TH AL AS AUSTIN. TEXAS December 20, 1949 Hon. Gordon K. Shearer opinion Ro. v-978 Erecutive mreOt0r Texas State Parks Board Re: The authority of the Texas Austin, Texas State Parka Board to desig- nate one of Its regular em- ployees to be also a "roving park keeper," thereby eloth- ing him with regular park keeper powers in addltlon to the regular duties of the employee. Dear Mr. Shearer: You request an opinion on the following question: Does the Texas State Parks Board have au- thorlty to designate one of its regu+r employ- ees to be aleo a "rev park keeper, thereby clothing him with -3% re r park keeperpowers, Including the powers of a peace officer, in addition to the regular duties of such employee? You state the following as the reaaon for your request: "There are times in which certain traveling administrativeemployees of the Texas State Parka Board who are not park keepera, find it necessary to take over temporarilythe operation of a State Park after the realgnatlonof a park keeper and before employment of his successor, or to aaaist a park keeper temporarilyin operatingand caring for a State Park. In connectionwith this, we find it essential that said travelingadmlnistra- tlve employees also have the park keeper powers of a peace officer, and this Is our reason for requesting this opipion." The law does not lightly confer the powers of a peace officer upon an Individual. The authority of a peace Hon. Gordon LShearer, page 2 (V-978) officer must be derived either from the State Constitution or a statute. The ConstitutionIs silent on the matter of keepers of State Parks acting as peace officers. However, the Legislature has conferredupon State Park keepers the powera and authority of a peace officer in Article 6669, V.C.S. The second paragraph of thla Article reada as fol- lows: "It ahall further be the duty of said Board to arrange for or employ a keeper In each of the State Parks under the control of said State Parks Board, who shall be clothed with all the powers and authority of a peace officer of the county, for the purposes of caring for and"proteatlngthe property wlth- in eaid parks. We do not believe that the Board has authority to confer the duties and concomitantpowers of a park keeper upon an employee of the Board who is not in truth and in fact a park keeper. To call an employee a "park keeper" or "roving park keeper," who in fact Is not a park keeper, In an attempt to clothe him wlth the powers -, of a peace officer, however well intended, would probably be viewed by our courts ae an unauthorized,enlargement up- on the terma of Article 6069. The difficultyariser when the employee Is considereda "roving peace officer.' There is no authority either in the.$onatltutlon,approgriatlon bill, or other atatutes for a roving park keeper --much less for one with powers of a peace officer. On the other hand, there is nothing in the stat- ute ,that denies that a regular employee of the Park Board may serve as park keeper so long as he is in fact a park keeper. While we do not wish to construe the statute too strictly, yet, keeping In mind the cautious attitude the law has toward peace officers,a fair constructionwould give the powers of a.peace officer to the man in charge of a park, whether he is the regular keeper or someone sent by the Board to act as keeper, there being no keep- er. Anyone not in charge of the Park could not be con- sidered a keeper, and therefore could not have the powsr of a peace officer. The legislativeintent, It would seem, Is to have each State Park in the charge of some- one with powers of a peace officer. To carry out this Intent, the Board may employ someone as a regular park keeper. If this keeper for any reason ceases to act aa such, then, in order to carry out the intent of the -. Bon. Gordon &Shearer, Page 3 (V-978) Legislature, _ the ..Board must at least “arrange ._ -..for”,-If not employ, ano%ner ppson to carry on tne dutzes of keeper. Arrsllge for may well include the designation of another employee to act as keeper. While thus tem- porarily acting as keeper, he would, of course, have the powers of a peace officer. It 1s our opinion that while the regular em- ployee may not be considereda ‘roving park keeper--peace officer: yet the Board may designate one of Its regular employees as a park keeper of some specific park whenever the regular keeper of that park is not able to act as keeper. That the efficiency of your departmentwould be increased by ‘clothingemployeea other than regularly de- signated keepers with continuouspolice powers Is a mat- ter which might be addressed to the considerationof the Legislature. The Texas State Parks Board may appoint one of its regular employees as a temporary park keeper to serve as such until a regular keeper Is able to take charge of the park. The Board has no authority under existing statutes tomdesignate anyone, including one of its regular employees,aa a park keeper who Is not assigned to any park. Yours very truly, ATTORNEY GFNERAL OF TEXAS BY MPH:eb:gw APPROVED UFIRST ASSISTART ATTORIVEXGJ3BERAL