- 9 -
police officer. Obviously, the companies were not authorized to
issue warrants of appointment, a necessary event in order for an
individual to qualify for employment as a police officer in
Texas. However, petitioner was hired by the companies to provide
police-type services, not as a police officer, although being an
active police officer might have been a necessary qualification
for the jobs. Merely because the companies could not appoint and
hire petitioner as a police officer, does not mean that he could
not be hired as an independent contractor. In Texas, a police
officer can be an employee of a police department and, during his
or her off-duty hours, provide police-type services as an
independent contractor to third-parties. Cf. Hoechst Celanese
Corp. v. Compton, 899 S.W.2d 215 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994); City of
Dallas v. Half Price Books, Records, Magazines, Inc., 883 S.W.2d
374 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994); Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art.
4413(29bb), sec. 3(a) (West Supp. 1996).
Petitioners next argue that because petitioner was in
uniform while working for the companies, he was acting in his
capacity as a police officer, and as such could only be
considered an employee of the Department. Petitioners cite Wood
v. State, 486 S.W.2d 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Monroe v. State,
465 S.W.2d 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); Thompson v. State, 426
S.W.2d 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968), in support of this argument.
Our reading of these cases differs significantly from
petitioners'. These cases merely confirm a point that is not in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011