Can Texas police impound your car if you can't show proof of insurance?

Plain-English summary

William H. Kuntz, Jr., the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, asked the AG a practical question that had come up as Texas cities started passing local rules: when a driver cannot show proof of insurance, can a city or its police impound the car? He broke the question into a few pieces, and the AG answered each in turn.

First, the police. Chapter 601 of the Transportation Code, the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, requires anyone operating a vehicle to be able to show financial responsibility (typically liability insurance) when a peace officer asks. A driver who cannot is presumed to be driving in violation of the law, which is a criminal offense the driver can be arrested or cited for. Separately, chapter 545 lets officers remove a vehicle from the road in certain situations, including when the driver is arrested and must be taken into custody, or when the vehicle endangers public safety. But the AG was careful to note that impounding a car is a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution, so it has to be reasonable. Courts weigh a list of factors (is someone there to take the car, is it blocking traffic, was it used in a crime, and so on), and at least one federal court had upheld impoundments precisely because the drivers could not establish financial responsibility. The AG's bottom line on this piece: peace officers, including city police, may impound a vehicle to protect public safety under reasonable circumstances when the driver shows no proof of financial responsibility, but whether any particular impoundment is constitutionally reasonable depends on the facts.

Second, the city ordinance. Chapter 601 neither authorizes nor forbids a municipality to enforce its insurance rules by impounding cars. Home-rule cities (the larger cities that govern themselves under their own charters) have "full power of local self-government" and look to the Legislature only for limits on their power, so a home-rule city may adopt an impoundment ordinance as long as it does not conflict with a statute and stays within constitutional bounds. A general-law city has only the powers the Legislature grants it, but it may pass ordinances for the "good government, peace, or order" of the city that carry out a granted power, so the AG concluded such a city likely may adopt an impoundment ordinance on the same conditions.

Third, getting the car back. Some city ordinances tried to condition release of the impounded car on the owner showing proof of insurance to the vehicle storage facility. Here the AG drew the line. Section 2303.160 of the Occupations Code says a storage facility must release a vehicle to an owner or operator who pays the lawful charges and shows valid photo ID; it treats proof of insurance only as an extra way to prove ownership, and it never makes release turn on whether the owner has complied with traffic laws. A city rule forcing the storage lot to verify insurance before releasing the car would, in effect, hand a law-enforcement job to a private storage business and bolt on a release requirement the Legislature did not write. The Legislature requires proof of financial responsibility only in a few specific moments (when an officer asks, to the other driver in an accident, and as a defense in court), which signaled to the AG that it deliberately did not require it at the storage lot. So the AG concluded a court would likely hold that a city may not condition release on showing insurance to the storage facility.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. 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.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

Local police and other peace officers (as the opinion described it): The opinion described peace officers, including those working for local law enforcement agencies and municipalities, as having authority to remove a vehicle from a roadway to protect public safety under reasonable circumstances when the driver fails to provide evidence of financial responsibility. It framed that impoundment as a seizure governed by the Fourth Amendment and the Texas Constitution, so the opinion stressed that whether any given impoundment was lawful turned on the reasonableness factors and the facts of the situation, not on a blanket rule.

Cities considering an impoundment ordinance (as the opinion described it): The opinion described a home-rule city as able to adopt an ordinance on impounding vehicles for lack of financial responsibility, provided the ordinance did not conflict with a statute and met constitutional constraints. It described a general-law city as likely able to do the same, because such an ordinance could serve the city's peace and good order, subject to the same no-conflict and constitutional limits.

Vehicle storage facilities and people retrieving an impounded car (as the opinion described it): The opinion described section 2303.160 of the Occupations Code as requiring a storage facility to release a vehicle on payment of lawful charges and valid photo ID, and as not conditioning release on proof of compliance with traffic laws. It described a city ordinance that made release turn on showing insurance to the storage facility as something a court would likely find exceeded the storage facility's statutory role and conflicted with the statute.

Common questions

Can the police impound my car in Texas if I can't show proof of insurance?
Based on this opinion, yes, under the right circumstances. The AG concluded that peace officers, including city police, may remove and impound a vehicle to protect public safety when the driver cannot provide evidence of financial responsibility. The catch is that impoundment is a constitutional seizure, so it has to be reasonable, and the AG said reasonableness depends on the facts of each stop.

Does a city need a special ordinance before police can impound an uninsured car?
The opinion treated the officer's authority to impound (tied to an arrest or a public-safety hazard) as coming from state law, not from a local ordinance. But it also said a home-rule city, and likely a general-law city, may adopt its own ordinance addressing impoundment for lack of financial responsibility, as long as the ordinance does not conflict with a statute and stays within constitutional limits.

