The following information is presented to your office for research and interpretation on laws governing "peace officers" in the State of Texas. A brief history of my research will begin the text, followed by circumstances and supporting material related to my research.

In August 1993 I began corresponding with legislators on the subject of "peace officers." I learned early on from vanous respondents that there was opposition from within the law enforcement community about changes in statutes and Articles. My further research lead me to make a presentation before the House Public Safety Committee in March 1994 to explain to the committee as to how the present mandated laws were very contradictory, asking for a revision of the laws to be considered. Before the committee at that time was a charge from Speaker Laney asking the committee to "provide the proper classification and position of peace officer, and to study the statues creating the position."

Ultimately I obtained material from my research and material prepared by other sources which supported my position. After reading that material which consisted of copies of Articles and Statutes fram Vemons Civil Statutes, the Local Government Code, the County Government Code, TCLEOSE Rules and the Private Security Act Rules, and the Code of Criminal Pmcedure, I realized that there was still something lacking.

After further research and objective readingistudying of the material at hand, it was apparent that none of the authorities pmvided a clear, specific definition of WHAT IS A PEACE OFFICER. Learning this, I contacted Rep. Elvira Reyna's office for assistance in obtaining copies of twenty-four years worth of Aflorney General Opinions dealing with peace officers and law enforcement. Now I actually had the indicators and locations as to where the elements of peace officer were provided, and what they actually are.

This was very important since the prior correspondence and communication I had received aiways related to Article 2.12 CCP, and literal interpretations by career peace officers and others; that 1) if you are not paid, you are not police, 2) if it is not listed in 2.12 then they are not police, 3) that full-time meant working more than forty hours a week and being paid, and that 4) reserve officers are not peace officers.

Well being a former career officer and a volunteer officer, I took exception to these arguments and feit I needed to pmvide a qualified argument with qualified research and data to support my belief and presentations to others. I first went to Article 4413 (29aa) V.A.C.S. Section 2 (b)(c)(d), Section 6(b) for the first two elements: TRAINED and LICENSED BY TOLEOSE as a peace officer. I then was referred to The Texas Constitution Article 16, Section 1 which states; "...appointed officers required to take the OATH OF OFFICE and be SWORN to tha duties of that office as prescribed." These elements apply to any person completing these requirements regardless of their capacity of service whether elected, appointed, paid or non- paid.

Other related Opinions are MW-54 Septernebr 6,1979 and JM-1 02 December29, 1983. Further precedence is set down in Section 85.004 V.T.C.S. which describes the types of officers the Sheriff can use as paid, non-paid, and reserve deputies.

To date I am experiencing the argument and concerns of "offduty" work that may or may not be pertonned by non-paid officers or deputies. A recent call to a representatives' office and in my conversation with an aid, it was mentioned that most of the legislators who had been in discussion of my proposed legislation and amendment were concerned about "off-duty" working by other than career officers. My position on this subject was the fact that this is a matter and responsibility of the department administrators; the Sheriff, the Chief and the Constables.

Currently in this legislative session, there are many bills being considered that deal with peace officers. There is a big fight brewing now about exempting all peace officers from the Private Security Act, and another bill establishing a Security Manager license only for peace officers who arrange "offMy intent in obtaining this amendment is for the purpose of providing a standardized criteria for legislators to weight bills and qualify those requesting recognition as peace officer. It is not intended to take away any authority of any administrator, nor is it for the special interest of any secular group. It is alse for clear and concise determination by courts and juries in cases coming before the courts.

Them is a lot of abuse simply because of the misinformation, very contradictory, and confusing laws that are separately written, and by which TCLEOSE is operating fmm today. The last date of revision of CCI" was in 1987. I feel this is an issue which needs to be addressed and braught uptoI truly believe that by making uniform and standard the reading of the laws, with each section relating to the other, that our peace officers will once again be properly and legally interpreted as originally written. Your response and observation would be appreciated as to how these laws are viewed, and if you realize the confusion that exists, as I have.

Thank you for your time and the extra effort. I feel it will be well spent time though.
Respectfully,

In approximately 1972; just after TCLEOSE was established, Article 341 was mandated by legislature to create the position of "reserve officer." The TCLEOSE Rules then prescribed the required training, (68 hours) as opposed to career training of 240 hours, and specified through other written authority in the Local Government Code, the County Government Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the authority and use of "reserve officers." Over the years, the training and licensing has changed so much that in January 1989 a Rule change in the TCLEOSE Rules actually made the licensing of peace officers the same, and the training to be the same.

Rule 211 in TCLEOSE Rules established only two types of licenses. The first being a new Conditional License which gave the applicant up to four years to complete the prescribed training, and to sucoessfully pass the TCLEOSE examination for peace officer, and to then be licensed as an eligible peace officer. If the applicant did not complete the full requirements in the four year period, the Conditional license would be revoked. The second and only remaining license was that of peace officer. The Rule eliminated the previous licenses of reserve and provisional.

I corresponded with the Speaker, with many legislators and with the Public Safety Committee members, and the TCLEOSE Board. I even had verbal support of then Governor-Elect Bush, along with support from Chief Windham at Fort Worth Police Department, and support still continues to grow for this information. Letters from me to potential sponsors of such a bill were sent asking the representatives or senators to study what I had learned, and to consider amending Article 2.12 providing the standardized definition in its place. The suggested wording was: "Peace officers are those who have successfully completed training by The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Education, who have successfully completed the examination for peace officer, and who have been licensed as a peace officer by The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Education, and who have been Sworn to an oath of office by an authorized law enforcement agency."

Accompanying this letter was a listing of the legal basis which listed the elements in the Articles, and Constitution, along with the supporting AG Opinions which are as follows:

M966 October 6. 1971 which requires all peace officers to comply with minimum standards of selection and training as promulgated by TCLEOSE."

H-167 November 30. 1973 which states: "Article 4413 (29aa) 6(e) "There is no special definition of "peace officer' in this section."

H985 Aeril 25. 1977 which states: "One's status as an officer is determined by "whether any sovereign function of the government is conferred upon the individual to be exercised by him for the beneffi of the public largely independent of the control of others." "We also beleive that he performs "governmental functions" in his own right involving some exercise of discretion" and thus is not an employee within the terms of Article 2372h6 V.T.C.S. He is "invested by law with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government."

If the person has discretion over his actions then he is considered an officer. An employee has no discretion in his actions.

....every person so appointed shall before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe to the official oath."

H-1027 July 26. 1977 which states: appointed officers required to take the oath of office proscribed by Article 16, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution."