Can Texas police use a handheld laser speed camera that records video before a traffic stop?

Plain-English summary

Texas law bars cities from running automated speed-camera systems to ticket drivers for speeding. The Plano Police Department was looking at a newer tool: a handheld laser speed device that an officer aims by hand, but that also includes a video camera and GPS to build a record of the violation for court. A state representative asked the Attorney General whether buying and using that device would run into the same statute, Transportation Code section 542.2035, that bans automated speed enforcement.

The answer came down to how the statute defines "automated traffic control system." That phrase covers a photographic, radar, laser, or other device designed to record a vehicle's speed and to obtain one or more photographs or recorded images of the vehicle, its license plate, or its driver. In everyday English, "automated" might suggest something that runs without a person, but the Legislature wrote its own definition, and that definition does not require the absence of human control. When the Legislature defines a term clearly, the Attorney General is bound to use that definition.

So the question was simply whether the handheld device fit the statutory description. It did. The device records speed and obtains images of the vehicle, plate, or driver, which is exactly what the definition covers. The fact that an officer holds and aims it does not take it out of the ban. The Attorney General concluded the contemplated device is prohibited under section 542.2035.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. 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

Municipalities and police departments (as the opinion held for them): The opinion told them a handheld laser speed device that both records vehicle speed and captures images of the vehicle, plate, or driver falls within the statutory ban on automated traffic control systems, even though an officer operates it, so it could not be used to enforce speed limits.

On the "automated" label (what the opinion clarified): Under the opinion, the statutory definition controls over the ordinary meaning of "automated," so personal operation by an officer does not exempt a device that otherwise meets the definition.

Drivers and the public (as the opinion described it): The opinion confirmed that section 542.2035 prohibits the described speed-and-image devices, which bears on how Texas cities may and may not gather speed-enforcement evidence.

Common questions

Is a handheld laser speed device with a camera legal for Texas police speed enforcement?
The opinion concluded it is prohibited under section 542.2035 if it records speed and also obtains images of the vehicle, license plate, or driver.

Does it matter that an officer holds the device instead of a fixed camera?
No. The opinion concluded the statutory definition does not require the absence of human control, so officer operation does not exempt the device.

What makes a device an "automated traffic control system"?
The opinion explained the statute defines it as a device designed to record a vehicle's speed and obtain photographs or recorded images of the vehicle, its plate, or its operator.

Why does the statutory definition control over the ordinary meaning?
The opinion noted that when the Legislature clearly defines a term, the Attorney General is bound to use that definition rather than the common understanding.

Background and statutory framework

Transportation Code section 542.2035 prohibits a municipality from implementing or operating an automated traffic control system to enforce posted speed limits. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 542.2035(a) (West Supp. 2010). The statute defines an automated traffic control system as a photographic, radar, laser, or other device designed to record the speed of a motor vehicle and to obtain one or more photographs or recorded images of the vehicle, the license plate, or the operator. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 542.2035(b).

In construing a statute, the object is to give effect to legislative intent, beginning with the statute's language, and a clear statutory definition is binding. Leland v. Brandal, 257 S.W.3d 204, 206 (Tex. 2008); Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864, 866 (Tex. 1999); Transp. Ins. Co. v. Faircloth, 898 S.W.2d 269, 274 (Tex. 1995); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 311.011(b) (West 2005). The definition does not limit the term to devices lacking human control, so a handheld laser device that records speed and obtains the requisite image meets it.

Citations

Statutes:

• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 542.2035(a) (West Supp. 2010)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 542.2035(b)
• Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 311.011(b) (West 2005)

Cases:

• Leland v. Brandal, 257 S.W.3d 204, 206 (Tex. 2008)
• Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864, 866 (Tex. 1999)
• Transp. Ins. Co. v. Faircloth, 898 S.W.2d 269, 274 (Tex. 1995)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/greg-abbott/ga-0846
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2011/ga0846.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

February 28, 2011

The Honorable Vicki Truitt Opinion No. GA-0846
Chair, Committee on Pensions, Investments
and Financial Services Re: Whether section 542.2035, Transportation
Texas House of Representatives Code, prohibits a municipal peace officer from
Post Office Box 2910 using a handheld laser speed enforcement device
Austin, Texas 78768-2910 to collect evidence before initiating a traffic stop
(RQ-0914-GA)

Dear Representative Truitt:

You ask whether section 542.2035 of the Transportation Code "prohibits a peace officer employed by a municipality from using a handheld laser speed enforcement device equipped with a video camera and GPS technology to collect evidence before initiating a traffic stop."[1] You explain that "the Plano Police Department is considering purchasing" such a device "for use by its traffic enforcement officers," but you are concerned that the wording of section 542.2035 may prohibit the use of this new technology. Request Letter at 2.

Section 542.2035 of the Transportation Code prohibits a municipality from implementing or operating "an automated traffic control system with respect to a highway or street under its jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing compliance with posted speed limits." TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 542.2035(a) (West Supp. 2010). For purposes of this section, "automated traffic control system" is defined 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). Your question therefore requires us to determine whether an automated traffic control system, as that phrase is defined by statute, includes a handheld laser speed enforcement device, like the one you describe, equipped with a video camera and GPS technology.[2]

In construing a statute, our object is to determine and give effect to the legislative intent. Leland v. Brandal, 257 S.W.3d 204, 206 (Tex. 2008). In determining that intent, we first look to the language of the statute. Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864, 866 (Tex. 1999). If a word is clearly and unambiguously defined by the Legislature, we are bound to use the definition so provided. See Transp. Ins. Co. v. Faircloth, 898 S.W.2d 269, 274 (Tex. 1995); TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 311.011(b) (West 2005). Although a common understanding of the term automated may suggest a lack of human direction or control, the statutory definition in subsection 542.2035(b) does not so limit the phrase "automated traffic control system."[3] Instead, any handheld laser device will meet the Legislature's definition so long as it records the speed of a motor vehicle and obtains the requisite photograph or recorded image. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that the device in question meets this definition and is therefore prohibited under section 542.2035.

SUMMARY

By enactment of Transportation Code section 542.2035, the Legislature has prohibited a municipality from using any radar device that records the speed of a motor vehicle and obtains one or more photographs or other recorded images of the vehicle, its license plate or its operator.

Very truly yours,

DANIEL T. HODGE
First Assistant Attorney General

DAVID J. SCHENCK
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

NANCY S. FULLER
Chair, Opinion Committee

Virginia K. Hoelscher
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] Request Letter at 1 (available at http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov).

[2] You further describe the technology at issue by explaining that they "incorporate video cameras and GPS systems into conventional handheld laser speed enforcement equipment. Such devices provide a complete chain of video and satellite evidence for officers to use in court. Unlike the automated speed enforcement systems, these devices are personally operated by an officer." Request Letter at 2.

[3] See MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 83-84 (11th ed. 2003) (defining "automated" as "to operate by automation" and defining "automation" as "automatically controlled operation of an apparatus, process, or system by mechanical or electronic devices that take the place of human labor"); NEW OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY 108-109 (2001) (defining "automate" as [to] "convert (a process or facility) to largely automatic operation" and defining "automatic" as "working by itself with little or no direct human control").