Can a city make me prove I have insurance to get my impounded car back?
The AG concluded a court would likely say no, at least where the rule forces the vehicle storage facility to verify insurance before releasing the car. Section 2303.160 of the Occupations Code requires release on payment of lawful charges and valid photo identification and does not tie release to traffic-law compliance, so a city rule adding that condition would likely be found to conflict with the statute and to push a law-enforcement task onto the storage business.

Why did the AG point to the Fourth Amendment when talking about impoundment?
Because taking a car is a seizure of property. The opinion cited the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution and explained that an impoundment must be reasonable. It listed factors Texas courts use (such as whether someone was available to take the car, whether it blocked traffic or was a danger, and whether it was connected to the arrest) and noted the answer is fact-specific.

The Legislature kept rejecting bills to authorize impoundment. Didn't that mean cities couldn't do it?
The requester raised exactly that argument. The AG rejected it, citing the rule that courts find "no controlling significance to the Legislature's failure to enact legislation." So the fact that several impoundment bills had failed did not, in the AG's view, mean local law enforcement lacked impoundment authority.

Background and statutory framework

The request grew out of municipalities adopting ordinances that authorized local law enforcement to impound vehicles when drivers could not maintain liability insurance or other financial responsibility. The AG analyzed the question in three layers: the authority of peace officers, the authority of municipalities to legislate on the subject, and the limits on conditioning a vehicle's release.

On peace-officer authority, the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act requires a person operating a vehicle to establish financial responsibility (Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 601.051 (West 2011); see id. § 601.001). A driver must, on request, provide a peace officer evidence of financial responsibility, and a driver who fails to do so is presumed to be operating in violation of section 601.051, a criminal offense for which the driver may be arrested or cited (id. § 601.053(a)(1)-(7), (b); § 601.191(a); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 14.01(b), 14.06(b)). Chapter 545 authorizes officers to remove a vehicle from the highway in defined circumstances, including when the driver is arrested and must be taken into custody, or when the property endangers public safety (Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.305(a)(8), (b); § 545.3051(b); § 545.3051(a)(3)(A)). Because removing a vehicle is a seizure, the AG framed the analysis around the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution and the reasonableness inquiry Texas courts apply (Bass v. State, 835 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1992, no writ); Benavides v. State, 600 S.W.2d 809, 810-12 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Mayberry v. State, 830 S.W.2d 176, 179-80 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, pet. ref'd)). The AG also noted that a federal district court had upheld impoundments where drivers could not establish financial responsibility (Maricle v. Biggerstaff, 10 F. Supp. 2d 705, 706-08 (N.D. Tex. 1998)).

On municipal authority, the AG applied the familiar home-rule and general-law distinction. A home-rule city has "full power of local self-government" and looks to the Legislature only for limitations on its power, so it may adopt an impoundment ordinance that does not conflict with a statute and meets constitutional constraints (S. Crushed Concrete, L.L.C. v. City of Houston, 398 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. 2013); Tex. Const. art. XI, § 5; Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 51.072(a); see Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2308.208). A general-law city possesses only the powers the Legislature expressly grants or implies (Tex. Const. art. XI, § 4) but may adopt ordinances "for the good government, peace, or order of the municipality" that are "necessary or proper for carrying out a power granted by law" (Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 51.001; see id. § 51.012). On that basis the AG concluded a general-law city likely may adopt an impoundment ordinance on the same conditions.

On conditioning release, the AG turned to chapter 2303 of the Occupations Code, which governs vehicle storage facilities. Section 2303.160 requires a facility to release a vehicle to an owner or operator who pays the lawful charges and provides valid photo identification, and it treats proof of financial responsibility only as an additional form of identification establishing ownership or right of possession, never as a precondition tied to traffic-law compliance (Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2303.160(b), (c); see id. §§ 2303.001-.305). A city ordinance requiring the storage facility to verify insurance before releasing the vehicle would, the AG reasoned, delegate a law-enforcement duty to the storage facility and exceed its statutory role. The AG reinforced the point by observing that the Legislature requires proof of financial responsibility in only limited instances (on an officer's request, to the other party in an accident, and as a defense to prosecution) (id. § 601.053(a), (c); § 601.193(a)), invoking the construction principle that the Legislature knows how to require such proof when it wants to (Zanchi v. Lane, 408 S.W.3d 373, 380 (Tex. 2013)). Because a municipal ordinance that narrows or restricts a state statute can be found to conflict with it, the AG concluded a court would likely hold that a municipality may not condition release on presenting insurance to the storage facility (see Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. KP-0026 (2015) at 3-4).

