Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

May 6, 1974
The Honorable J. Albert Dickie Opinion No. H- 296
County Attorney, Coryell County
Gatesville, Texas 76528 Re: Validity of contracts made
between the city of Copperas
Cove and Central Texas
Council of Governments under
Interlocal Cooperation Act
Article 4413 (32c), V. T. C. S.
Dear Mr. Dickie:
You have asked our opinion concerning the validity of certain
contracts entered into between the city of,(=opperas Cove and the Central
Texas Council of Governments (CTCOG) and, parenthetically, a similar
contract between Coryell County and the Central Texas Council of Govern-
ments.
The purpose and effect of these contracts is to provide a cooperative
law enforcement effort in apprehending and arresting drunken drivers in
the area. Your concern is that pursuant to the agreement peace officers
commissioned by the city of Copperas Cove are making arrests outside
the city limits.
The CTCOG has furnished us with a copy of a revised contract
between the CTCOG and various counties and cities. An important difference
between the contracts is that the latter contract gives the CTCOG authority
to provide coordination only and provides no power for the Council to
control law enforcement activities. Our comments are directed exclusively
to the latter agreement.
We believe that this contract, and the activities of the respective
political subdivisions pursuant thereto, is valid and authorized. Its
p. 1376
The Honorable J. Albert Dickie page 2 (H-296)
statutory basis is Article 4413 (32c), V. T. C. S. , known as The Interlocal
Cooperation Act. Section 4 (a) of this statute provides as follows, with
emphasis added:
“Any local government may contract or agree with
one or more local governments toperform govern-
mental functions and services under terms of this
Act. ”
Section 3 (1) of the Act defines “local government” as follows:
” ‘local’governmentf means a county; a home rule
city or a city, village, or town organized under the
general laws of this state; a special district; a school
district; a junior college district; any other legally
constituted political subdivision of the state; or a
combination of political subdivisions. ” (emphasis
wadded)
Section 3 (2) defines “governmental functions and services” to
include “police~protection and detention services. ”
The Central Texas Council~of Governments is a, “regional planning
commission” authorized and established under Article lOllm, V. T. C. S.
Section 4 (a) of this Act provides that “a Regional Planning Commission
shall be a political subdivision of this State.” thus qualifying it as a
“local government” under $ 3(l) of 4413 (32~).
Your concern over the extraterritorial arrests made by officers
commissioned by the city of Copperas Cove is answered by Green v.
State, 490 S.W.2d 826 (Tex. Crim. 1973) which involved a conviction
for driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated.
The court upheld the conviction stating:
“The appellant does not contend that the officer
was without probable cause to arrest him within the
city limits of Winnsboro, but asserts that the officer
did not have the authority to make the arrest outside
the city limits of Winnsboro. A city police officer
p. 1377
The Honorable J. Albert Dickie page 3 (H-296)
is a peace officer. Article 2.12, V.A. C. C. P. As a
peace officer he is authorized to make arrests outside
the city limits where he serves. See Article 14. 01 (b),
V.A. C. C. P. ; Article 803, Vernon’s Ann. P. C. ;
Article 6701d, Sec. 153, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. and
Buse v. State, 435 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. Cr. App. 1968);
Milligan v. State, 343 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. Cr. App.
1969); Gonzalez v. State, 320 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. Cr.
App. 1959); Watson v. State, 466 S.W.2d 783 (Tex.
Cr. App. 1971); Winfield v. State, 163 Tex. Cr. 445,
293 S.W.2d 765 (1955) and Hurley v. State, 155 Tex.
Cr. R. 315, 234 S.W.2d 1006 (1950).” (490 S.W. 2d
.at 827).
Even if the above authorities are given a limited and carefully circum-
scribed interpretation; we believe the arrests are substantially authorized
by the recent amendment to Article 999b, V. T. C. S., Acts 1973, 63rd Leg.,
ch. 587, p. 1626. providing:
“Sec.. 2a. A county or municipality may by
resolution or order of its governing body enter into
an agreenxnt with any neighboring municipality or
contiguous county to form a mutual aid law enforce-
ment task force to cooperate in the investigation of
criminal activity and enforcement of the laws of this
state. Peace officers employed by counties or
municipalities entering into such agreements shall
have only such additional investigative authority
throughout the region as may be set.forth in the
agreement. The counties or municipalities shall
provide for compensation of peace officers involved
in thenactivities of a mutual aid law enforcement
task force, which provision for compensation shall
be contained in the agreement.
‘!A law enforcement officer employed by a
county or municipality covered by an agreement
p. 1378
The Honorable J. Albert Dickie page 4 (H-296)
authorized by this section may make arrests outside
the county or municipality in which he is employed,
but within the area covered by the agreement, pro-
vided however, that the law enforcement agencies
within such county or municipality shall be notified
of such arrest without delay. Such notified agency
shall make available the notice of such arrest in the
same manner as if said arrest were made by a member
of the law enforcement agency of said county or muni-
cipality. ”
Article 14.01 (b), Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, cited in
the Green case, provides that “a peace officer may arrest an offender
without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within
his view. ”
SUMMARY
Arrests made by peace officers commissioned
by the city of Copperas Cove pursuant to contract
between the city and Central Texas Council of Govern-
ments are not unconstitutional and are authorized by
statute.
Very truly yours,
Attorney General of Texas
p. 1379
The Honorable J. Albert Dickie page 5 (~-296)
DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman
Opinion Committee
p. 1380