Could a Texas county auditor examine inmate trust and jail commissary accounts held and operated by the county sheriff?

Texas AG Opinion JM-702: Auditing Inmate Trust and Jail Commissary Accounts

Plain-English summary

The Reeves County Attorney asked whether the county auditor could audit the inmate trust account and jail commissary account held and operated by the sheriff.

The Attorney General concluded that both accounts were subject to audit. The answer did not depend on whether the money in a particular account legally belonged to the county.

Article 1651 gave the county auditor general oversight of the books and records of county, district, and state officers authorized or required to receive money or property for county use. The earlier Attorney General Opinion H-1185 had read that provision to mean that when a county officer collected any county funds, all records of money collected in the officer's official capacity were subject to audit.

Article 1653 separately gave the auditor continual access to and required examination of officers' books, accounts, reports, vouchers, and other records. Together, those provisions reached inmate trust and commissary money held by the sheriff as part of official jail operations.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG 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.

Common questions

Did inmate money have to belong to the county before the auditor could review it?

No. The opinion said the character or ownership of particular money did not remove records of officially held funds from the audit authority.

Why did article 1651 apply to all of the sheriff's account records?

The earlier interpretation quoted in JM-702 said that when an officer was authorized to collect any money belonging to the county, all records of money collected in an official capacity were subject to audit.

What additional authority came from article 1653?

It granted continual access to and required examination of officers' books, accounts, reports, vouchers, and other records.

Did the opinion distinguish inmate trust money from commissary money?

No. It reached the same conclusion for both accounts because the sheriff held and operated them in an official capacity.

Did the opinion address how the audit had to be conducted?

No. It answered only whether the accounts were within the county auditor's authority.

Background and statutory framework

JM-702 treated Attorney General Opinion H-1185 (1978) as controlling. H-1185 had considered bail-bond money held in trust by a sheriff and rejected the argument that non-county ownership placed the account outside the auditor's reach.

That earlier opinion also cited Attorney General Opinion WW-1400 (1962), which treated auditing child-support account books held by a district clerk as a county-auditor duty. JM-702 applied the same official-capacity principle to jail accounts.

The opinion noted a narrower contrary example, Attorney General Opinion M-803 (1971), concerning a request under article 1663 for information on feeding prisoners. It did not treat that example as limiting the broader audit authority under articles 1651 and 1653.

Citations and references

Statutory authorities:

• Article 1651, V.T.C.S. (general oversight of officers' books and records)
• Article 1653, V.T.C.S. (continual access and examination authority)
• Article 1663, V.T.C.S. (information requests discussed in prior opinion)

Attorney General opinions:

• Attorney General Opinion H-1185 (1978)
• Attorney General Opinion WW-1400 (1962)
• Attorney General Opinion M-803 (1971)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0702
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0702.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

May 15, 1987

Honorable Scott W. Johnson
Reeves County Attorney
P. O. Box 749
Pecos, Texas 79772

Opinion No. JM-702

Re: Authority of a county auditor to audit the inmate trust and jail commissary fund

Dear Mr. Johnson:

Your request for an opinion poses the following question:

Are the inmate trust account and jail commissary account, held and operated by the county sheriff subject to audit by the county auditor?

We believe Attorney General Opinion H-1185 (1978) to be dispositive of your question. Insofar as is relevant to the issue you present, it provides:

The county attorney contends that, since bond money is held by the sheriff in trust on behalf of a defendant, it never assumes the character of county funds and is therefore not subject to audit. Article 1651, V.T.C.S., however, grants to the county auditor

a general oversight of all the books and records of all the officers of the county, district or state, who may be authorized or required by law to receive or collect any money, funds, fees, or other property for the use of, or belonging to, the county. . . .

Thus, if a county officer is authorized to collect any funds belonging to the county, all his records are subject to audit, without regard to the character of any particular money which he collects in an official capacity.

Furthermore, by virtue of article 1653, V.T.C.S., the auditor is granted 'continual access' to and required to 'examine all the books, accounts, reports, vouchers and other records of any officer. . . .' In Attorney General Opinion WW-1400 (1962), this office held that it was the county auditor's duty 'to audit the child support account books of a District Clerk.' We believe it is abundantly clear that the statutes direct the county auditor to audit all monies held by the sheriff in an official capacity, whether or not such monies belong to the county. But cf., Attorney General Opinion M-803 (1971) (sheriff is not required to comply with county auditor's request under article 1663 for information on feeding prisoners). (Emphasis added).

It would appear that the circumstances in Attorney General Opinion H-1185 are similar to those you have presented. Thus, it is our opinion that the inmate trust account and the jail commissary account held by the sheriff are subject to audit by the county auditor.

SUMMARY

The inmate trust account and the jail commissary account held and operated by the county sheriff, whether or not the monies therein belong to the county, are subject to audit by the county auditor under articles 1651 and 1653, V.T.C.S.

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Tom G. Davis
Assistant Attorney General