Citations

Constitutional and statutory provisions:

• U.S. Const. amend. IV (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures)
• Tex. Const. art. I, § 9 (Texas protection against unreasonable seizures and searches)
• Tex. Const. art. XI, § 4 (general-law municipalities possess only granted or implied powers)
• Tex. Const. art. XI, § 5 (Home-Rule Amendment)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 601.001 (Texas Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 601.051 (requirement to establish financial responsibility)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 601.053(a)(1)-(7), (b), (c) (providing evidence of financial responsibility on request)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 601.053(a)(2-a) (electronic image of insurance proof)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 601.081 (information required for financial responsibility)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 601.191(a) (operating without financial responsibility is an offense)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 601.193(a) (defense to prosecution)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 601.001-.454 (Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act generally)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.305(a)(8), (b) (removal of a vehicle from a highway)
• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.3051(a)(3)(A), (b) (removal of personal property endangering public safety)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 14.01(b), 14.06(b) (warrantless arrest; issuance of citation)
• Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 51.001 (general-law municipality ordinance power)
• Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 51.012 (Type-A general-law municipality ordinance power)
• Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 51.072(a) (home-rule full power of local self-government)
• Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2303.160(b), (c) (release of an impounded vehicle by a storage facility)
• Tex. Occ. Code Ann. §§ 2303.001-.305 (regulation of vehicle storage facilities)
• Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2308.208 (municipal ordinances on unauthorized vehicles and towing)

Cases:

• Bass v. State, 835 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1992, no writ)
• Benavides v. State, 600 S.W.2d 809, 810-12 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)
• Mayberry v. State, 830 S.W.2d 176, 179-80 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, pet. ref'd)
• Maricle v. Biggerstaff, 10 F. Supp. 2d 705, 706-08 (N.D. Tex. 1998)
• S. Crushed Concrete, L.L.C. v. City of Houston, 398 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. 2013)
• Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433, 443 (Tex. 2009)
• Zanchi v. Lane, 408 S.W.3d 373, 380 (Tex. 2013)

Prior Attorney General opinions referenced:

• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. KP-0026 (2015)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0034
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2015/kp0034.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

August 14, 2015

Mr. William H. Kuntz, Jr. Opinion No. KP-0034
Executive Director
Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Re: Whether municipalities or local law
Post Office Box 12157 enforcement agencies are authorized to
Austin, Texas 78711 impound a motor vehicle for lack of proof
of insurance or financial responsibility
(RQ-0014-KP)

Dear Mr. Kuntz:

Explaining that some cities are adopting ordinances that provide for "the impoundment of vehicles by local law enforcement for failure to maintain liability insurance or other forms of financial responsibility," you inquire about the authority of a municipality or local law enforcement agency to impound a vehicle for lack of proof of financial responsibility. [1]

We first consider the authority of local law enforcement agencies. The Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, found in chapter 601 of the Transportation Code, requires a person operating a motor vehicle in this state to establish financial responsibility for the vehicle. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 601.051 (West 2011); see also id. § 601.001 (identifying chapter as the "Texas Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act"). A person operating a vehicle in this state shall on request "provide to a peace officer, as defined by Article 2.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, or a person involved in an accident with the operator evidence of financial responsibility." Id. § 601.053(a)(1)-(7) (West Supp. 2014) (listing methods by which to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility). [2] A person who does not provide evidence of financial responsibility as requested "is presumed to have operated the vehicle in violation of Section 601.051." Id. § 601.053(b). The operation of a vehicle in violation of section 601.051 constitutes a criminal offense for which the operator may be arrested or cited. Id. § 601.191(a) (West 2011); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 14.01(b) (West 2015) (authorizing a peace officer to "arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view"), 14.06(b) (authorizing a peace officer to issue a citation).

Chapter 545 of the Transportation Code expressly authorizes peace officers to remove a vehicle from a highway if the vehicle is "operated by a person an officer arrests for an alleged offense and the officer is required by law to take the person into custody." TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 545.305(a)(8), (b) (West 2011). Under chapter 545, a law enforcement agency may also "remove personal property from a roadway or right-of-way if the ... law enforcement agency determines that the property ... endangers public safety." Id. § 545.3051(b); see id. § 545.3051(a)(3)(A) (defining personal property to include vehicles under section 545.305). Accordingly, under certain circumstances, peace officers are authorized to remove a vehicle from a roadway, but that authority is not unfettered. The removal of a vehicle is a seizure of property afforded certain protections by the United States and Texas Constitutions. See U.S. CONST. amend. IV (ensuring "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"); TEX. CONST. art. I, § 9 (providing that "[t]he people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures and searches"). The reasonable seizure or "[t]he impoundment of an automobile may be lawful under various circumstances." Bass v. State, 835 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1992, no writ). Courts most often consider the reasonableness of an impoundment when a vehicle driver is arrested and challenges the legality of the impoundment and subsequent search. See, e.g., Benavides v. State, 600 S.W.2d 809, 810-12 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). The reasonableness of an impoundment involves various factors, including

