Case Information
*1 COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00075-CR ROY ANTHONY FRANCIS APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY ----------
OPINION
----------
I. Introduction Arоund 2:30 a.m. on June 23, 2012, Grapevine Police Officer David Dickinson observed a pickup truck with its fog lights on and its headlights off. He
stopped the driver, Appellant Roy Anthony Francis, for driving at night without his headlights on and then arrested him for DWI. Francis filed a motion to suppress and argued at the motion hearing that his failure to use his headlights in аddition *2 to his fog lights was not a traffic violation. After the trial court denied his motion, Francis pleaded guilty and received 100 days’ confinement (suspended), eighteen months ’ community supervision , and a $750 fine. He now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.
II. Traffic Violation In four issues, Francis argues that Officer Dickinson conducted the traffic stop “solely based on his misunderstanding of vehicle lighting requirements under the Transportation Code,” that driving at night using only fog lights is not a traffic violation, that there is no statutory prohibition against it and no statutory specification that headlights at a minimum are to be used at night, and that, therefore, the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress.
A. Motion Hearing
At the hearing on Francis’s motion to suppress, Officer Dickinson explained the difference between fog lights and headlights, stating,
Fog lights, by their nature, their construction and their purpose, the beam is pointed down for low- light conditions when you’re wanting to look directly in front of the cаr, but when you’re driving on a clear day, a headlight casts a much farther beam, approximately, I think it’s a thousand feet. It is a thousand feet that has to be clearly discernable and so they’re considerably different in their function.
He testified that driving at night required headlights, warranting the traffic stop, as follows:
Q. Is there a danger to driving without headlights?
A. Absolutely. The intent of fog lights is that, you know, that you see immediately in front of you in low-light conditions, so if you *3 don’t have any traffic lights and you’re traveling on a highway or, for example, on East and West Northwest there, the speed limit varies between 45 and 50 miles an hour so, at those speeds, you would definitely want to have your headlamps аctivated.
. . . .
Q. Okay. Was it clearly nighttime that you initiated the stop? A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. And was the light insufficient or unfavorable so that a person or a vehicle on the highway is not clearly discernable at a distance of a thousand feet?
A. Yes. His headlamps were not visible at a distance of a thousand feet.
. . . .
Q. And is failure to operate this vehicle without headlights a traffic violation?
A. Yes. Failure to display headlights when required is a traffic violation.
. . . .
Q. Headlights is it your understanding that headlights are the only thing that are permissible to be used at night?
A. No. You can you can have other lights displayed, but the headlamps are required.
At the conclusion of Officer Dickinson’s testimony, Francis argued that neither transportation code section 547.302(c) nor (d) specifically requires headlights and that displaying only fog lights at night is not a traffic violation. The State replied that reading sections 547.302, 547.321, and 547.328 together supports finding that driving without headlights was a traffic violation.
In ruling on the motion to suppress, the trial judge stated, I would also refer Counsel to Transportation Code, Section 547.326, Minimum Lighting Equipment Required, Sub (a): A vehicle that is not specifically required to be equipped with lamps or other lighting devices shall be equipped at the times specified in Section 547.302 (a) with at least one lamp that emits a white light visible at a distance of at least a thousand feet from the front and: Then it refers to some rear-end lights and red lights which I think is also relevant in this calculation.
In addition to all of the other code sections that Counsel has referred to, and as a result, I am going to deny the Defense Motiоn to Suppress.
B. Analysis
An officer has probable cause to stop and arrest a driver if he observes the
driver commit a traffic offense. State v. Gray , 158 S.W.3d 465, 469 – 70 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005); see State v. Ballman , 157 S.W.3d 65, 70 (Tex. App. — Fort
Worth 2004, pet. r ef’d). Driving w ithout headlights at night is a traffic offense.
Anderson v. State , 701 S.W.2d 868, 869 70, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985), cert.
denied ,
It is undisputed that Francis drove at night using only his vehicle’s fog lights and not his vehicle’s headlights. Francis nonetheless argues that “[n]either the plain language of the statute [section 547.302] nor the reading of the statute under the rules of construction require he adlamps specifically at night.”
We disagree. When reviewed in its totality, chapter 547 of the
transportation code makes clear that headlights are required at night and
*6
distinguishes between the roles of headlights and fog lights
[2]
in vehicle lighting.
