Jefferson County, Texas v. Jefferson County Constables Association ( 2018 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
══════════
No. 16-0498
══════════
JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS, PETITIONER,
v.
JEFFERSON COUNTY CONSTABLES ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT
══════════════════════════════════════════
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
══════════════════════════════════════════
JUSTICE BOYD, joined by JUSTICE JOHNSON, dissenting.
Deputy constables provide important law-enforcement services to the communities they
serve. But the policy decision to grant them authority to engage in collective bargaining belongs
to the Legislature, not this Court. The Legislature has granted that authority only to “fire fighters”
and “police officers.”1 Under Texas law, deputy constables are not “police officers” any more than
police officers are deputy constables. Essentially for the reasons the Beaumont and San Antonio
Courts of Appeals have explained,2 I do not agree with the Court’s holding that deputy constables
are “police officers” under the Collective Bargaining Act.
1
TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE §§ 174.023, .051(c); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE § 617.002(a), (b).
2
See Jefferson Cty. v. Stines, 523 S.W.3d 691, 713–19 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2017, pet. filed); Wolff v.
Deputy Constables Ass’n of Bexar Cty., 441 S.W.3d 362, 366 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, no pet.); City of San
Antonio v. San Antonio Park Rangers Ass’n, 850 S.W.2d 189, 192–93 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1992, writ denied).
Texas law consistently recognizes that deputy constables serve their communities as
“peace” officers, but it never equates them with “police” officers and instead consistently refers to
the two separately.3 Texas statutes refer to a variety of “police departments,” including municipal
police departments,4 school district police departments,5 campus police departments,6 and even—
in certain counties—a sheriff’s “county police force,”7 but no Texas statute ever refers to a
constable’s office as a “police department” or “police force.” To the contrary, although Texas
statutes consistently include police departments, sheriffs’ offices, and constables’ offices within
the broader category of “law enforcement agencies,” they unfailingly distinguish between the three
types of entities.8
3
See, e.g., TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 2.12(2), (3) (separately listing deputy constables and police officers
as two types of “peace officers”), art. 2.123(a) (permitting “peace officers” to serve as “adjunct police officers,” but
only if they obtain additional authorizations), art. 18.21 § 1(2)(B), (C) (separately listing deputy constables and police
officers as two types of “authorized peace officer[s]”), art. 18B.001(1)(B), (C) (same), art. 42A.751(b) (referring
separately to a “police officer” or “other officer with the power of arrest”); TEX. EDUC. CODE §§ 37.203(a)(6)(H)
(referring separately to a “school district police officer” or a “peace officer whose primary duty consists of working
in a public school”), 51.203(e) (requiring peace officer commissioned as a “campus peace officer” to be a “certified
police officer”); TEX. GOV’T CODE § 660.209(a) (referring separately to “police officers and other peace officers”);
TEX. HUM. RES. CODE § 243.051(a)(1) (referring separately to a “constable” or a “police officer”); TEX. LOC. GOV’T
CODE §§ 141.008(a-2)(1) (referring to peace officers who “are not members of a police department covered by a
collective bargaining agreement”), 306.040(c) (permitting authorized “special park police officer” to perform service
“that may be performed by a sheriff, constable, or other peace officer”), 324.066(b) (referring separately to “police
officer, constable, sheriff, or other law enforcement officer”), 362.001(2) (separately referring to “police officer” and
“deputy constable” as two types of “law enforcement officer[s]”); TEX. OCC. CODE §§ 1704.302(a) (referring
separately to “police officer” and “constable”), .304(b) (same); TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 621.401(5), (6) (referring
separately to “police officer” and “constable or deputy constable”).
4
See TEX. CODE. CRIM. PROC. art. 5.05(c).
5
See TEX. EDUC. CODE § 37.015(a).
6
See id. § 51.212(f).
7
See TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 85.006 (authorizing sheriffs of certain counties to appoint a “county police
force” and deputize “police officers” to serve on the force); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 49.25 § 7 (referring
to a “city or county police department”).
8
See, e.g., TEX. TRANSP. CODE §§ 683.001(3) (defining “law enforcement agency” to include “the police
department of a municipality” or of an “institution of higher education” or to “a sheriff or constable”), 721.005(b)(1)
(referring separately to a “police department,” “sheriff’s office,” and a “constable’s office”).
2
Deputy constables may “regularly serve[] in a professional law enforcement capacity,” but
they provide that service as employees of the constable’s office, not as employees of “the police
department of a political subdivision.”9 Nothing in the Collective Bargaining Act even suggests
that it defines or uses the terms “police officer” and “police department” differently than the other
Texas statutes that consistently use those terms. Because the Collective Bargaining Act applies
only to fire fighters and police officers, it does not apply to deputy constables. If the Legislature
had intended to permit deputy constables—or even all peace officers—to engage in collective
bargaining, it could, should, and would have said so.
Because the Court holds otherwise, I respectfully dissent.
_____________________
Jeffrey S. Boyd
Justice
Opinion delivered: April 13, 2018
9
TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 174.003(3) (emphasis added).
3