Honorable Wilson E. Speir Opinion No. H-1853

Texas Department of Public Safety 5805N. Lamar Boulevard Re: Automatic suspension Box 4087 ofdriver's license. Austin, Texas 78773
Dear Col. Speir:
You have asked about the constitutionality of the "automatic" suspension of drivers' licenses required by section 24 of article 6687b,V.T.C.S. That section of the statute provides, inter e, that "[tlhe license of any person shall be automatically suspended upon final conviction" of driving amotor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs. Whenever any person isconvicted of such anoffense, the court inwhich such conviction ishadmust require the surrender to itof all licenses held by theperson convicted; the court clerk is thereupon to forward them to the Department of Public Safety together with arecord of the conviction. it, If the convicting court orders the Department will then issue a "restricted" license to the offender ifhe isnot imprisoned, Attorney General Opinion H-794 (1976),but the original license remains suspended. V.T.C.S. art. 6687b, S 25. The Department of Public Safety has taken theposition that once the conviction becomes final, the suspension of the license isautomatic and no further action need be taken by the court or by the Department tomake the suspension effective. Ithas been recently suggested, however, that the 'automatic" feature of the statute denies due process of law to licenseholding offenders by failing to accord them a hearing on the matter and by failing to accord them notification of the suspension. You ask:

Does an in-state final conviction of driving while intoxicated make "automatic" the suspension of the individual's drivers license?

P. 4329
An Eaual Omrxtunitv E~D~OWTHonorable Wilson E. Speir -Page 2

We answer in the affirmative. See L.Ed.2d 172 (1977). -

In 1951 the Supreme Court of Texas (H-1053)

Dixon v. Love, 52

refused writ of error in the case of Tatum v. Texas Dep~artmentoftPublic Safety, 241 S.W.2d 167 (Tex.Civ. App. --Austin 1951,writ ref'd). The opinion of theAustin Court of Civil Appeals inthat case rejected "dueprocess" attacks upon the automatic suspension provisions of sections 24and 25 of article 668713,V.T.C.S., saying, "appellant was afforded an opportunity tobe heard on the charges against him and fromwhich the suspension of his driver's license stemmed." 241 S.W.Zd at 171. See Taylor v. State, 209 S.W.2d 191 (Tex.Crim. App. 194n The suspension of a license following such an in-state criminal trial isan automatic incident of the failure of the license holder toprevail at the trial of the criminal charges lodged against him. Ifhe finally fails, i.e., if the in-state conviction becomes final, the suspension is automatic, whether areport of the conviction is sent to the Department of Public Safety or not, whether or not the judgment of conviction specifically provides for the suspension, andwhether or not the defendant actually surrenders his license to the court. No action by the court, the jury, or the Department of Public Safety isnecessary tobring the suspension into effect. Marley v. State, 394 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Crim. ADD. 1965): Standifer v. Texas Dept. of **PP.** --Houston [14th Public Safety, 463 S.W.2h-38 (Tex;Civ. A-- Dist.] 1971, nowrit): Texas.Dept. of Public Safety v. Preble, 398 S.W.2d 785 (Tex.Civ. App. --Houston 1966, nowrit): 380 S.W.2d 783 (Tex.Civ.

, 301 S.W.2d 276 (Tex.Civ.APP. --Eastland 1957,writ dism'd). Note, however, that section-24 of article 6687b;V.T.C.S., is not applicable toout-of-state convictions. Hurley v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety, 505 S.W.Zd 700 (Tex.Civ. App. -- Eastland 1974, nowrit); Smith v. Speir, 504 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.Civ. App. -- Ft. Worth 1974, nom]-
SUMMARY

An in-state final conviction of driving while intoxicated automatically suspends the convict's driving license without the necessity of further official action.

P. 4330Honorable Wilson E. Speir -Page 3 (H-1053)

APPROVED:

jst

p. 4331