(1) the availability of someone at the scene of the arrest to whom the police could have given possession of the vehicle; (2) whether the vehicle was impeding the flow of traffic or was a danger to public safety; (3) whether the vehicle was locked; (4) whether the detention of the arrestee would likely be of such duration to require the police to take protective measures; (5) whether there was some reasonable connection between the arrest and the vehicle; and (6) whether the vehicle was used in the commission of a crime.

Mayberry v. State, 830 S.W.2d 176, 179-80 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, pet. ref'd) (citations omitted).

While such cases involve drivers unable to drive the vehicle because of an arrest, at least one Texas court has concluded that failure to establish financial responsibility may result in probable cause for a warrantless seizure, applying the reasonableness test to a driver who is unable to drive the vehicle for failure to provide evidence of financial responsibility. See Maricle v. Biggerstaff, 10 F. Supp. 2d 705, 706-08 (N.D. Tex. 1998) (upholding police decision to impound vehicles because none of the drivers could establish financial responsibility). A vehicle that is left on the highway or roadway because the driver is arrested or may no longer operate the vehicle may constitute a public safety hazard, and if so, the vehicle's impoundment could be a reasonable seizure. As a general matter, peace officers of the state, including those working for local law enforcement agencies and municipalities, may remove a vehicle from a roadway to protect the public safety and under reasonable circumstances when the driver fails to provide evidence of financial responsibility. [3] Whether a particular impoundment is constitutionally reasonable will depend on the facts in any given instance.

We next consider the authority of municipalities. Transportation Code chapter 601 does not expressly authorize a municipality to enforce the chapter's requirements by providing for the impoundment of vehicles. See generally TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. §§ 601.001-.454 (West 2011 & Supp. 2014). Neither does chapter 601 expressly prohibit a municipality from enforcing its provisions. See id. Under the Home-Rule Amendment, home-rule cities look "to the Legislature, not for grants of power, but only for limitations on their powers." S. Crushed Concrete, L.L.C. v. City of Houston, 398 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. 2013); see also TEX. CONST. art. XI, § 5. So long as its acts are consistent with the state statutes and the constitution, a home-rule municipality has the "full power of local self-government." TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 51.072(a) (West 2008). Thus, in the exercise of its self-government, a home-rule municipality may adopt an ordinance regarding the impoundment of vehicles for the offense of lack of financial responsibility, provided such an ordinance is not in conflict with any statute and conforms to the constitutional constraints previously discussed. See generally TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. § 2308.208 (West 2012) (authorizing a municipality to adopt an ordinance identical to or that imposes additional requirements and that is not in conflict with chapter 2308 to regulate unauthorized vehicles and towing of motor vehicles).

In contrast, a general-law municipality is a creature of statute and possesses only those powers expressly granted by general law or implied therefrom. TEX. CONST. art. XI, § 4. A general-law municipality may adopt an ordinance or rule that is "for the good government, peace, or order of the municipality" and "is necessary or proper for carrying out a power granted by law to the municipality or to an office or department of the municipality." TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 51.001 (West 2008); see also id. § 51.012 (providing a Type-A general-law municipality with authority to adopt an ordinance "not inconsistent with state law, that is necessary for the government, interest, welfare, or good order of the municipality"). Provided there is no conflict with state statute or the U.S. or Texas Constitutions, an ordinance providing for the removal or impoundment of the vehicle of a driver arrested or cited for the offense under section 601.051 may serve the peace and good order of a municipality by removing a potential traffic obstacle as well as protecting private property. In addition, such ordinance must be necessary or proper to carry out the power vested in law enforcement agencies to impound a vehicle incident to arrest.

