THE A
December 22, 1949
Hon. James C. Martin Opinion Ro. V-980
County Attorney
Auecea County Rer The legality of the court's
Corpus Christl, Texas taking possessionof the
out-of-stateoperator's,
chauffeur's,or commercial
operator's license held by
a nonresident,upon the
holder's conviction in
Texas of an offense calling
for automatic suspension
of such license.
Dear Sir:
You have requested the opinion of this office on the
question of whether a Texas Court that has convicted a non-
resident of Texas of an offense calling for automatic suspen-
sion of the operator's license, chauffeur's license, or comer-
clal operator's license of the licensee so convicted, can take
possession of such nonresident'sout-of-statelicense or
licenses for forwarding to the Department of Public Safety.
It is well settled that the State under its pollce-
nollce-
power has the right to regulate the operation of motor ve-
hicles on its highways, and that this power extends to non-
residents as well as residents. Hendri;kUv.Maryland, 235
U.S. 610 (lgs)* Kane v. New Jersey, 24 3 159 (1916);HB
V. 'Pawloski,274 U.S. 352 (1927);Anno. @'A:L.R. 1392.
It has also been held that the right evidencedby an
operational license is not a property right but is a condltlon-
al privilege. Denartment of Public Safety v. Robertson, 203
S.W. 2d 950 (Tex. Civ. App. 1947); Taylor v. State, 209 S.W. 2d
191 (Tex. Grim. 1948); State v. McDaniels, 219 IF.C.763, 14 S.E.
26 793 (1941).Sleeper v. Woodmansee, 11 Cal. Ap 2d 255, 54 P.
2nd 519 (19363;Commonwealthv. Cronln 336 Pa. igq, 9 A. 2d
408 (1939);5 Am. Jur. 593, Automobiles,Sec. 157; Anno. 125
A.L.R. 1461.
,-
Ean.Jenm8 C.krtln, pege2,V+&@
To the extent that wa are here couaerned, the
Iegislatare of Teurs has rogxxlatul the operation of motor
wehlelea on the hlghwaye of this St+, both by rea~euts
~~~~w~~~~~~~~~~~.~~tlo~llo(uldiBt;
That lrtatpk provides that all persons who operate
a mtor, weMale on the highways of this State shall have an
appropriate opert%tLaml llaenrre therefor, with certain enum-
eretefI exaeptlons. Amcmg thaae exceptions we find:
“4. Any nmresldent who Is at least eighteen
(18) ywarcof age am& whn kusaiahia immediate pos-
M88iOU 8 valid 0=8tor'8 llaerme, chmffeurls
lleem4e, aasmre l8lopem8tm~8 llaen8e, or sirilar
license imued ta hlmbyhls home State (8s well
88 nCIW~8i&Rt8 wha8e h0m State do68 not reqtd..IW
the lloenslug of operators) eh8ll not be required
to SeQiire 8IWh ~~~wadeEthi8 Act, pm3vided
the State or Country of fria re83dence 1Wewlae re-
aogulser suah liaemsea 3.errwd by the State of Tex8s
and exempt8 the holdOP8 thereof from securing such
licenses from sxxah foreign St&e or Country. The
purpose of this Seation is to extend full reclproal-
ty to aitlzens of other St8tos snd foreign Countries
l8hlcherteud l3.kep%Ttwil~ to aal.smw of the
St8te ofTems.
n
. . .
35; Any llOltlW8id~tit
who l8 8t least eighteen
(18) yaare of etga, wbso hom State does not re-
qul.re the llaemrlng of operators, my operate 8
motor vehicle e8 an 0 tar only, far 8 period of
not OIore thin nlmetg r 90) &8y8 in say a81e yesr,
ii.the motor vehlale 80 operated i8 duly regiatereIi
3.~ the home State of suak nonre8ident."
Thu8 noarealdents are permitted to exercise the priv-
ilege of operating on the highways of this State subject ini-
tially to the foregoing conditions. But other conditions are
also exscted of them. We further find In Section 29 of tbst
et&&e the following prowtiion:
-
Eon. Jslpes C. Hartin, PBBe 3, v-980
" (8). The privilege of driving 8 motor
Vehtile On t+ -8yCI Of this %X&3 given
to 8 nonresident hereuuder 8haIl be subject
to 8USpeMiOn or revooatlon by the hepertment
In like manner and for like cause 88 an oper-
8tOr'8, cOIImIerCialOpW8tOr's, or ahSUffeUr'8
license 18sUed hereunder may be suspended or
rewaked.”
