Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
KP-0076
Tex. Att'y Gen.Jul 2, 2016Background
- Bowie County sought guidance on whether counties may use a private company’s “photographic insurance enforcement system” to detect and enforce Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act violations (lack of financial responsibility/insurance).
- The proposed system would capture license-plate images, have the company evaluate data for insurance violations, generate notices under the District Attorney’s office, and remit 50% of collected amounts to the company.
- The Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act (chapter 601, Tex. Transp. Code) makes operating without financial responsibility a criminal offense and vests enforcement authority in the Department of Public Safety.
- Counties possess only those powers granted by the Constitution or Legislature; the Transportation Code grants counties certain traffic-device and road authorities (chapter 251) but does not expressly authorize automated photographic enforcement for insurance violations.
- The Legislature has specifically authorized automated photographic systems for other narrow purposes (red-light enforcement, toll violations) and has expressly limited automated traffic control use in other contexts, indicating specificity where such tools are permitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a county may install/use an automated photographic system to enforce chapter 601 (financial-responsibility/insurance) | County (via DA request) contends it may use such systems to detect uninsured drivers and issue notices through the DA’s office | No statute expressly authorizes counties to use automated photographic systems for enforcing chapter 601; enforcement vested in DPS and Legislature has been specific when authorizing automated enforcement | Court (AG opinion): A court is likely to conclude counties are not authorized to use automated photographic systems to enforce chapter 601 |
| Whether a DA may send violation notices generated by such a system | County/DA proposes notices issued under DA’s office based on private company data | AG indicates statutory scheme does not authorize counties/DA to employ such automated systems for these enforcement purposes | Not reached on merits because counties likely lack authority to use the system; issue not addressed further |
| Whether a public–private revenue split (company receiving 50% of collections) is permissible | County/DA proposes a fee-split with the private vendor to fund/operate the system | AG treats this as ancillary but declines to analyze because primary authority to use system is lacking | Not addressed due to primary holding that counties lack authority |
| Whether legislative analogues permit this use (i.e., comparing red-light/toll statutes) | County may argue analogies to red-light or toll enforcement statutes that authorize automated systems | AG notes Legislature authorized automated systems only in narrow, enumerated contexts and has prohibited/limited them elsewhere, so analogies are weak absent express authorization | AG: Specific legislative authorization is required; absent that, counties likely lack authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. State, 137 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (observes that proof of insurance is one of several methods to establish financial responsibility)
- City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2003) (explains counties have only powers granted by Constitution or Legislature and those necessarily implied)