Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1974 )

T ATTORNEY @ELVERAE~
OF TEXAS
AUSTIN. T-s 78711
December 16. 1974
The Honorable Walter M. Holcombe Opinion No. H- 476
County Attorney
Reeves County Re: Whether Article 44”3(21),
Pecos. Texas 79772 V. T. C. S. e requires a
telephone company to
furnish customer informa-
tion to a law enforcement
Dear Mr. Holcombe: agency wit~hout legal process.
You have requested our opinion concerning the constructi,on of Arti.cle
4413(21), V. T. C.S., which provides:
The Director, with the advice and consent of the
Commission. shall formulate and put i,nto effect
plans and means of cooperating with the sheriffs
and local police and peace officers throughout
the Statue for the purpose of the preventi,on an,d
discovery of ci-imes and the apprehension of
criminals and the prromi.ion of publ!,c safety-;
and i,t shall be t:he duty of aI,1 such l.ocal police
and peace officers to cooperate w;th the Director
?,n such plans. E\e,ry telegraph and tekphonr
company and radio station operating within this
State shall grant priority of service to t.he po?i,ce
ageI?cies and to rhe Depa,rtment of Publ,ic Safety,
when notified that such service is urgent: in the
i,r,?r.rests of the publrc wel.fart-.
Your qursti,on is whether Art:icle 4413(21) compel,s a tcl,epZlone company to
supply customer informat:i,on to a kw erforcrment agency without legal prmess,
Article 4413(2Pj sxys in ‘k caption, “Di,rector shall provide for cooperation;”
and by its terms deal,s wi,th intrastate cooperation between 1,aw officers- Since
cooperation between peace officers would be difficult without ready means of
comrmmi car lot- j comrmmicat~inrt companies are requi,red to “grant priority of
servtce” to l.aw rn,forcc-mcnt personnel when the n.erd for such service is
urgent. The context of f:hr statute i.ndicates that the “service” which i,s required
is a provision of a meam of communieati.on, not the production oi records,
po 2168
The Honorable Walter M. Holcombe, page 2 (H-476)
In addition, other stat&es dealing with “service” by a public utility
company make clear that such “service” is that which is rendered to
the public in the normal operation of the company. V. T. C. S. arts. 1.119,
1124, 1175(12). It is our opinion, therefore. that it is the granting of
priority of this type of service that is compelled by Article 4413(21), and
not the supplying of customer information. See generally, Silverthorne
Lumber Co. V. United States, 251 U.S. 385(1920).
SUMMARY
Article 4413 (21,), V. T. C. S., does not require a
telephone company to provide customer information
to law enforcement officers in the absence of valid
legal process.
Attorney General of Texas
APPROVED:
i’/
,‘I.. k-..~
DAVID M. KENDf gLL, First Assi,stant
C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman
Opinion Committee
p. 2169