Can a Texas police department require officers to issue a set number of traffic warnings?

Plain-English summary

State Representative Joe Pickett, who chaired the House Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety, asked the Attorney General about Texas's ban on traffic-ticket quotas. Transportation Code section 720.002 says a city, county, or state agency may not set up a plan to evaluate, promote, pay, or discipline a peace officer based on how many traffic citations the officer writes, and may not require or suggest that an officer issue a set number of citations. The Representative wanted to know whether that ban also reaches traffic warnings, the kind an officer gives without writing an actual ticket.

The AG said the answer turns on what "traffic citations" means, and the statute never defines it. The opinion laid out two ways a court could go. One reading borrows the definition of "citation" from another part of the Transportation Code (chapter 703, the Nonresident Violator Compact), which treats a citation as a summons, ticket, or official document for a traffic violation that contains an order requiring the motorist to respond. Most warnings, whether spoken or written, do not order the driver to respond, so under that definition a warning would not be a "citation" and would fall outside section 720.002. The other reading focuses on the statute's broad wording, it covers "any" type of traffic citation, and its evident purpose of stopping quotas. Reading the ban to allow warning quotas would undercut that purpose, so a court could decide "traffic citation" must be read broadly to include warnings, which would make warning quotas illegal.

The AG would not pick between those readings, concluding it could not definitively say whether section 720.002 reaches warnings. It did draw one firm line: no matter which interpretation applies, a quota on warnings that is effectively being used to suggest or implement a quota on traffic citations violates section 720.002. In other words, an agency cannot dodge the ban by labeling a citation quota a warning quota.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later Attorney General opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

Representative Pickett and the House committee (as the opinion described it): The opinion answered that it could not definitively determine whether section 720.002's prohibitions reach traffic warnings, describing two plausible judicial constructions, and concluded that under any interpretation a warning quota effectively used to implement a citation quota violates the statute.

Police departments and other political subdivisions (as the opinion described it): The opinion described a court as possibly reading "traffic citation" narrowly (excluding warnings that lack an order to respond) or broadly (including warnings, given the statute's "any" language and anti-quota purpose), leaving the status of pure warning quotas uncertain, while treating a warning quota used to drive citations as prohibited.

Peace officers (as the opinion described it): The opinion described section 720.002 as barring evaluation, promotion, compensation, or discipline of an officer according to a predetermined number of traffic citations, and as preventing an agency from requiring or suggesting such numbers; whether that protection extends to warnings was left unresolved.

Common questions

Does Texas's anti-quota law ban requiring officers to issue a set number of traffic warnings?
The AG would not say definitively. It explained that section 720.002 bans citation quotas, but because the statute does not define "traffic citation," a court could read it either to exclude or to include warnings.

Why might warnings not count as "citations"?
The AG noted that another part of the code defines a "citation" to require an order telling the motorist to respond, and most warnings (spoken or written) contain no such order, so a court using that definition would treat warnings as outside the statute.

Why might warnings count anyway?
The AG explained that section 720.002 covers "any" type of traffic citation and is meant to stop quotas. Allowing warning quotas could undermine that purpose, so a court could read "traffic citation" broadly to include warnings.

Is there anything the AG said for certain?
Yes. Under any interpretation, the AG concluded, a quota on warnings that is effectively used to suggest or implement a quota on traffic citations violates section 720.002.

What does section 720.002 actually prohibit?
The AG described it as barring a political subdivision or state agency from evaluating, promoting, compensating, or disciplining an officer based on a predetermined number of traffic citations, and from requiring or suggesting that an officer issue such a number.

Background and statutory framework

Section 720.002 of the Transportation Code prohibits a political subdivision or state agency from maintaining a plan to evaluate, promote, compensate, or discipline a peace officer according to a predetermined number of traffic citations, and from requiring or suggesting that an officer issue such a number (Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 720.002(a), (b) (West 2011); id. § 720.002(a)(1), (b)(1)). The statute does not define "traffic citation," so the AG turned to statutory-construction principles drawing intent from plain meaning and common usage (Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433, 437 (Tex. 2009); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 311.011(a) (West 2013)), including the presumption that a term defined in one statute carries the same meaning in a later statute on the same subject (Brookshire v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 508 S.W.2d 675, 677-78 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1974, no writ)).

