Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas Ocwber 3, 1984 JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
Suoremo Court Suildinq P. 0. BOX 1254S Telecopier Austin. TX. 78711. 254S Telex QlM87ClM7 5121475.2501 [51214750266] - Honorable Tim Curry Tarrant County Courthouse Criminal District Attorney Fort Worth, Texas 76102 bond board may number of bail bond Re: Whether a county bail Opinion No. JM-206 granted in that county limit licenses Dear Mr. Curry: 714 Jackson. Suite 700 Dallas. TX. 75202.4506 214i742.W44
You ask whether article 2372p-3, V.T.C.S.. grants the Tarrant
County Bail Bond I;oard authority the number of bail bond 4524 Alberta Ave.. Suite 180 El Paso. TX. 79905-2793 [91515353484] section S(f) (1) gr’ants county bail bond boards supervise and regul.ate all phases of the bonding business,” in Tarr,iut County. You inform us that the act, vhich has been “to
read to include tlw power to promulgate rules limiting licenses granted by the board. The quoted language was added to 2372p-3 in 1981 and, you suggest, may be the legislative response to Bexar I:ounty Bail Bond Board v. Deckard, 604 S.W.2d 214 (Tex. Civ. App. - .;an Antonio 1980. no writ). In Deckard, the court of civil appeals ruled that a bail bond board may not Impose require- 806 Broadway, Suits 312 ments on applicanc:rl in addition to those prescribed by Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 legislature. Despite the coincidence case and KW747-5238 seemingly broad l.egislative reaction it. you contend that
stronger argument that the Tarrant County Bail Bond Board 4309 N. Tenth. Suite B vithout authority to limit the number of licenses issues. We agree McAlla”. TX. 78501-1885 with your conclusion and answer your question accordingly. 5,2/882-4547
Pursuant :lts police pover, legislature may properly 200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 San Antonio. TX. 782052797 delegate State Board of Registration cancel grant, to to a boari: or agency the power regulating for Professional En ineers, 483 S.W.Zd 275 businesses and occupations. refuse, Trimble v. revoke, or
(Tex. Civ. App. - Elert. denied, 412 U.S. 920 Such .power , however, may only be exercised as An Equal Opportunityl granted by statute or necessarily Implied therefrom. Attifmative Action EmPloYel
Stauffer v. City of San Antonio, 344 S.W.2d 158 (Tex. 1961). Thus, this office has p;eviously concluded in pursuit of its lawful duties, a bail bond board may investigate an applicant’s reputation for honesty, truthtulness. fair dealing, and competency. Attorney General Opinion H-$41 (1974). However, in enacting any necessary rules or regulations, a licensing “may not act contrary to but only consistent with. and in furtherance of, the expressed statutory *2 Ronorable Tim Curry - Page 2 American Liberty Insurance Co. v. Ransau, 481 S.W.2d 793,
purposes.” (Tex. 1972). Whethex-a bail bond board may limit 796-97
licensees in a county, therefore, must be determined by reference statute. 3!372p-3 reveals no provision
A review of article granting the power sought by the Tarrant County Bail Bond Board. Nor, As noted we believe, can such authority be implied from the act.
above, article 2372p-3 was :;ignificantly amended in 1981. See Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 312!, at 875. The amendments were Tf ered primarily to facilitate the ,:ollection of unpaid bond forfeitures, require more detailed information concerning an applicant’s financial background, to require adec,t.ate amounts of cash or property surety, and to delineate “the manrmsr in which a license may be refused, suspended, revoked, or cancelled.” Bill Analysis to Senate Bill No.
727, prepared for House C,xmuittee on Criminal Jurisprudence, 67th Leg., 1981. filed in Bill File to Senate Bill No. 727, Legislative Reference Library. Consequently, is unmistakably clear sought to “strengthen of County Bail Bond, Boards so they may regulate the bail bond business more properly.” & It is equally apparent, however, in accomplishing did not intend to bestov on these entities the unbridled discretion to grant or refuse applications on grounds not found 2372p-3. 2372p-3 requires the bail bond board “to issue to those applicants who qualify under the terms of this Act.” Sec.
5 (0 In addition, if “the board is satisfied that no grounds exist on which to refuse the application, the board shall enter an order tentatively approving the application,” provided the applicant the act. Sec. subsequently satisfies the security requirements of Section 9(a). meanwhILe, provides that a board may only deny a 6(e). license “to any person who t,as not complied with the requirements of this Act for applying ,an original or renewal license.” It obvious, then, that althou:I:r the county bail bond board is charged with the duty of regulating “all phases of the bonding business,” board is not accorded authcrity to establish a ceiling on the number it shall issue.
Since no limitation on the number of bail bond authorized by article 2372p-3, any attempt by the Tarrant County Eail Bond Board to engraft such a limitation on the act by rule would fall squarely within the prohibition the Deckard decision.
rule-making power of the b:r:ll bond board under the act was strictly construed by the court of civil appeals in that case and, in our opinion, remains unaffected hy the 1981 amendments to the statute:
The rule-making pqxrer delegated to the board under the statute is rurely the power to make rules Eonorable Tim Curry - Page 3
relating the: making and setting of bail bonds. . . . has carefully set out the
requirements whict; must be met by applicanta bail bond licencws. . . . The function
bail bond board :LII to administer the statute. not to amend it. at Least in the absence of statutory language 1ndicati.r.g a legislative intent should hz.ve the power to add
qualifications enumerated by the legislature.
Deckard. supra at 217.
We are reminded that I:he policy of this state with regard to the bail bond business
to provide reasor.rble regulation to the end that the right of bai:. be preserved and implemented by lust and practicsJ procedures governing the giving or making of bail bond and other security guarantee appeara-Ice of the accused. (Emphasis added).
V.T.C.S. art. 2372p-3, 81. The act provides no standard upon which to base limitation contraplated by the Tarrant County Bail Bond Board. Without direction from the statute. the board might be encouraged to regulate ar'~Ltrarily, a practice has taken pains to eliminatc~. Moreover, conceivable that a predetermined limit on the number of bail bond licenses issued would erode, rather than preserve:, the right of bail.
SUMMARY 2372~4, V.T.C.S.. does not authorize
the Tarrant County Bail Bond Board to
number bail bc1r.d licensees in Tarrant County.
Jr&
HATTOX Attorney General of Texas TOM GREEN
First Assistant AttONey Gweral
Iionorable Tim Curry - Page 1 (JM-206)
DAVID R. RICRARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COHMIlTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
David Brooks
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton
P.