Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

AUSTIN, T-s 78711

January 17, 1974

The Honorable James R. Arnold Opinion No. H- 212 Traffic Safety Administrator Texas Department of Community Re: The constitutionality of funding Affairs the State Driver Education Program P. 0. Box 13449 with a surcharge on fines for moving Austin, Texas 78711 traffic violations.

Dear Mr. Arnold:

You have asked our opinion about the constitutionality of funding the State Driver Education Program with a surcharge on fines for moving traffic violations.

We assume “surcharge”, as used in your request, refers ~to a charge similar to those made pursuant to Article 1083 of Vernon’s Texas Code of ‘Criminal Procedure to finance the Criminal Justice Planning Fund. Also see Art. 42.12, $ 6a, T. C. C. P.

A diligent search has failed to reveal any statute in Texas which would currently authorize the collection of such a charge for such a purpose. Articles 67Olj-1, The Texas Traffic Safety Act of 1967, and 4413 (29c), the Act for licensing commercial driver-training schools and instructors, do not. Its collection without statutory authority would be unauthorized. Articie 1011, T. C. C. P.

Inasmuch as there is no statute purporting to permit such a charge for such a purpose, and no legislative committee is now considering a proposed enactment, we have nothing to submit to constitutiona. scrutiny. But see: Ex parte Carson, 159 S. W. 2d 126 (Tex. Crim. 1942); Carter v. City of Norfolk, 147 S. E. 2d 139 (Va. 1966); State v. Anderson, 234 S. W. 768 (Term. 1920); Ex parte Miller, 263 P 2d 522 (Okla. Grim. App.1953); and Ex -- parte Coffelt, 228 P 2d 199 (Okla. Crim. App. 1951).

p. 994 The Honorable James R. Arnold, page 2 (H-212)

SUMMARY

In the absence of a statute or a proposed statute authorizing the collection of a surcharge on fines for moving traffic violations to be used in funding the State Driver Education Program, there is no basis for testing the constitu- tionality of such a levy.

Attorney General of Texas Opinion Committee

p. 995