Can a Texas county auditor inspect inmates' property held in the county jail?

Plain-English summary

The Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney asked the Attorney General whether the county auditor could access inmates' noncash property stored at the county jail and compare it against the sheriff's property receipts. The sheriff had refused the auditor's request, taking the position that her authority extended only to records of money, not to records of other kinds of property. The question came down to how to read two provisions of the Local Government Code: section 112.006, which gives a county auditor "general oversight of the books and records" of any officer authorized to receive or collect "money or other property" for the county, and section 115.001(1), which gives the auditor "continual access" to and the duty to examine "the books, accounts, reports, vouchers, and other records of any officer."

The Attorney General rejected the sheriff's narrower reading. Statutes are interpreted according to the plain meaning of their text, and courts are reluctant to read in words that are not there. Section 112.006 expressly covers officers who collect "other property," not just money, so it was unlikely the Legislature meant to deny auditors access to records of noncash property. As a practical matter, counties hold large amounts of real estate, equipment, and other noncash property; an auditor confined to money records could not truly know the county's financial condition or meet the statutory duty to report that condition to the commissioners court. For those reasons, a court would likely find that sections 112.006 and 115.001 let an auditor examine records of noncash property, including inmate property receipts in the sheriff's possession.

The opinion drew one line and added one limit. A county officer may sometimes deny an auditor access: a 1970 AG opinion concluded an auditor could not comb a sheriff's records to check whether prisoners were released early, because that concerned the sheriff's confinement duty, not county finances. But inmate property receipts are records of property held by the sheriff, the kind of record a prior opinion said an auditor may examine. And the auditor's "continual access" is not immediate, unlimited access; it does not strip the officer of reasonable control over the records, though the officer may not unreasonably withhold them. The bottom line: the auditor may access inmate property to investigate the correctness of the receipts, subject to the sheriff's reasonable conditions. In a footnote the opinion declined to address possible constitutional implications of accessing inmate property, expressing no opinion on an inmate's protected interest in property turned over to the sheriff.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2013. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later Attorney General 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.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

County auditors (as the opinion described it): The opinion concluded that a court would likely read sections 112.006 and 115.001 to authorize the auditor to access inmates' noncash property and the receipts to investigate their correctness, not just records relating to money. It tied that to the auditor's duty to report the county's financial condition to the commissioners court, since limiting the auditor to money records could leave large amounts of county property unexamined.

Sheriffs and jail administrators (as the opinion described it): The opinion held that the sheriff could not categorically refuse access on the theory that the auditor reaches money records only, but it preserved the sheriff's "reasonable conditions" on access and recognized that "continual access" does not give the auditor immediate or unlimited entry, nor divest the officer of reasonable control over the records.

Inmates (as the opinion described it): The opinion expressly declined to decide whether accessing inmate property might implicate an inmate's constitutional rights, and expressed no opinion on the extent of any protected interest in property turned over to the sheriff. It noted that, to the extent such interests exist, the sheriff's reasonable discretion to withhold access could help protect them.

Common questions

Can a Texas county auditor look at an inmate's property held at the jail?
The opinion concluded a court would likely find the auditor may access the inmate property to check the property receipts for accuracy, because Local Government Code sections 112.006 and 115.001 reach records of noncash property, subject to the sheriff's reasonable conditions.

Did the auditor's authority stop at money records?
No. The opinion read section 112.006 to cover officers who receive or collect "money or other property," so it would not limit the auditor to money records. It said courts are reluctant to add words like "money only" that the statute does not contain.

Could the sheriff put any limits on the auditor's access?
Yes. The opinion explained that "continual access" does not mean immediate and unlimited access and does not divest the officer of reasonable control. The sheriff could impose reasonable conditions, but could not unreasonably withhold the records.