Your request letter also includes a concern regarding municipal ordinances that condition the release of the impounded vehicle on presentation of valid liability insurance. See Request Letter at 1. Assuming, based on our analysis above, that a municipality may adopt an ordinance providing for the impoundment of a vehicle when the driver provides no evidence of financial responsibility, we consider whether such authority includes authority to condition the release of the vehicle on presentation of valid liability insurance. Contained within chapter 2303 of the Occupations Code governing vehicle storage facilities, section 2303.160 provides for the release of an impounded vehicle. See TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. § 2303.160(b) (West 2012); see also id. §§ 2303.001-.305 (West 2012 & Supp. 2014) (governing vehicle storage facilities). Section 2303.160 requires a vehicle storage facility to release a vehicle to the owner or operator who pays any lawful charges and provides valid photo identification. See id. § 2303.160(c) (West 2012). While it expressly states that evidence of financial responsibility must be accepted by a vehicle storage facility "as an additional form of identification that establishes ownership or right of possession or control of the vehicle," nowhere in section 2303.160 has the Legislature conditioned release of a vehicle upon a showing that the owner or possessor has complied with all motor vehicle safety laws such as providing evidence of financial responsibility. Id. § 2303.160(b). Presumably, section 2303.160 evidences an intent to limit the release of a vehicle based on proper identification of a person as the owner or operator rather than on the person's compliance with traffic laws. Yet, a municipality that requires a vehicle storage facility to verify proof of financial responsibility as a condition of release of an impounded vehicle, in essence, attempts to delegate the law enforcement duty of enforcing traffic laws to a vehicle storage facility. A court would likely conclude that such a duty may exceed the authority placed on a vehicle storage facility by statute.

Moreover, the Legislature has expressly required the demonstration of proof of financial responsibility in only limited instances. Section 601.053 of the Transportation Code requires the operator of a vehicle to provide, on request, to a peace officer evidence of financial responsibility. TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 601.053(a) (West Supp. 2014); see also id. § 601.053(c) (providing a means for the peace officer to verify the validity of the proof). A vehicle operator must also provide proof of financial responsibility to a person with whom the vehicle operator is in an accident. See id. § 601.053(a). Finally, a person charged with the offense of operating a vehicle without proof of financial responsibility may produce proof of financial responsibility valid at the time of the offense to a judge as a defense to prosecution. See id. § 601.193(a) (West 2011). These provisions indicate that the Legislature knows how to require evidence of proof of financial responsibility, and it has not done so with respect to the release of vehicles from a vehicle storage facility. See Zanchi v. Lane, 408 S.W.3d 373, 380 (Tex. 2013) (relying on principle of statutory construction that the Legislature knows how to enact laws effectuating its intent). A requirement that a person demonstrate proof of financial responsibility as a condition to securing release of an impounded vehicle places a burden on the vehicle storage facility and the person that is not in the statute. And while a municipal ordinance may impose more stringent standards than a statute on the same subject in many instances, one that serves to narrow or restrict a state statute could be determined by a court to conflict with the statute. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. KP-0026 (2015) at 3-4 (concluding that a city charter provision precluding from serving on a board a person eligible to serve under state statute would be inconsistent with state law).

For these reasons, a court would likely conclude that a municipality may not condition release of a vehicle impounded for lack of evidence of financial responsibility upon presentation of such evidence to a vehicle storage facility.

SUMMARY

Under constitutionally reasonable circumstances, peace officers of the state, including those working for local law enforcement agencies and municipalities, may impound a vehicle to protect the public safety when the driver fails to provide evidence of financial responsibility. A home-rule municipality, and likely a general-law municipality, has authority to adopt an ordinance regarding the impoundment of vehicles for the offense of lack of financial responsibility provided that such an ordinance is not in conflict with any statute and also conforms to any constitutional constraints.

A court would likely conclude that a municipality may not condition release of a vehicle impounded for lack of evidence of financial responsibility upon presentation of such evidence to a vehicle storage facility.

Very truly yours,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

CHARLES E. ROY
First Assistant Attorney General

BRANTLEY STARR
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

CHARLOTTE M. HARPER
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] Letter from Mr. William H. Kuntz, Jr., Exec. Dir., Tex. Dep't of Licensing & Regulation, to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1 (Feb. 13, 2015), https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinion/requests-for-opinion-rqs ("Request Letter").

[2] With the 2013 enactment of Senate Bill 181, a person may provide evidence of financial responsibility with "an image displayed on a wireless communication device that includes the information required by Section 601.081 as provided by a liability insurer." TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 601.053(a)(2-a) (West Supp. 2014).

[3] You raise the existence of several bills that have failed to pass. Request Letter at 1 (referring to bills from several previous legislatures as well as from the current Eighty-fourth Legislature). You describe these bills as providing express authorization for law enforcement agencies to impound a vehicle in various circumstances and suggest that without such express authority, a local law enforcement agency lacks authority to impound a vehicle. See id. Courts find "no controlling significance to the Legislature's failure to enact legislation." Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433, 443 (Tex. 2009). Thus, it cannot be implied from the fact that the Legislature did not enact these bills that a local law enforcement agency is without impoundment authority.