering notices

to

vacate

3. Use

a

personal

vehicle

when

delivering

notices

to

vacate

4.

Require the

landlord to

provide

the notice

to

vacate.

5. Require the landlords

to

specify the manner

of delivery.

Time Records Of County Employees

County

policy

requires

that

all sheets reflect

actual time worked.

Better training of management

and employees should

be implemented

to

learn

the

standards that

the county

imposes on

the

filing

of time

records,

and

management

should

ensure that

personnel

adhere

to

these

standards.

Approved

computerized

forms

should

be

used

and training

provided

to

insure

proper

use

of

computerized

forms.

Honorary

Constable

Badges

Section 37.12(a) of the Texas Penal

Code

prohibits

the

possession

and

presentation

of

a card,

badge, document, insignia,

shoulder emblem,

or other object

bearing

the insignia of a law

enforcement

agency and which

identifies

that

person

as

a

deputy or reserve

deputy

of

the

agency

when

he

or

she

is

not.

The

penal

code

permits

such

identification

if

it

clearly identifies

the

officer

as

an honorary

or

junior

peace

officer,

a reserve deputy,

or

a

member

of

a

junior

posse.

See Tpx. PEN.

CooE

537.12.

We caution

all Constables

to ensure

that

the

issuance

of honorary

badges

and

identification is

done

in

compliance

with

section 37.12

of the

Texas

Penal

Code.

Such

identification

should

only

be issued

with

the knowledge

and consent

of

the

Constable

and

those

who receive

such

identification

should be instructed

not to

use

it

to influence

the

actions

of law

enforcement

officers

or

others.

All honorary

identification

should indicate

that it

is

not

an official

law

enforcement

credential.

Use

Of

Reserve

Deputies

Section 86.012

of

the

Texas Local

Government

Code authorizes

constables

to

appoint

reserve

deputies.

See Tex.

Loc.

Gov'T.

CoDE

$86.012.

Each

of the

Harris

County Constables'

Offices

has

reserve

deputies.

time


26/29

Reserve deputies serve

at the discretion of the

Constable

and

can

be called into

service at

any time that the Constable considers

circumstances necessary

to

have

additional officers

to

preserve

the

peace

and

enforce the

law.

Reserves

who are

peace

officers

may be authorized by

the

Constable

to carry

a

weapon

or

act

as

a

peace

officer at

all

times.

Reserves

are

not

considered employees

of

the County

and are

not paid by

the

County.

Commissioners

Court

has

the authority

under

section 86.012(a)

of

the

Texas

Local

Government

Code

to

limit

the

number

of

reserve

deputy constables

that

a

constable

may

appoint.

Harris County Commissioners Court

has

not

taken

this

step. Constables

should

ensure

that

they have

reserve

officers

in

place

sufficient to

provide

for

public

safety

while still

ensuring

proper

management

and

training.

Summary

We trust this report is helpful.

Our attorneys are available

to the

Constables

and

to

advise

on

these

matters

at any

time.

5


27/29

§ 351.061. Authority to Contract, TX LOCAL GOVT § 351.061

© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated

Local Government Code (Refs & Annos)

Title 11. Public Safety

Subtitle B. County Public Safety

Chapter 351. County Jails and Law Enforcement

Subchapter D. Contracts for Law Enforcement Services on Fee Basis

V.T.C.A., Local Government Code § 351.061

§ 351.061. Authority to Contract

Currentness

To protect the public interest, the commissioners court of a county may contract with a nongovernmental association for the

provision of law enforcement services by the county on a fee basis in the geographical area represented by the association.

Credits

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

Notes of Decisions (3)

V. T. C. A., Local Government Code § 351.061, TX LOCAL GOVT § 351.061

Current through the end of the 2015 Regular Session of the 84th Legislature

End of Document © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/NotesofDecisions?docGuid=N7718A2C0BE7311D9BDF79F56AB79CECB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=NotesOfDecision&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=l&pubNum=1077005&cite=UUID(IF8A4158963-AC4955A8659-3F585324797)&originatingDoc=N7718A2C0BE7311D9BDF79F56AB79CECB&refType=SL&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?guid=N9722AE6B9BE94ADA9384306A0F62438A&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?guid=N847D65AAF95D4D3195FC828902A35017&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?guid=ND934A7C7197F46BEBBC8A1A5E2719605&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?guid=NE6EE0FED60644A8EA0798446FAAFE2A7&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=l&cite=lk(TXLGD)+lk(TXLGR)&originatingDoc=N7718A2C0BE7311D9BDF79F56AB79CECB&refType=CM&sourceCite=V.T.C.A.%2c+Local+Government+Code+%c2%a7+351.061&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&pubNum=1000179&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?guid=N4873A761AD154CDE92455E856183BA43&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/StatutesCourtRules/TexasStatutesCourtRules?transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)&rs=clbt1.0&vr=3.0


28/29

Constable

Dick

Moore

Precinct

No.

4

683I

Cypresswood

Drive

Spring,

Texas

7731-3

Dear

Const

able

Moore

:

Th

is

is

in

response

captioned

matter.

you

ing

of

the

River

Grove

land.

Re:

patroling

River

Grove

park

C.

A.

Eile

No.

19,719

to

.your

request.

for

advicq

on

the

abov

ask

whether

or

not

you

may

' provi.Oe

patro

Park,

which

is

a

privaturv

orinea

- . iion

vate property as f011•Bws:

• E

Now•Œ

public peace officers are nOt con•\

lfr:IiV::et:[•‹

:::iY:

7ate prOperty is nOt

• r

ficia•¡

• B

E

293 Sow.

|‚Ç

‚´

ari:nstables may nOt patr•B

:l:::ri::•v

:::::¥

•àiliJl:è

‚¬

F:gnò

–ô

:FttFinillillllt•‹

l:i:

First

Assistant:

Vincc

Ryan

.

Division

Chiefs:

l'larsha

Floyd,

O.J.

Cuiheneau, David R.

Hurley.

David

H.

lvlelasly, Jcrry

B.

Schank .

Abslraering

Division: J,nmy lrlcKnighr

•

‚


29/29

Constable

Dick Moore

-2-

February

25,

1985

that

deputies

wilI

perforrn

the

same

dut.ies

under the

contract

as

the

duties

that

a

peace

officer

owes

to the

public. Thus, the

Iav,

enforcement

agreements

currently

in

use do not

provide

for

the

guarding

of

private

property.

Eurtshermore,

the

proposed

legisla-

Lion

does noE

aut.horize the

County

to

contract

to

guard

or

patrol

private

property.

If

we

can

be of

furEher

service

co

you

in this matter,

please

do

not

hesitate

to

ask.

S

incere Iy

r

HIKE

DRISCOLL

County

Attorney

By

LAVERGNE

SCHWENDER

Assistant

County

At, t.orney

MD:LS:ca

Constable CPP Report

Documents

Transcript of Constable CPP Report