Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1976 )

March 16, 1976
The Honorable Wayne N. Whatley Opinion No. ~-796
Executive Director
Texas Board of Private Investi- Re: Whether state land
gators 6 Private Security local law enforcement
Agencies agencies may establish
P. 0. Box 13509, 'Capitol,Station training programs for
Austin, Texas 78711 private security personnel.
Dear Mr. Whatley:
You have requested our opinion regarding recent amend-
ments to the Private Investigators and Private Security
Agencies Act, article 4413(29bb), V.T.C.S. Specifically,
you ask:
1. Does the [Texas] Board [of Private
Investigators and Private Security
~Agenciesl have authority to establish
training programs in state and local
law enforcement agencies for persons
in the employ of profit making busi-
nesses, i.e. private security personnel?
2. Do local and state law enforcement
agencies have authority to accept and
charge a fee for training persons in the
employ of profit making ,businesses,i.e.
private security personnel?
Section 20(a) of the Act now provides:
The board shall establish training
programs to be conducted by agencies and
institutions approved by the board. The
board may approve training programs con-
ducted by licensees if the licensees offer
the courses listed in Subsection (b) of
this section, and if the instructors of
o. 3360
..
The Honorable Wayne N. Whatley - page 2 W-796)
the training program are qualified instructors
approved by the board. The board shall
approve a training program conducted by the
security department of a private business to
train its own personnel, without regard to
its curriculum, if it is adequate for the
business' security purposes.
Section 20(f) provides in pertinent part:
The board may not issue a security
officer commission to an applicant
employed by the security department
of a private business unless the
applicant submits evidence satisfac-
tory to the board that:
(1) he has completed an approved
training course conducted by the
security department of the business;
. . . .
The Act establishes two distinct classes of private
security personnel: (1) individuals employed by security
services contractors and (2) those employed in the security
departments of private businesses. The former engage in the
business of providing security services for other persons:
the latter do not offer or provide security services to any
other person. Sets. 2(9), 2(10), 2(13). Section 20(a)
clearly permits the Board to establish training programs for
individuals employed by a security services contractor.
Such programs need only be conducted "by agencies and insti-
tutions approved by the board." There would seem to.be
nothing to prevent state and local law enforcement agencies
from qualifying for such Board approval, if the operation of
such programs is otherwise consistent with their statutory
authority. But section 20(f), by requiring that a commis-
sion may not be issued to an employee of the security depart-
ment of a private business unless the employee has completed
"an approved training course conducted by the security
department of the business" requires the conclusion, in our
opinion, that the Board may not permit law enforcement
D. 3361
..
.
The Honorable Wayne N. Whatley - page 3 (H-796)
agencies to conduct programs for the purpose of training
employees of the security department of a private business.
You also ask whether state and local law enforcement
agencies may charge a fee for training persons employed by a
security services contractor. The Act provides no specific
authority for the imposition of such fees. As to state
agencies, we believe the answer is clear. It is well estab-
lished that, unless a fee is provided by law for an official
service required to be performed and the amount fixed by
law, none can lawfully be charsed. Attornev General Oninions
H-669 (1975), H-443 (i974). See Nueces County v. Currington,
162 S.W.Zd 687, 668 (Tex.Sup.T42);Calla v.Cit of
Rockdale, 246 S.W. 654, 655 (Tex.Sup.11922). -.TiSeSrd
Wit to
sheriffs, a similar result obtains. In the absence of some
enactment providing for remuneration for a particular service,
no fee mav be demanded therefor. 52 Tex.Jur.Zd: Sheriffs.
Constables, and Marshals 939. See Templeton v..Ryburn, 59
Tex. 209 (1883).
A home rule city, on the other hand, may exercise any
power not denied it by the Constitution or by statute, so
lona as the Dower is incornorated in the citv charter. V.T.C.S.
art: 1176; Janus Films, & v.
s.w.2a 597 (Tex Civ. App.
at 358 s.w.2a 589). You have not requested our opinion as to
any particular city, and we therefore conclude that whether
a city law enforcement agency may charge a fee for training
persons employed by a security services contractor depends
upon the terms of the city's charter.
SUMMARY
The Texas Board of Private Investigators
and Private Security Agencies may estab-
lish training programs in state and local
enforcement agencies for individuals
employed by a security services contractor,
but not for the employees of the security
department of a private business. In
p. 3362
The Honorable Wayne N. Whatleyl- page 4 (Hm7g6)
general, law enforcement agencies may not
charge a fee for training private security
personnel, but a city law enforcement agency
may do so if permitted by the terms of the
city's charter.
Very truly yours,
A- JO&L.‘ Ii&-
Attorney General
I/ ~~~~ ~-~ of Texas
APPROVED:
jwb
D. 3363