Atty General LO-98-101 says: LGC 86.021 "requires the constable of each precinct to attend each session of the justice court for that precinct, whatever may be the purpose for which the court is sitting."

1. What do you think "session" and "sitting" mean, i.e. does the JP need to be present or not? For example, can a "session" be a truancy session where ADAs, school officers, and defendants confer in the courtroom while the judge is out sick or out of town?

2. Does the constable need to provide security for the JP court/office during business hours (or 24/7) regardless of the judge's presence?

Any other insights/resources on constable security duties at JP court? Thanks

I've always understood that phrase to mean that the Constable has a duty to bailiff the court when the JP is present, thus during any trial/hearing/conference with the judge present, and a reasonable time before and after [for security relating to persons being present for said trial/hearing/conference].

I wouldn't think it would include times when the Judge is not present, even if persons are using the courtroom for case-related meetings, and I certainly don't see it as 24/7 security, although I do think it would include non-traditional times if the court is in session (meaning the JP is present in person), such as evening/Saturday court if the JP conducts such.

But -- I do not guarantee that a court would agree that it does not include the meetings you describe.

The Constable only has two specific statutory duties: serving/executing papers/writs/warrants, and attending the JP Court. You would hope that both would be a priority. Other offices (sheriff) have the shared duty to serve/execute, but only the Constable has the clear duty to attend the JP court.

I have seen, over the years, that some precincts throughout the state operate smoothly, with a mutual respect between JP and Constable, and others seem to have no end of tension. Realizing that both JP and Constable are elected officials who should respectfully work together for their shared constituents and having the JP back up the Constable if the Constable needs to approach the commissioners court to fund a deputy to help carry out the duties the Constable has to the JP can go a long way.

Someone needs to provide security if that is needed when the JP court is not in session; if the Constable is unable or unwilling, the Commissioners Court and Sheriff together might be able to come up with a solution.

Thanks for the perspective.

Further resources:

Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. JC-0413 (2001)

Duthit v. Ector County, 740 S.W.2d 16 (Tex. App. El Paso 1987), writ denied, (Jan. 27, 1988).

Griffin v. Birkman, 266 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tex. App. Austin 2008)(discussing an official’s “sphere of authority,” citing Pritchard & Abbott v. McKenna, 162 Tex. 617, 350 S.W.2d 333, 335 (Tex. 1961) and “core duties,” citing Commissioners Court of Titus County v. Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77, 79 (Tex. 1997); concluding that a constable’s “core duties” under Local Gov’t C. 86.021 do not include the operation of a mental health unit.)