Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

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