Can a Texas county use license-plate cameras to catch and fine uninsured drivers?

Plain-English summary

A vendor approached Bowie County selling what it called a "photographic insurance enforcement system": automated license-plate-recognition cameras and computers that would scan plates, flag vehicles whose owners appeared to lack auto insurance, and trigger a letter sent under the district attorney's name demanding payment of a fine. The vendor would keep 50% of what was collected. The Bowie County Criminal District Attorney asked the AG whether Texas law lets a county install and run such a system, and if so, whether the DA could send the notices and whether the revenue split was allowed.

The AG started with the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act in chapter 601 of the Transportation Code, which makes it a criminal offense to drive without establishing financial responsibility (insurance is one of five ways to do that), and which assigns enforcement of chapter 601 to the Department of Public Safety. The AG then applied the rule that a Texas county has only the powers the Constitution or Legislature grants it expressly or by necessary implication. Counties have general authority over county roads and can put up traffic-control devices, but no statute gives a county the power to use automated photographic technology to enforce the financial responsibility laws.

The AG pointed out that when the Legislature has wanted to authorize automated camera enforcement, it has done so explicitly and narrowly: red-light cameras under chapter 707 (which create only a civil penalty, not a criminal conviction, and which carry a "General Surveillance Prohibited" rule), and toll-road enforcement under another set of provisions. It even passed a law barring cities from using automated systems for speed enforcement. Against that backdrop, the AG concluded that because the Legislature had passed no law granting counties authority to run an automated photographic insurance-enforcement system, a court is likely to conclude counties are not authorized to use such a system to enforce chapter 601. Having decided counties lacked the authority, the AG did not reach the DA-notice or fee-split questions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG 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. The Transportation Code provisions on automated enforcement and financial responsibility may have been amended since 2016, so confirm the current law before relying on these specifics.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

Bowie County and its district attorney (as the opinion described it): The opinion told the county that a court would likely find it lacked authority to use the proposed automated photographic insurance-enforcement system, so the AG did not reach whether the district attorney could send the violation notices or whether the 50% revenue split with the vendor was permissible.

Texas counties weighing similar systems (as the opinion described it): The opinion described county power as limited to what the Constitution or Legislature grants expressly or by necessary implication, and identified no statute authorizing counties to enforce the chapter 601 financial responsibility laws through automated cameras, while DPS holds the enforcement duty for chapter 601.

Vendors marketing these systems, and vehicle owners (as the opinion described it): The opinion described the Legislature's pattern of authorizing automated enforcement only in specific settings (red-light and toll enforcement) with defined limits, and concluded no such authorization existed for county insurance-enforcement cameras, which is the basis on which it found counties not authorized to run them.

Common questions

Can a Texas county install cameras to catch uninsured drivers?
Under this opinion, a court is likely to say no. The AG concluded counties are not authorized to use an automated photographic or similar system to enforce the chapter 601 financial responsibility laws.

Who enforces Texas's auto-insurance (financial responsibility) law?
The AG noted that the duty to administer and enforce chapter 601 is vested in the Department of Public Safety.

Aren't red-light and toll cameras allowed? Why not insurance cameras?
The AG explained that the Legislature authorized those systems by specific statute, with defined limits (red-light cameras create only a civil penalty and carry a surveillance prohibition), and had passed no comparable law authorizing automated insurance enforcement by counties.

Did the AG decide whether the DA could send the letters or whether the fee split was legal?
No. The AG concluded counties lacked authority to use the system at all, so it expressly did not address the remaining questions about the district attorney's notices or the revenue split.

Why can't a county just set this up on its own?
The AG applied the rule that a county has only the powers granted expressly or by necessary implication, and found no grant of authority to use automated photographic technology for financial responsibility enforcement.

Background and statutory framework

The Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act in chapter 601 of the Transportation Code prohibits operating a motor vehicle without establishing financial responsibility, treats liability insurance as one of five methods of doing so, makes operation without financial responsibility a criminal offense, and vests enforcement of the chapter in the Department of Public Safety (Tex. Transp. Code §§ 601.051, 601.191(a), 601.053(b), 601.002, 601.021). A county holds only the powers granted by the Constitution or Legislature or necessarily implied from them, including general authority over county roads and traffic-control devices (Tex. Transp. Code §§ 251.016, 251.154(d), 251.155, 251.156(a), 251.161; City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2003); Sanchez v. State, 137 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. dism'd)).

The AG surveyed where the Legislature has expressly authorized automated enforcement technology, red-light cameras with a civil-penalty-only design and a general-surveillance prohibition, and toll-road enforcement, and the statute barring municipal automated speed enforcement (Tex. Transp. Code §§ 707.001-.019, 707.002, 707.010, 707.018, 707.006(a)-(b), 228.054-.059, 542.2035(a)-(b)). Finding no statute authorizing counties to use automated photographic technology for chapter 601 enforcement, the AG concluded a court is likely to hold counties are not authorized to do so.