Are there records the auditor cannot examine?
The opinion gave one example from a 1970 AG opinion: an auditor could not examine a sheriff's records to check whether prisoners were released before their sentences ended, because that concerned the sheriff's confinement duty, not the county's finances. Inmate property receipts, by contrast, are records of property the auditor may examine.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion turned on two Local Government Code provisions. Section 112.006(a) gives a county auditor "general oversight of the books and records of a county, district, or state officer authorized or required by law to receive or collect money or other property" for the county. Section 115.001(1) gives the auditor "continual access" to and the duty to "examine and investigate the correctness of" the books, accounts, reports, vouchers, and other records of any officer. The opinion read these against the auditor's statutory reporting duties in sections 114.023-.025 and the interpretive direction in Government Code section 311.021 that courts presume the entire statute is effective and intended to produce a feasible result.

For its method, the opinion relied on City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne (county officials have expressly granted powers plus implied powers necessary to carry them out) and Energy Serv. Co. of Bowie, Inc. v. Superior Snubbing Servs., Inc. (statutes are read by their plain meaning, and courts are reluctant to add words). It distinguished and applied several prior AG opinions on auditor access: M-756 (1970) (auditor could not examine records to check early release of prisoners), H-1185 (1978) (auditor may examine records of property held by the sheriff), and JM-1275 (1990) and WW-154 (1957) (defining the limits of "continual access").

Citations

Cases:

• City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22, 28 (Tex. 2003)
• Energy Serv. Co. of Bowie, Inc. v. Superior Snubbing Servs., Inc., 236 S.W.3d 190, 198-99 (Tex. 2007)

Statutes:

• Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 112.006(a) (West 2008); § 112.006; § 115.001(1); §§ 114.023-.025 (West 2008)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 311.021 (West 2005)

Other authority:

• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. M-756 (1970)
• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. H-1185 (1978)
• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JM-1275 (1990)
• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. WW-154 (1957)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/greg-abbott/ga-1002
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2013/ga1002.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official PDF. Minor extraction artifacts were corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
GREG ABBOTT

April 29, 2013

The Honorable Joe Shannon, Jr. Opinion No. GA-1002
Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney
Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center Re: Whether a county auditor has a right to
401 West Belknap access inmate property in a county jail to
Fort Worth, Texas 76196 compare it with inmate property receipts
(RQ-1096-GA)

Dear Mr. Shannon:

You tell us that the Tarrant County Sheriff receives and stores Tarrant County Jail inmates' property, then lists that property on receipts.[1] You explain that the Tarrant County Auditor has requested to examine the property and the receipts in order to determine whether the receipts are accurate, but the sheriff has refused her request to examine the inmates' noncash property because he contends that the auditor may examine records of money only, not other kinds of property. Request Letter at 1-3. Accordingly, you ask whether the auditor may access the inmates' noncash property and compare it to the property receipts. Id. at 1.

County officials have the powers they are expressly granted by law and implied powers that are necessary to perform the powers expressly granted. See City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22, 28 (Tex. 2003) (describing the powers that the Legislature confers on counties and commissioners courts). You tell us the auditor contends that two laws grant her authority to access inmate property, Local Government Code sections 112.006 and 115.001. Request Letter at 2. Section 112.006 grants a county auditor "general oversight of the books and records of a county, district, or state officer authorized or required by law to receive or collect money or other property that is intended for the use of the county or that belongs to the county." TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 112.006(a) (West 2008). Section 115.001(1) provides that a "county auditor shall have continual access to and shall examine and investigate the correctness of: (1) the books, accounts, reports, vouchers, and other records of any officer." Id. § 115.001(1).

You tell us the sheriff contends that sections 112.006 and 115.001 refer to records and reports having to do with money rather than noncash property. Request Letter at 3-5. In other words, the sheriff interprets section 112.006 to mean that a county auditor has general oversight of the books and records of a county officer who may receive or collect money or other property, except for the books and records pertaining to nonmonetary property. Similarly, the sheriff interprets section 115.001 to mean that an auditor must investigate the correctness of an officer's records, except for records pertaining to nonmonetary property. There are many reasons, however, why a court would likely disagree with this interpretation of sections 112.006 and 115.001. The first and most important reason is that statutes must be interpreted according to the plain meaning of their texts, and courts are reluctant to interpret statutes in a way that effectively adds words to them. Energy Serv. Co. of Bowie, Inc. v. Superior Snubbing Servs., Inc., 236 S.W.3d 190, 198-99 (Tex. 2007). Second, section 112.006 expressly grants auditors oversight of the records of officers who collect noncash property, so it is unlikely that the Legislature intended to deny auditors access to records of officers' noncash property.

