Town of Highland Park v. Tiffany Renee McCullers, Individually and for the Benefit of Calvin Marcus McCullers and Calvin Bennett McCullers and ANF of C.J., Minor, And Sonya Hoskins, 05-19-01431-CV

Town of Highland Park coordinated off-duty police officers to provide private security at a single resident’s property; residents paid officers and Town could decline requests.
Officer Tiffany McCullers (off-duty) was serving in that private-security role when she was killed; her family sued the Town.
The appellate majority treated Town’s coordination as "police protection" (a governmental function) and invoked municipal immunity; Chief Justice Burns dissented.
Record evidence: coordination was discretionary, arranged as a courtesy, sometimes handled by officers while on duty, and Town would refer residents to private security firms if officers were unavailable.
The dissent emphasizes the governing test (Wasson factors) and argues Town acted for private loss-prevention, not on the State’s behalf; therefore immunity should not bar the suit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Town’s coordination of private security is a governmental "police protection" function under §101.0215 and caselaw	Coordination was discretionary, served a private resident’s loss-prevention needs, and is proprietary, so no immunity	Coordination is related to police protection because it uses peace officers, so it is governmental and immune	Dissent: coordination is proprietary (not police protection); immunity should not apply and suit should proceed
Whether assignment of peace officers (off-duty) converts the service into governmental action	Off-duty status and payment by resident show a private, proprietary activity	Use of licensed peace officers and potential to become on-duty supports governmental character	Dissent: merely being a peace officer or potential activation to on-duty does not transform a privately commissioned guard task into governmental action
Proper analytical framework for immunity when statute is silent (Wasson factors)	Apply Wasson factors: discretionary, privately beneficial, not acting for State, not necessary to municipal statutory function — supports proprietary finding	Town and majority treat coordination as within the scope of a listed governmental category (police protection) without granular analysis	Dissent: Wasson factors favor proprietary classification; in summary-judgment posture, resolve doubts for jurisdiction and affirm trial court

Wasson Interests, Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, 489 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. 2016) (municipal immunity extends only as far as the State’s; framework for governmental vs. proprietary functions)
Wasson Interests, Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, 559 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2018) (factors for determining whether activity is governmental or proprietary)
Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (distinguishing governmental and proprietary municipal functions)
Gates v. City of Dallas, 704 S.W.2d 737 (Tex. 1986) (definition of governmental functions)
Martinez v. City of San Antonio, 220 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006) (program run by police department held governmental where core purpose was crime prevention for the public)
City of Dallas v. Reata Constr. Corp., 83 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002) (legislative reclassification of categories can recharacterize related city actions)
City of Houston v. Shilling, 240 S.W.2d 1010 (Tex. 1951) (not all operations that make a municipal function possible are themselves governmental)
CKJ Trucking, L.P. v. City of Honey Grove, 581 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019) (evaluate whether officer’s actions furthered law enforcement to trigger immunity)
Guillory v. Port of Houston Auth., 845 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1993) (analysis of political subdivision acting in governmental capacity)