Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1943 )

. .- -
Honorable Ray 'winder
County Attorney
Cooke County
Gainesville, Texas
Dear Sir: OpiniT;JNk O-219
Be: 8 exas peace of-
fioers'havz authority to make
arrests outside of Texas,
.(2) Whether county court has
jurisditition to entertain a
proceeding to enforce forfeit-'
ure of authomobile seized out-
side of ,Texas.
In your recent letter requesting the opinion of the
Attorney General of Texas, y ou outline the following pertinent
facts:
Certain peace officers of Cooke County, Texas, hav-,
ing probable cause for searching an au&amnbll8 believed by
them to be unlawfully transportina,intoxicating liquor in and
through Cooke County, a fldry area," sighted the automobile
being driven in Cooke County. The officers, in their pursuit,
followed the automobile out of Cooke County, across the State
line, and into the State of Oklahoma, where they were success
ful in stopping the automobile. Upon searching the vehicle
in Oklahoma a large quantity of intoxicating liqour was found,
The driver was arrested by the Texas officers, and, together
with the amtomobile and liqunr, returned to Cooke County. The
automobile, though moving from Texas to Oklahoma with planetary
speed, as reflected In your letter was kept in view of the
pursuing Texas officers, the view being sufficiently close
enough at times to permit the lodging of several bullets in
the rear end of the fleeing vehicle from the well-aimed gun
of the Texas officers. Upon his return to Cooke County, the
driver of the automobile, referred to in your letter as "a
negro named 'ackson," voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to
L --
Honorable Ray Winder, page 2 05199
the charge of unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor
in Cooke County. Based upon the forgoing facts, you submit
the following questions:
"First: Did the officers have the right to
arrest-son without warrant?
"Second: Did the officers have the right to
pursue the fugitive into the State of Oklahoma and
arrest him there?
nThird: If the foregoing questions are an-
swered-e negative, does the County Court of
Cooke County have, proper jurisdiction to proceed
under Art. 1, Sec. /$+ of the Texas State Liquor Con-
.trol Act to enforce forfeiture of the automobile
driven by the fugitive, in view of his final con-
vistion upon the charge of unlawfully transporting
liqour?"
The answer to your first two questions must nes%s-
sarily depend upon the laws of Oklahoma, which laws :,ecannot
be called .upon to construe.
"An offense against the law is the justifi-
cation for an arrest, and since the laws of one
sovereignty have no extra jurisdictional operation,
an offense against the laws of one state do not au-
thorize sn arrest therefor in another state, except
when and as authorized by the laws of the latter
state, as the legality of an arrest depends on the
law of the state where it is made." Volume 6,
Corpus Juris Qecundum, page 609.
In Texas a sheriff's authority to make an arrest is
confined to the limits of his own county. .Llttle v. Rich, 55
Tex. Civ. App. 326, 118 9. W. 1077; Weeks vI State, 132 Tex.
Grim. 524 106 5. w. (2d) 275; Box V. Oliver, (clv. App.) 43
5. W. (2dj 979; Hooper v. Deisher, (Civ. App.) 113 S" W. (2d)
966. A sheriff may not search an automobile in Texas outside
his own county for he has only the authority of a rivate
citizen in such case. Henson v. State, 120 Grim. iiep. 176,
49 s. w. (2d) 463.
In McLean v. Mississippi ex rel Roy, 96 Red. (2d)
741, in which case a writ of certiorari was denied by the
- -
Honorable Ray Winder, page 3 O-5199
Supreme Court of the United States (59 Sup. Ct. 84) it wan
said:
"The state of Mississippi has no power to
extend the authority of its sheriffs into another
state and we will not suppose she has made the
attempt."
In the McLean case, supra, -It waa~held that a re-
covery could not be had on in official bond of a Mississippi
peace officer for events taking place in the State of Tennessee
to which state the Mississippi sheriff took a person arrested
in Louisiana for a crime allegedly committed in Mississippi,
since the officer had neither officer nor color of office as
a Mississippi sheriff while in another state where Mississippi
laws were not of force.
Where we will not attempt to state the law relative
to arrest in Oklahoma your attention is directed to the case
of Sturat v. Mayberry, 195 Okla. 13, 321 P. 491, by the
Supreme Court of Oklahoma, wherein it was held that an ordi-
nary warrant of arrest issued in one state may hot be execut-
ed in another atate, as it has no validity beyond the boundaries
of the state by whose authority it was issued, Beoause of the
fact that this case was decided by the highest court of Okla-
homa it i.8not without_persuegiye Imp&.- 4
From the authorities thus reviewed the general rule
deductibld appears to be that an officer of Texas is without
authority to make an arrest in another state either with or
without a warrant,
To 'say however that an officer of Texas does not
have authority to make an arrest in Oklahoma, it does not nec-
essarily follow that a conviction cannot be had as p re8~yZ.f;
of
such unauthorized arrest and subsequent search and 6eie.W.
This now brings us to your third question as to
whether the county court of Cooke County has jurisdiction to
entertain a proceeding under Article 1 of Section 44 of the
Texas Liqour Control Act to enforce the forfeiture of the
automobile seized by the Texas officer in the State of Okla-
homa.
--
Honorable Ray Winder, page 4 o-5199
Section 44 of Article 1 of our Texas Liqu~ Control
Aot provides in part as follows:
"It is further provided that if any. D D
automobile. e 0 is used for the transportation
of any illicit beverage. . .such vehicle to-
gether with all such beverages. Q *shall be
seized. . .by any peace officer who skall ar-
rest any person in charge there. . .
The statute then continues to outline the procedure to be fol-
lowed in enforcing the forfeiture which results from the auto-
mobile being used in the commission of the unlawful act. See
our Opinion No. O-5021 wherein the procedure for enforcing
such a forfeiture is discussed.
From what has theretofore been said and in view of
our Opinion No* O-5021 and the particular fncts and circum-
stances as outlined in your letter, it is the opinion of this
department that the county court of Cooke County, Texas, has
jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding to enforce the for-
feiture of the particular automobile seized by the Texas of-~
ficers in Oklahoma.
Yours very truly
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
ii+' E. G. Pharr
Assistant
EGPedb/PAM
APPROVED MAY 21, 1943
OERALD c. MANN
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE
BY BWH, CHAIRMAN