On January 27, 2025, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued Opinion No. KP-0479, addressing questions raised by Fayette County Auditor Cindy Havelka about the legal authority of the Fayette County Sheriff’s Office (FCSO) to enter into contracts for off-duty security work. The opinion was requested following concerns that the Sheriff’s Office had engaged in contracts for off-duty law enforcement services without the approval of the Fayette County Commissioners Court.
The legal dispute centers on whether the Sheriff’s Office has the independent authority to enter into these contracts, whether county resources were used inappropriately, and whether such agreements should have required formal approval from the county’s governing body.
Key Issues in the Request for an Opinion
In an April 26, 2024, letter to the Attorney General’s Office, Auditor Cindy Havelka outlined multiple concerns regarding the FCSO’s engagement in off-duty security work. She requested clarification on the following legal questions:
1. Can the Sheriff’s Office enter into a contract for off-duty deputies to patrol a city that lacks a municipal police department?
• In this case, deputies would use county-issued patrol vehicles and equipment, but the city would pay the deputies directly for their services.
• This question was prompted by a specific agreement between the City of Round Top and FCSO, where deputies were hired to patrol three nights a week (Thursday, Friday, and Saturday) from 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.
• The contract, worth $36,000 annually, was never presented to the Commissioners Court for approval.
2. Can the Sheriff’s Office enter into contracts with private businesses or individuals for off-duty security services?
• Havelka noted that FCSO has entered into multiple contracts directly with private entities, raising concerns about whether this falls under the Sheriff’s independent authority or requires county oversight.
3. Is it permissible for off-duty deputies to work at a facility within the county every night for nearly a decade, even when there is no large gathering of people present?
• This referred to a long-standing security arrangement where an FCSO deputy was stationed at a facility in Fayette County for 12–14 hours every night.
• The legal question was whether this type of security service requires county approval, given that it was not related to a mass gathering.
4. Can the Sheriff’s Office provide off-duty deputies to work at school sporting events, with the school district paying the deputies directly?
• Since school districts are government entities, Havelka questioned whether such contracts must be made with the Commissioners Court rather than directly with deputies.
Attorney General’s Findings in KP-0479
Paxton’s five-page opinion concluded that:
• The Commissioners Court has exclusive authority to enter contracts involving “county business.”
• Individual deputies may work private security jobs outside of their county employment, but the Sheriff’s Office itself cannot enter into agreements without proper authorization.
• School districts, as independent governmental entities, may contract directly with deputies for private security, meaning such agreements do not necessarily require Commissioners Court approval.
• There is no legal requirement that off-duty security services be provided only in cases of mass gatherings.
Paxton’s ruling did not determine the legality of any specific contracts, nor did it rule on whether existing agreements had been properly executed. Instead, it provided general legal principles applicable to such arrangements.
Legal and Practical Implications of KP-0479
1. Commissioners Court’s Authority Over County Contracts
The Attorney General’s ruling reaffirmed that contracts involving county business must be approved by the Commissioners Court.
• If the use of county-issued vehicles and equipment is involved, then these contracts may be considered county business.
• If deputies are simply working off-duty security jobs without using county resources, then the contracts are likely private agreements that do not require county approval.
2. School Districts and Private Security Contracts
The ruling made clear that school districts can directly contract with law enforcement officers for private security at events like sporting games.
• This means deputies can be paid directly by schools for working at games, rather than requiring an agreement between the school district and the Commissioners Court.
3. Use of County Equipment for Off-Duty Security
A major unresolved issue is whether deputies using county patrol vehicles and other equipment while working off-duty constitutes an inappropriate use of public resources.
• State law prohibits public officials from using government property for personal gain.
• Liability concerns also arise—if an off-duty deputy in a county vehicle were involved in an accident, who would be responsible?
• While Paxton’s opinion did not directly rule on this, it remains a critical issue that may require further legal review.
Next Steps for Fayette County Officials
Following KP-0479, the Fayette County Commissioners Court, Sheriff’s Office, and Auditor’s Office may need to take several actions:
1. Review and Audit Past Contracts – The Commissioners Court may investigate whether any existing agreements require approval or modification.
2. Establish Clearer Policies – Fayette County officials may develop formal policies regarding off-duty law enforcement work.
3. Assess County Resource Usage – The use of county vehicles and equipment in off-duty work may require stricter guidelines.
4. Legal Clarifications – Additional legal opinions or court rulings may be sought to determine whether any past agreements violated state law.
Conclusion
Attorney General Paxton’s KP-0479 opinion has clarified the legal boundaries regarding off-duty security contracts but leaves some questions unanswered.
• The Fayette County Auditor’s concerns about the Sheriff’s Office engaging in unauthorized contracts have legal merit, as only the Commissioners Court can approve contracts involving county business.
• However, the Sheriff’s Office maintains that these were private agreements between deputies and businesses, not county contracts.
• Key issues remain unresolved, particularly whether the use of county vehicles and equipment in off-duty security work was lawful.
As Fayette County officials grapple with the implications of this ruling, new policies may be needed to ensure compliance with state law while allowing deputies to continue working off-duty security jobs.
Disclaimer
The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented.
Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.
A Couple of Our Other Reads
You may be interested in our publishing on the 772 arrest notifications TCOLE received in 2024..
Or you may find our publishing on a newly elected Texas sheriff’s battle with TCOLE over the accuracy of his personal history statement of interest.
Follow Us on Social Media
If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.
FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News