It will be 8een, then, thet the Legislature has ex-
tended to nonresidents this operational privilege If such
QOiiEMident (1) has in hi8 iBledi8tO ptHl8e88iOU 8U 8ppl'O&U'i8te
Oat-Of-8.tate llaenre, end (2) lf realproalty Is prwent between
tdm.t state and this state 88 to reaognltlon of eeah State'8
lleen8ee.iiaa 8I80 (3) if suahom %&tedoea not reqnlre en
operational license, then the privilege is extended only for
nlaety days' operation in this State, absent the securing of
8'Ilazes llaen8e.
'EhiS aonditloneI urlwlleue granted by the Ieglslature
t0 8 nonresident Is evldetmed by the p3W88ion of 8 valid out-
Of-state IiCeuSe eccordlng to the fOm3gOlIIg Speaifia prO~i8iOn
Of OUl' 8t8tUte. It is quite true that suah license may also
evldenae 8 privilege to operate eI8ewhere then In Texas. hut
so long e8 the out-of-Et&e licensee 18 In Texas oper8tlhg on
TexaaBlgh~8ys,hia prlwllege to thus operate, 88 evidenced
by pOllSes8iOn Of 8 w&la OX&-Of-State IicOItse, l.8 8&%jeat to
regulat~ou by %%x~ s~tatutes~.
we thluk that the hgi818tQm has CIeSrIy provided
extended to nourealdents by Sea. 3
has besnqueIifledbythe provl-
to the extent of ncrklng 88s~
8ubject to all of the conditions 8ppIicabIe to residents. Res-
ident's operatlonel privileges ere subject to autoraatic suapeu-
alon upon the conviction of such licensee of an offense enum*~
era.hLund8.r Sea, 24 of the statute. This offiae has heretofore
held in Opinlous V-91 end V-479 that the license Is suspended
eutomc&lceIly by 8 coxwlatlon of the licensee of one of suah
enuiwrated offenses. And 8ee Taylor v. State, 209 S.W. 26 191
(ax. aria. 1948). The custody of the license Is 8 dlst?ngulsh- '
8bIe cOMider8tlOu from its suspended Char8Cter. That belug
true, we 888 no reason why the custody of 8u Out-Of-state license
~g~0tbe8s8umsd in t&a 8888 waythet theTex88 license of 8
resident ls e88umed ueder Sea. 25 of the statute. This is true
beaeu8e suah Ifoen8e. be It Texas or out-of-state, merely evi-
dences the privilege of operating on Texas hlghwsgs, which
P privilege I8 subject to reasonable m3gUIetiOtL
Han. Jaw8 C.lbrtl.n,page 4,V-980
@enerally the power to rewoke any type of' liaense18
vested only la the authority which granted It. 53 C.J.S.,Sec.
44. uaue 652. But the Texm ~Court which convicts a nonresident
Of-8: GffeiMe calling fOr 8UtO?IIBtiC8USpsnSiOQ does not revoke
the out-of-stclte llaense by 888umlng custody of It; It only
assums austody of the evidence of the conditional privilege
granted such nonresident to operate 8 motor vehicle on Texas
highrsyS l
This opinion doe8 not concern the proaedure to be
followed by the custodlm of the nonresldent~s out-of-state
llten8e ln holding or diSpO8ipg of such out-of-state license
after assumlag enstody, gs 8uah que8tlon ha8 not been asked.
The privilege of 8 nonresident to operate
In thl8 Stak a8 evidenced by the out-of-state
operator's llceure, ohauffeurtcr lloense or aom-
merCla1 operator18 liaen8e poareslaed bj such
nanre8ldent is suta@@ieallysu8pendedbythe
eomicttiFLOf 8U5haO~eSident $B thlS state of-~
an offensefor aMe& 8utopPtla rurpenslon Is pro=
rided ander SW. 24 of Art. 66m, V.G.S. Insofar
as this privilege is evldenoed by the out-of-state
license held by anah nonresident, such out-of-state
liceme my be t&en up by the oonvlotlng court.
Your8 very truly
A$'TOBBEYG~OFTgxAS
DJC/rt