Could a Texas sheriff refuse to enter a failure-to-appear or probation-revocation warrant into the statewide crime computer?

Texas AG Opinion JM-243: Sheriff Warrant Computer Entry

Plain-English summary

Jack County asked whether its sheriff could refuse to enter properly issued failure-to-appear and probation-revocation warrants into the Texas Crime Information Center computer. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0243.pdf

JM-243 concluded that a county sheriff had discretion to withhold warrants from the statewide computer system when entry was not justified in the sheriff's reasonable judgment. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0243.pdf

The opinion focused on the system's operating rule that an entering agency promised to retrieve the prisoner "from anywhere in the state." It said a sheriff lacking available personnel for that task could decide not to enter the person's name in the first instance. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0243.pdf

That discretion did not erase the sheriff's duty after receiving a capias. JM-243 said the sheriff had to make "a reasonable effort to execute such writ" and could be fined for neglecting to execute an arrest warrant or other legal process. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0243.pdf

The prosecuting attorney could instead have the court clerk issue the capias directly to the sheriff of another county where the wanted person was known to be, without using the statewide computer. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0243.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1984. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the sheriff have to enter every county warrant into the statewide computer?

No. JM-243's summary stated that a county sheriff "has discretion to withhold entry of warrants into a statewide computer system." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0243.pdf

Why did prisoner retrieval matter?

The DPS operating manual required an entering law-enforcement agency to promise that it would retrieve the prisoner from anywhere in Texas. The opinion treated a lack of available retrieval personnel as a reason not to enter the warrant. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0243.pdf

Did article 23.09 require computer entry?

No. JM-243 said article 23.09 allowed capiases to be issued to as many counties as the district or county attorney directed, but did not require entry in the Texas Crime Information Center. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0243.pdf

Could the warrant be sent directly to another county?

Yes. The opinion said the clerk could issue the capias to the sheriff of the county where the wanted person was known to be, "without the necessity of making any entry" in the computer. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0243.pdf

Background and statutory framework

The Texas Crime Information Center was maintained by DPS to collect outstanding Texas warrants and facilitate statewide arrests. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0243.pdf

Articles 4413(19) and 4413(21) supported cooperation between DPS, sheriffs, and local peace officers and authorized a sheriff's participation under DPS regulations. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0243.pdf

Code of Criminal Procedure article 23.09 governed issuance of capiases to multiple counties. Articles 2.13 and 2.16, together with articles 6866 and 6873, addressed the sheriff's duty and potential penalty concerning execution of legal process. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0243.pdf

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0243
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0243.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

The Attorney General of Texas

December 13, 1984

Honorable Michael G. Mask
County Attorney
3rd Floor
Jack County Courthouse
Jacksboro, Texas 76056

Opinion No. JM-243

Re: Whether a sheriff has discretion to refuse to enter a probation revocation warrant in a state computer under article 23.09, Code of Criminal Procedure

Dear Mr. Mask:

You have asked whether a county sheriff has discretion to refuse to enter into the state computer system arrest warrants which have been properly issued by the county court against defendants for failure to appear or for probation revocation. The computer system in question is the Texas Crime Information Center computer [hereinafter TCIC], which is maintained by the Texas Department of Public Safety [hereinafter DPS] for the collection of outstanding warrants issued by Texas officials and which facilitates the arrest of wanted persons statewide. You have specifically asked whether article 23.09 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has any bearing on the scope of the sheriff's discretion to refuse entry of Jack County warrants in the TCIC. Article 23.09 of the Code of Criminal Procedure simply states: "Capiases for a defendant may be issued to as many counties as the district or county attorney may direct."

The director of the DPS has authority to formulate plans and means of cooperating with sheriffs and local peace officers throughout Texas for the apprehension of criminals. V.T.C.S. art. 4413(21). Sheriffs and constables are made "associate members" of the DPS for purposes of any rights and privileges which may be granted to such officers by such state agency. V.T.C.S. art. 4413(19). We believe that a sheriff's authority to subscribe to the TCIC pursuant to DPS regulations is authorized under the statutes.

In our opinion, if the sheriff does not have the available personnel to assume custody of a person found outside his county, the sheriff would have authority in the first instance not to enter such person's name in the system. Pursuant to the operating manual issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety, any entry into the TCIC by a law enforcement agency must be accompanied by the promise that such agency will retrieve a prisoner from anywhere in the state.

We do not believe that a Texas county sheriff can be compelled to enter warrants in the TCIC if, in his reasonable discretion, making such entries is not justified under the circumstances. Article 23.09 simply provides that a capias may be directed to the arresting law enforcement officials of any county designated by the prosecuting attorney. Once a capias comes into the hands of a sheriff, he is under an obligation to make a reasonable effort to execute such writ. V.T.C.S. arts. 6866, 6873; Code Crim. Proc. art. 2.13. Under article 2.16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a county sheriff may be fined up to $200 for failing "from neglect" to execute an arrest warrant or other legal process.

If the prosecuting attorney wishes to have an arrest warrant delivered to another county in which a wanted person is known to be found, the clerk of the court may issue such capias to the county sheriff of such county pursuant to article 23.09 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without the necessity of making any entry in the TCIC computer system.

SUMMARY

A county sheriff has discretion to withhold entry of warrants into a statewide computer system.

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General

DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Tony Guillory
Jim Moellinger
Jennifer Riggs
Nancy Sutton