The AG noted that chapter 703 (the Nonresident Violator Compact of 1977) defines a "citation" as a summons, ticket, or official document for a traffic violation containing an order requiring the motorist to respond (Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 703.002, art. II, § (b)(1) (West 2011); Burrage v. Hunt Prod. Co., 114 S.W.2d 1228, 1239 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1938, writ dism'd)), a three-element test most warnings fail. Alternatively, the breadth of "any" and the statute's anti-quota purpose could support reading "traffic citation" to include warnings (City of Waco v. Kelly, 309 S.W.3d 536, 542 (Tex. 2010); In re Allen, 366 S.W.3d 696, 708 (Tex. 2012) (orig. proceeding)). Unable to choose, the AG concluded that under any interpretation a warning quota used to suggest or implement a citation quota violates section 720.002.

Citations

Statutory provisions:

• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 720.002(a), (b) (West 2011) (prohibition on traffic-citation quotas)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 720.002(a)(1), (b)(1) (West 2011) ("any type or combination of types" of traffic citations)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 311.011(a) (West 2013) (words read in context and by common usage)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 703.002, art. II, § (b)(1) (West 2011) (definition of "citation" in the Nonresident Violator Compact)

Cases:

• Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433, 437 (Tex. 2009)
• Brookshire v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 508 S.W.2d 675, 677-78 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1974, no writ)
• Burrage v. Hunt Prod. Co., 114 S.W.2d 1228, 1239 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1938, writ dism'd)
• City of Waco v. Kelly, 309 S.W.3d 536, 542 (Tex. 2010)
• In re Allen, 366 S.W.3d 696, 708 (Tex. 2012) (orig. proceeding)

Other authority:

• American Heritage College Dictionary 64 (4th ed. 2002) (definition of "any")

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/greg-abbott/ga-1056
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2014/ga1056.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official PDF. Minor extraction artifacts were corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
GREG ABBOTT

May 7, 2014

The Honorable Joe C. Pickett Opinion No. GA-1056
Chair, Committee on Homeland Security
& Public Safety Re: Whether section 720.002 of the
Texas House of Representatives Transportation Code prohibits a political
Post Office Box 2910 subdivision or state agency from requiring
Austin, Texas 78768-2910 peace officers to issue a certain number of
warning citations (RQ-1164-GA)

Dear Representative Pickett:

You ask whether section 720.002 of the Transportation Code prohibits a political subdivision or state agency from requiring peace officers to issue a certain number of warning citations.[1] Section 720.002, in relevant part, provides that

(a) A political subdivision or an agency of this state may not establish or maintain, formally or informally, a plan to evaluate, promote, compensate, or discipline:

(1) a peace officer according to the officer's issuance of a predetermined or specified number of any type or combination of types of traffic citations;

(b) A political subdivision or an agency of this state may not require or suggest to a peace officer, ... :

(1) that the peace officer is required or expected to issue a predetermined number or specified number of any type or combination of types of traffic citations within a specified period;

TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 720.002(a), (b) (West 2011). Your two questions seek a determination about whether subsections (a)(1) and (b)(1) are violated when a political subdivision or state agency requires or suggests that its peace officers issue a predetermined number of traffic warnings or establishes a plan to evaluate, promote, compensate or discipline its peace officers according to the officers' issuance of a predetermined number of traffic warnings. Request Letter at 2. The answer to your questions is dependent on the scope of the term "traffic citations" in section 720.002.

Legislative intent is best drawn from the plain meaning of the words chosen by the Legislature. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433, 437 (Tex. 2009). When statutory terms are undefined, the Code Construction Act directs that words and phrases are to be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 311.011(a) (West 2013). Moreover, "[w]hen the Legislature defines a term in one statute and uses the same term in relation to the same subject matter in a later statute, it will be presumed that the latter use of the term is in the same sense as previously defined." Brookshire v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 508 S.W.2d 675, 677-78 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1974, no writ).

