Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

TEE AT%oRNEY GEIXTEISAL OF TEXAS Au- 11.- Honorable LB. Iiand Criminal District Attorney Weatherrord,Texae Dear Sire Opinion MO. O-7342 Rer Whether 8 conatable 1s allared an arrut itt In cast8 where the arreet it m8de by Et&t offIaU% aridthe aonst8blt dot8 mot p&IcIpMt ln the urut, uld related qutetIontl. Your l.+ttr of October 17, 1946, rtqut~tlng an opinion of this department, prentnt8 the Zollowlng three questions uhiah ue quote: 'Piratx Is a conekblt 8ervl.n~on a fee bula~ allowtd~t @+ or any amount le,an 8rre8t fee in bhanat~ uhtllbarrest8 were made by state offiaum, .and In which arreate the constable dote not partialpate? It is my opinion that an arreat fee cannot be charged ux0.e~ the conetable actually arresta or partlcipattm In the arrest. “hcondt In event tn arrtat Is made by 8ktt offIeer8~n turn over the 8couud to the oirmrttblt for the aonskble to lodge In jail and rtlttat upon propardbptsition #my the aorut8bla uharse forrirtat, oomltmtnt, and rtitut? In m opinion the conrtabl+, In Ilrohe8m~nouU be entitLed to ahargt on4 ior CCIE- mltmtnt and release. "Third: IO the cormtable,under any circumst.mcea, allowed ZilZiXt of 20 cents enroute to pick up 8 prlmntr and 25 cents for return trip with prisoner? It appears to me that thIa quemtlon ie anmmred by Article 1029, ulth respect to a felony, and Article 1065, with reapeat to misdemanor camtag and It appears to me 14 cents per mile In felow ea8tt, with 8 cents additional for each prirrontr, la the muImua allowable under the statute." Y!hIadep8rtaent haa ruled relative to your first question and a copy of such rulirq, Opinion No. O-106, dated January 18, 1939, le htrenith tncloaed. Under the facts first above state, It Is our opinion that the aonatable is not tntlthd to any arrest fee. Article 1065, Code of Criminal RPocedure, In part provldear Honorable I.& Xand, Page 2 (COPY) o-7342 "!l!he following gees shall be allowed the sheriff, or other peace officer preforming the same services In mirrdaeeanorcases, to be taxed against the defendant on convlctlonr " . , l . . . . . “5. Par each oommitment or relea88, one dollar. * I( . l . . . . . . In vftn of your irrtt qut8tIon and OUT answer given above, we coluldtr only In your 8ttoad queation.whethtrthe cormtable In such aaae is entitled to a aomaitment 8nd ml8a8e fee- PI .oplnlon Xo. O-m, approved October 24, 1940, this depsrt- meat held that the‘constableIs antitled to 41.00 for txeautlng each -'lid COIRd~t hMiSd~83UX'C88~8~, We alu, held in thh oplnlon, that tht oon8table * not entitledto a release r08 unltsa he ha8 the deftndant in hlt 8ctual and legal austtdy It the time the defendant pays his flit and easta or satfaflts. awe by l&.ng It oub %n jail and the con&able then and there relea8es the dafaadant from the fixwe and effect of a jId@yent res$raInln&him. ata.tem %eleaae", conteatplatee a full, fInal a&3 oo@ttt release and disohaqe fYom the ju&mmt rcstrdning the defendant. AtuwtrAngyour rtcond quwtdon, the fact that a prIsonor under legal arrest by a S&&t offlab ia tumtd over to the oonetable to be jailed, denying the oenatablo an arrest fee, would not prohAbit the toatkbllt from being rrllowtd'a preptr aamitment or release fee, d~ujmn.tht facts of the (QOrn BWec w* connot auslreryou? third que8tLon without ~BpeClfiCracts. l%tmtIng the r0rtg0htg ammmr8 Me ~QurrtQotst,:wt art Yw??s very tFu1y APPHWBD NUV 8, 1946 a/ Xmrls Toltr ?Irat Aaslatant Attorney &moral Approved Opinbn Committee By Ir/ByBChainnan