[3]
Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 547.321(a), (c), 547.328(a), (b); see also Druery
v. State ,
T ransportation code section 547.302, “Duty to Display Lights,” provides: (a) A vehicle shall display each lighted lamp and illuminating device required by this chapter to be on the vehicle : (1) at nighttime ; and
(2) when light is insufficient or atmospheric conditions are unfavorable so that a person or vehicle on the highway is not cleаrly discernible at a distance of 1,000 feet ahead . 2013); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.016(1), (2) (West 2013) (stating that “may” creates discretionary authority or grants permission while “shall” imposes a duty). The code refers to headlights as “head lamps” and fog lights as “fog
lamps.” As noted by Francis, transportation code section 547.3215 rеquires
lighting, reflective devices, and associated equipment to comply with current federal standards under 49 C.F.R. § 571.108 or the federal standards that were in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 547.3215. 49 C.F.R. § 571.108 states that the standard’s purpose is
to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents, by providing adequate illumination of the roadway, and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood, both in daylight and in darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility.
49 C.F.R. § 571.108 S2. Francis argues that hе was conspicuous enough with his fog lights because Officer Dickinson noticed him.
. . . . (c) At least one lighted lamp shall be displayed on each side of the front of a motor vehicle.
(d) Not more than four of the following may be lighted at one time on the front of a motor vehicle:
(1) a headlamp required by this chаpter ; or (2) a lamp, including an auxiliary lamp or spotlamp, that projects a beam with an intensity brighter than 300 candlepower.
Id. § 547.302 (emphasis added). Section 547.305 , “Restrictions on Use of Lights,” elaborates that a light “other than a headlamp, spotlamp, auxiliary lamp, turn signal lamp, or emergency vehicle or school bus warn ing lamp” that projects a beam with an intensity brighter than 300 candlepower “shall be directed so that no part of the high-intensity portion of the beam strikes the roadway at a distance of more than 75 feet from the vehicle.” Id. § 347.305(a).
Section 547.321 , “Headlamps Required ,” provides that a motоr vehicle “ shall be equipped with at least two headlamps ,” and that “[a]t least one headlamp shall be mounted on each side of the front of the vehicle” at a height from twenty-four to fifty-four inches. Id. § 547.321 (emphasis added). Sections 547.322 ( “Taillamps Required ” ), 547.323 (“ Stoplamps Required ”), 547.324 (“ Turn *8 Signal Lamps Required ”), and 547.325 (“Reflectors Required ”) set forth the other illumination standards required for vehicle safety within the statutory scheme. See id. §§ 547.322 – .325 (emphasis added). Section 547.326, “Minimum Lighting Equipment Required ,” specifies that even vehicles that are not required to be equipped “with lamps or other lighting devices” shall be equipped “at t he times specifiеd in Section 547.302(a) with at least one lamp that emits a white light visible at a distance of at least 1,000 feet from the front,” in addition to lights that emit red light from the rear “visible at a distance of at least 1,000 feet.” Id. § 547.326.
In contrast to these required lights, section 547.327, “Spotlamps Permitted ,” limits a motor vehicle to “not more than two spotlamps,” id. § 547.327, and section 547.328, “Fog Lamps Permitted ,” limits a motor vehicle to *9 “not more than two fog lamps.” Id. § 547.328. Section 547.328 also provides that lighted fog lamps “ may be used with lower headlamp beams as specified by Section 547.333.” Id. § 547.328(c) (emphasis added). Section 547.329, “Auxiliary Passing Lamps Permitted ,” and section 547.330, “Auxiliary Driving Lamps Permitted ,” limit a vehicle to “no more than two” auxiliary passing lamps or auxiliary driving lamps and provide that they “ may be used with headlamps as specified by Section 547.333. ” Id. §§ 547.329 – .330 (emphasis added). Section 547.331, “Hazard Lamps Permitted ,” provides that a vehicle may be equipped with lamps to warn other drivers of a vehicular traffiс hazard that requires unusual care in approaching, overtaking, and passing, and section 547.332, “Other Lamps Permitted ,” provides that a vehicle may be equipped with “not more than two side cowl or fender lamps,” “not more than two running board courtesy lamps,” and “one or more backup lamps.” Id. §§ 547.331 .332 (emphasis added).