Though section 720.002 does not define the term "traffic citation," the Transportation Code defines the term "citation" in another, previously adopted, section that directly relates to traffic violations. In chapter 703 of the Transportation Code, also known as the Nonresident Violator Compact of 1977, a citation is "any summons, ticket, or other official document issued by a police officer for a traffic violation containing an order which requires the motorist to respond." TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 703.002, art. II, § (b)(1) (West 2011); see also Burrage v. Hunt Prod. Co., 114 S.W.2d 1228, 1239 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1938, writ dism'd) (defining the term "citation" in a general legal sense to mean "the summons by which a defendant is notified to appear in the action"). A court asked to construe the term "traffic citations" in section 720.002 could decide to adopt the chapter 703 definition of "citation," which requires three elements: (1) a "summons, ticket or other official document," (2) a traffic violation, and (3) an order requiring the motorist to respond.

You do not indicate the precise nature of the warnings about which you ask. We are advised that it is not uncommon for warnings to be given verbally.[2] And even a written warning is unlikely to contain an order for the motorist to respond. Thus, a traffic warning likely does not include all three elements of the chapter 703 definition of "citation." A court employing that definition would conclude that a traffic warning does not amount to a traffic citation and is therefore not subject to the prohibition in section 720.002.

While a court construing section 720.002 could adopt the chapter 703 definition of "citation," a court could also adopt a more expansive interpretation of section 720.002's prohibitions. Section 720.002's prohibitions broadly encompass "any" type or combination of types of traffic citations. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 720.002(a)(1), (b)(1) (West 2011). The unqualified breadth of the word "any" could be understood to suggest that the prohibition must include traffic warnings as well as traditional citations. See AM. HERITAGE COLL. DICTIONARY 64 (4th ed. 2002) (defining "any" to mean "One, some, every, or all without specification"); City of Waco v. Kelly, 309 S.W.3d 536, 542 (Tex. 2010) (stating that statutory construction involves examination of the Legislature's words in the context of the statute as a whole and not in isolation). Moreover, one apparent purpose of section 720.002 is to prohibit political subdivisions from using quotas or similar means to require or encourage police officers to take action in response to traffic violations. Interpreting section 720.002 to permit political subdivisions to impose traffic warning quotas or to evaluate a police officer based on the number of traffic warnings the officer issues would undermine that statutory purpose. See In re Allen, 366 S.W.3d 696, 708 (Tex. 2012) (orig. proceeding) (noting that a court's task is to "effectuate the Legislature's intent" and adopt the interpretation that is most faithful to the statute's plain text). On this basis, a court could decline to adopt the narrow construction of the term "traffic citation" discussed above, instead concluding that the term must be broadly construed to include traffic warnings. If interpreted along these lines, section 720.002 would prohibit political subdivisions from taking the actions described in your questions.

While we cannot determine definitively the scope of section 720.002, under any interpretation of the statute, a quota on warnings that is effectively used to suggest or implement a quota on traffic citations is in violation of section 720.002.

SUMMARY

A court could conclude that only a warning that consists of a summons, ticket or other official document, a traffic violation, and an order requiring the motorist to respond is likely to be considered a traffic citation subject to the prohibition in section 720.002 of the Transportation Code. A court could also conclude that the text and purpose of section 720.002 require the term "traffic citation" to be construed broadly to include traffic warnings. We cannot definitively determine whether the prohibitions of section 720.002 encompass traffic warnings.

Very truly yours,

GREG ABBOTT
Attorney General of Texas

DANIEL T. HODGE
First Assistant Attorney General

JAMES D. BLACKLOCK
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

Charlotte M. Harper
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] See Letter from Hon. Joe C. Pickett, House Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Pub. Safety, Tex. to Hon. Greg Abbott, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 2 (Nov. 8, 2013), http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opin ("Request Letter").

[2] Brief from Alyssa Perez, Staff Att'y, Combined Law Enforcement Ass'ns of Tex. at 1 (Dec. 4, 2013) (on file with the Op. Comm.).