Citations

Statutory provisions:

• Tex. Transp. Code § 251.016 (county authority over county roads)
• Tex. Transp. Code §§ 251.154(d), .155, .156(a), .161 (traffic-control devices)
• Tex. Transp. Code §§ 228.054-.059 (automated toll enforcement)
• Tex. Transp. Code § 542.2035(a) (no municipal automated speed enforcement)
• Tex. Transp. Code § 542.2035(b) (definition of automated traffic control system)
• Tex. Transp. Code § 601.002 (administration of chapter 601)
• Tex. Transp. Code § 601.021 (enforcement duty)
• Tex. Transp. Code § 601.051 (financial responsibility required)
• Tex. Transp. Code § 601.053(b) (presumption of violation)
• Tex. Transp. Code § 601.191(a) (criminal offense)
• Tex. Transp. Code §§ 707.001-.019 (red-light photographic enforcement)
• Tex. Transp. Code §§ 707.002, .010, .018 (civil penalty, not criminal conviction)
• Tex. Transp. Code § 707.006(a)-(b) (general surveillance prohibited)

Cases:

• Sanchez v. State, 137 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. dism'd)
• City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2003)

Prior Attorney General opinions cited:

• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0846 (2011)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0076
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2016/kp0076.pdf

Original opinion text

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

KEN PAXTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

April 25, 2016

The Honorable Jerry D. Rochelle Opinion No. KP-0076
Bowie County Criminal District Attorney
601 Main Street Re: Whether Texas law allows photographic
Texarkana, Texas 75504 insurance enforcement systems (RQ-0062-KP)

Dear Mr. Rochelle:

You ask whether Texas law allows a "photographic insurance enforcement system." [1] You state that Bowie County has been approached by a company marketing "law enforcement Controlled Automated License Plate Recognition" systems "to identify, evaluate, and cite vehicle owners ... who are determined to be in a violation of" the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act (the "Act"), located in chapter 601 of the Transportation Code. Request Letter at 1. You indicate that the company has proposed an agreement whereby the company would provide and install equipment such as cameras and computers to capture images of vehicle license plates. Id. You state that under the agreement, the company would evaluate data gathered by the system for indications of "an insurance violation," and a letter would be generated "under the District Attorney's Office to the registered owner of the vehicle advising [of] the fine amount and requesting payment." Id. You further state that under the agreement, "the company would receive 50% of the amount collected on a monthly basis." Id. You ask if Texas law allows counties to install and utilize such photographic enforcement systems and, if so, whether the district attorney is permitted to send the violation notice and whether "the fee split arrangement [is] permissible." Id. at 1-2.

The Act prohibits a person from operating a motor vehicle in this state without establishing financial responsibility for the vehicle. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 601.051. Maintaining motor vehicle liability insurance for the vehicle is but one of five methods to establish financial responsibility. Id. (also authorizing surety bonds, deposits with the state comptroller or a county judge, and self-insurance in certain circumstances); see also Sanchez v. State, 137 S.W.3d 860, 862-63 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. dism'd) (observing that proof of insurance is only one of numerous ways to establish financial responsibility). Operating a vehicle without establishing financial responsibility is a criminal offense. TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 601.191(a). An operator who fails to provide proof of financial responsibility when requested by a peace officer or by a person involved in an accident with the operator is presumed to have violated section 601.051. Id. § 601.053(b). The duty to administer and enforce chapter 601 is vested in the Department of Public Safety. Id. §§ 601.002, .021.

A county has only those powers expressly granted by the Texas Constitution or Legislature or necessarily implied from the county's express powers. City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22, 29 (Tex. 2003). The Legislature has granted counties general authority with respect to county roads. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 251.016. Chapter 251, subchapter E of the Transportation Code authorizes a county to install equipment such as traffic control devices and signage in conjunction with a county's authority to regulate traffic. See id. §§ 251.154(d), .155, .156(a), .161. But neither chapter 251 nor any other statute of which we are aware addresses a county's use of automated photographic or similar technology to enforce the state's vehicle financial responsibility laws. In other provisions of the Transportation Code, the Legislature has addressed the use of similar automated technology for other enforcement purposes. For example, chapter 707 of the Transportation Code authorizes local authorities, including counties, to implement a photographic system for red-light enforcement pursuant to specific standards set forth in the chapter. See id. §§ 707.001-.019. The chapter allows a local authority to use a photographic traffic signal enforcement system to establish a civil penalty but not a criminal conviction. Id. §§ 707.002, .010, .018. The system may be used "only for the purpose of detecting a violation or suspected violation of a traffic-control signal," and it is an offense to use the system to create an image in any other manner or for any other purpose. Id. § 707.006(a)-(b) (titled "General Surveillance Prohibited"). In another statute, the Legislature authorizes the use of photographic or automated enforcement technology for the offense of using a toll road without paying the toll. Id. §§ 228.054-.059. And section 542.2035 of the Transportation Code prohibits municipalities from using an "automated traffic control system ... for the purpose of enforcing compliance with posted speed limits." Id. § 542.2035(a). The statute defines "automated traffic control system" as:

a photographic device, radar device, laser device, or other electrical or mechanical device designed to:
(1) record the speed of a motor vehicle; and
(2) obtain one or more photographs or other recorded images of:
(A) the vehicle;
(B) the license plate attached to the vehicle; or
(C) the operator of the vehicle.

Id. § 542.2035(b); see also Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0846 (2011) at 2 n.3 (discussing the common meaning of "automated" and similar terms).

These provisions illustrate that when the Legislature has authorized automated photographic or similar technology for the enforcement of traffic or vehicular laws, it has been specific about the circumstances and permissible uses of the technology. It has enacted no law granting counties authority to utilize an automated photographic insurance enforcement system. Accordingly, a court is likely to conclude that counties are not authorized to utilize an automated photographic or similar system to enforce the financial responsibility laws in chapter 601 of the Transportation Code. Because we conclude that counties lack the authority to utilize such systems to enforce chapter 601, we do not address your remaining questions.

SUMMARY

A court is likely to conclude that counties are not authorized to utilize an automated photographic or similar system to enforce the financial responsibility laws in chapter 601 of the Transportation Code.

Very truly yours,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

JEFFREY C. MATEER
First Assistant Attorney General

BRANTLEY STARR
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

WILLIAM A. HILL
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] Letter from Honorable Jerry D. Rochelle, Bowie Cty. Crim. Dist. Att'y, to Op. Comm., Office of the Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1 (Oct. 20, 2015), https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinion/requests-for-opinion-rqs ("Request Letter").