In addition, there are practical reasons why a court would not likely find that sections 112.006 and 115.001 grant a county auditor the authority to access records related only to money. For instance, some counties have vast amounts of real estate, equipment, and other noncash property. See, e.g., Tarrant County Auditor's Office, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, (2011), available at http://www.co.tarrant.tx.us/eauditor/lib/eauditor/Tarrant_County_FY11_CAFR.pdf at 44-47 (showing the value of the capital assets of Tarrant County). If county auditors were allowed to access books and records related only to money, they might be unable to truly know the financial condition of their counties. That lack of knowledge would hinder an auditor's ability to regularly report to commissioners courts on the financial condition of the counties, as required by statute. TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 114.023-.025 (West 2008). See also TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 311.021 (West 2005) (requiring that courts assume that the entire statute is effective and the Legislature intended a result feasible of execution). For the foregoing reasons, a court would likely find that sections 112.006 and 115.001 authorize auditors to examine records of noncash property such as inmate property receipts in the possession of the sheriff.

You suggest that the sheriff is concerned that the receipts, like offense reports and jail activity logs, are records related to the sheriff's law enforcement duties and unrelated to the auditor's accounting duties. Request Letter at 3. Indeed, a county officer may deny an auditor access to some kinds of records under some circumstances. An opinion of this office concluded that a county auditor could not examine a sheriff's records to determine whether prisoners were being released before their sentences ended, because that examination concerned the sheriff's failure to perform his statutory duty to confine inmates and had nothing to do with the county auditor's duties to investigate and report on the county's finances. Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. M-756 (1970) at 3. Unlike a sheriff's offense reports and jail activity logs, however, inmate property receipts are records of property held by the sheriff, and a record of property held by the sheriff is a kind of record that this office has concluded an auditor may examine. Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. H-1185 (1978) at 1.

Even so, the auditor's statutory right of "continual access" to records does not empower the auditor to access the receipts and property whenever she chooses. Several opinions of this office have concluded that the term "continual access" in section 115.001 does not grant an auditor immediate and unlimited access to records and does not divest an officer of reasonable control over them. See, e.g., Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. JM-1275 (1990) at 4-5, WW-154 (1957) at 2. Nor, however, may a county officer unreasonably withhold access to those records. See, e.g., Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. JM-1275 (1990) at 5, WW-154 (1957) at 2.

A court would likely conclude that sections 112.006 and 115.001 authorize a county auditor to access inmates' property in order to investigate the correctness of the property receipts, subject to the sheriff's reasonable conditions on that access.[2]

SUMMARY

Sections 112.006 and 115.001 of the Local Government Code authorize a county auditor to access inmate property that a sheriff stores at the county jail, subject to the sheriff's reasonable conditions on that access.

DANIEL T. HODGE
First Assistant Attorney General

JAMES D. BLACKLOCK
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

Becky P. Casares
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] Letter from Honorable Joe Shannon, Jr., Tarrant Cnty. Criminal Dist. Att'y, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1 (Oct. 29, 2012), http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opin ("Request Letter").

[2] Briefing received by this office urges us to consider the potential constitutional implications of an auditor's access to inmate property in the possession of a sheriff. See Brief from Mr. Scott Medlock, Prisoner's Rights Program Dir., Tex. Civil Rights Project at 1-3 (Dec. 11, 2012). We cannot determine here whether any particular incident involving inmate property may implicate an inmate's constitutional rights, and we express no opinion on the extent of an inmate's constitutionally protected interest in property turned over to the sheriff. To the extent such constitutional interests exist, a sheriff's reasonable exercise of discretion to withhold an auditor's access to records would enable the sheriff to ensure those interests are protected.