S ection 547.333, “Multiple -Beam Lighting Equipment Required ,” identifies
headlamps, auxiliary driving lamps, and auxiliary passing lamps and states that
“[a] person who operates a vehicle on a roadway or shoulder shall select a
distribution of light or composite beam that is aimed and emits light sufficient to
*10
reveal а person or vehicle at a safe distance ahead of the vehicle.” Id. § 547.333(a), (c) (emphasis added); see Delao v. Carlson ,
If a general provision conflicts with a specific provision, the provisions shall bе construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both, but if the conflict is irreconcilable, then the specific usually prevails over the general. See Strickland v. State , 193 S.W.3d 662, 665 66 (Tex. App. —Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref’d) (discussing doctrine of in pari materia codified in government code section 311.026); see also Tex. Gov’t Cоde Ann. § 311.026 (West 2013). However, we find no statutory conflict here between what lights are required at night — headlights and what lights are permitted at night in addition to headlights. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 547.328(c) (“Lighted fog lamps may be used with lower headlamp beams as specified by Section 547.333.”) (emphasis added); *11 Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.016(1) (2) (clarifying difference bеtwe en “may” and “shall”).
Further, while Justice may be blind, she is not naïve, and absurd results are a definite consideration in construing statutes. Boykin v. State , 818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.021(3) (West 2013) (stating that in enacting a statute, it is presumed that a just and reasonable result is intended), § 311.023 (1), (5) (West 2013) (stating that in construing a statute, a court may consider the consequences of a particular construction and the object sought to be obtained). The statutes refer to “fog lamps, ” which implicate their use in fog a weather condition commonly known to adversely affect visibility in addition to headlights. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 547.328; see also 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 176.1108(a)(1)(D)(v)(IV) (2013) (Tex. Educ. Agency Driving Safety Courses of Instruction) (listing fog as a reduced visibility condition creating a difficult driving environment); 8A Tex. Jur. 3d Automobiles § 627 (2007) (noting that a question as to excessiveness of vehicle speed may be presented when the evidence shows that highway visibility is obscured by darkness or other atmospheric conditions, such as fog, rain, or smoke).
Officer Dickenson’s explanation for stopping Francis fits not only within the transportation code sections and case law requiring headlights at night but also within section 547.333 regarding operating a vehicle with sufficient lighting to *12 illuminate a person or car a safe distance ahead. Thеrefore, Francis committed a traffic violation when he drove at 2:30 a.m. with only his fog lights illuminated and without headlights. The trial court properly denied Francis’s motion to suppress, and we overrule his four issues.
III. Conclusion Having overruled Francis’s four issues, we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment. /s/ Bob McCoy BOB MCCOY JUSTICE PANEL: DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.
PUBLISH
DELIVERED: February 27, 2014
Notes
[1] Chapter 547 addresses vehicle equiрment; subchapter D contains general provisions regarding vehicle lighting requirements while subchapter E contains general lighting requirements for vehicles. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 547.301 .303, .321 .335 (West 2011), §§ 547.304 – .05 (West 2011 & Supp.
[4] While headings do not limit or expand a statute’s meaning, see Tex. Gov’t
Code Ann. § 311.024 (West 2013), they may be considered as a guide to
showing legislativе intent. See Townsley v. State , 538 S.W.2d 411, 414 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1976); Marroquin v. State ,
[5] Francis argues that if “each” of these lamps is “required” under section
547.302(a), it would be a traffic violation to drive at night without illuminating all of
these at once and calls this an absurd result. We do not read the statutes in this
way: It would instead be an absurd result if a driver were not rеquired to turn on
his or her headlights, taillights, stop lights, and turn signal lights in the dark or for
a vehicle, particularly one driven at night, to lack reflectors on the rear of the
vehicle. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 547.321 – .325; see also Palacios v.
State , 319 S.W.3d 68, 70, 72 73 (Tex. App. —San Antonio 2010, pet. ref’d)
(holding stop reasonable when officer pulled over vehicle at 7:30 p.m. in rainy
conditions for lack of rear license plate illumination under section 547.322(f) (g));
Smith v. State , No. 02-07-00321-CR,
[6] Section 547.328 also sets out that a fog lamp shall be mounted on the front of the vehiclе at a height from 12 to 30 inches and aimed “so that no part of the high-intensity portion of the beam from a lamp mounted to the left of center on a vehicle projects a beam of light at a distance of 25 feet that is higher than four inches below the level of the center of the lamp.” Id. § 547.328(b)(1) (2).
[7] We note that following the fog light specifications under section 574.328(b), a fog lamp could not meet the 1000-foot lighting requirement set out in section 547.302(a)(2). Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 547.302(a)(2), 547.328(b)(1) (2).