Assume a public official (a constable, maybe) gets probationers to do their community service at his home building a garage. It's clearly personal work. To charge Abuse of Official Capacity, you have to allege that the public servant violated a law relating to his office or misused government property, services, etc. What specific law relating to his office has he violated? Is there a general law somewhere that says that you, as a public servant, cannot convert to your own personal use the labor of a probationer (or any labor or service)? Is court-ordered community service a "government service?" Is there a statute somewhere that imposes a general duty on public servants not to use their office for private gain? Has anyone faced these questions and, if so, how did you resolve them? Any help would be appreciated.

There may also be other offenses besides Abuse of Official Capacity that apply (theft by a public servant, tampering with a governmental record for signing the community supervision forms, etc) but we would like to use the Abuse of Official Capacity statute as well.

Isn't the community service a government service? He misused government services by converting them to his own personal use. I believe probation departments or maybe correction facilities put a value on CSR, where defendants can "pay off" with money or "sit off" in jail instead of doing their CSR. If there is a way, figure out how many hours were used and come up with a "value" to satisfy the charge: "thing of value."

Thanks, David. I do believe that community service is a "government service." I also think that valuing the labor involved will be fairly easy. Even if we just add up the hours they spent and multiply it by the minimum wage, we get to where we need to be. I think we are comfortable going with Abuse of Official Capacity by misusing government services and with Tampering with a Governmental Record. Still open to suggestions, though.

Thanks again, David. Hope all is well with you.

Agreeing with what David postulated, that the service is a governmental asset of value, it would seem that, by utilizing his official status to obtain that value for himself, the officer may have run afoul of article 3, section 52(a) of the Texas Constitution. That provision precludes a county from granting any public thing of value to an individual. Unless I'm missing something, there seems to be little countervailing public benefit to be derived from the provision of service in the facts described.