THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF ?rExAs 

AUWMN. TreKAs 787ll 

August 29, 1977 

Honorable Wilson E. Speir 

Director, Texas Department of 

Public Safety 

5805 N. Lamar Boulevard 

BOX 4087 

Austin, Texas 78773 

Opinion No. H-1043 

Re: Interpretation of the 

motor vehicle inspection 

statute in light of two 

amendments to the Act passed 

by the 65th Legislature. 

Dear Colonel Speir: 

you have requested our opinion regarding the construction 

of two amendments to section 140 of article 67016, V.T.C.S., 

both enacted by the 65th Legislature. Senate Bill 1302, Acts 

65th Leg., amends subsections (e) and (f) of section 140, as 

follows: 

(e) After the period designated for the 

inspection, no person shall operate on the 

highways of this State any motor vehicle 

registered in this State unless a valid 

certificate of inspection is displayed 

thereon as reauired bv this Section. It 

is a defense t'o a prosecution under th= 

Section that a valid inspection permit for 

the vehicle is in effect at the time of 

the arrest. Any peace officer of the Department of Public Safetv, or anv sheriff 

br deputy sheriff, or any.City policeman 

who shall exhibit his badge or other signs 

of authority, may stop any vehicle not displaying this inspection certificate as required by the Department and requirethe 

owner or operator to produce an official 

inspection-certificate for the Vehicle 

being operated. 

(f) All motor-assisted bicycles shall be 

subject to annual inspection in the same 

manner as are motorcycles, except (1) the 

fee for inspection shall be Two Dollars 

($2.001, One Dollar ($1.00) of which shall 

p. 4294 
Honorable Wilson E. Speir - Page 2 (H-1043) 

be paid to the Department to be placed in 

the Motor Vehicle Inspection Fund and used 

for the purposes prescribed by law, and (2) 

the only items of equipment required to be 

inspected are the brakes, headlamps, and 

reflectors, which are required to comply 

with the standards prescribed in Section 

184 of this Act. The Department shall 

promulgate rules and regulations relating 

to the inspection of motor-assisted bicycles 

and the issuance and display of inspection 

certificates with respect to those vehicles. 

House Bill 1772, Acts 65th Leg., amends subsection (e) by adding 

the following: 

(e) After the fifth (5th) day following 

the expiration of the period designated 

f~dr the inspection, no person shall operate one the highways of this State any 

motor vehicle registered in this State 

unless a valid certificate of inspection 

is displayed thereon as required by this 

Section and any inspector or patrolman of 

the Department of Public Safety, or any 

sheriff or deputy sheriff, or any City 

policeman who shall exhibit his badge or 

other signs of authority, may stop any 

motor vehicle not displaying this inspection certificate on the windshield and require the owner or operator to produce an 

official inspection certificate for the 

Motor Vehicle being operated. 

(Language added by the 65th Legislature is emphasized.) House 

Bill 1772 does not purport to amend subsection (f), but merely 

to redesignate it as subsection (i). 

Senate Bill 1302 was passed by the Senate on May 12, 1977, 

and was approved by the House of Representatives on May 26, 

1977. The House passed House Bill 1772 on April 28, 1977, and 

the Senate ratified it on May 28, 1977. In Ex parte Jesus De 

La 0, 227 S.W.Zd 212 (Tex. Crim. App. 1950), the court held 

that 

[wlhere two acts passed at the same session 

of the legislature cannot be reconciled by 

any known rule of construction, the first 

p. 4295 
Honorable Wilson E. Speir - Page 3 (B-1043) 

in time or position must give way to the 

last, and the latter act will stand as the 

final expression of the legislative will. 

Id. at 213. See Code Construction Act, V.T.C.S. art. 5429b-2, 

=.05(b). Thus, unless the two bills can be harmonized, House 

Bill 1772 must prevail, since it was finally enacted two days 

later than Senate Bill 1302. In our opinion, however, there is 

only one portion of subsection (e) in which an irreconcilable 

conflict exists between the two amendments. House Bill 1772 

amended'subsection (e) only to provide an additional five-day 

grace period following the expiration of the period designated 

for a motor vehicle inspection, during which the operator of a 

motor vehicle may not be required to exhibit his inspection 

certificate. Since House Bill 1772 was enacted subsequent to 

Senate Bill 1302, this five-day provision must be deemed to 

be a part of the Senate bill's amendment of subsection (e). 

The remainder of the two versions of subsection (e) may be 

harmonized. Senate Bill 1302 broadens the category of Department of Public Safety employees who may stop a suspect vehicle 

to include all "peace officers"; it permits an officer to 

"stop any vehicle not displaying this inspection certificate," 

rather than merely any motor vehicle, and it creates a defense 

to prosecution "if a valid inspection permit for the vehicle is 

in effect at the time of the arrest." Senate Bill 1302 also 

amends subsection (e) to permit an officer to stop a vehicle 

"not displaying this inspection certificate as required by the 

department." (Emphasis added). House Bill 1772 retains the 

requirement that the certificate be displayed "on the windshield." 

In our opinion, the Senate version regarding this display 

requirement should prevail. As we have noted, the only change 

in subsection (e) effected by House Bill 1772 relates to the 

five-day grace period. In order to be constitutionally effective, however, it was necessary that the entire subsection be 

re-enacted and published at length. Tex . Const. art. 3, § 36; 

Buford v. State, 322 S.W.2d 366, 370 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Austin 

1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 837 (1959); 

Ellison v. Texas Liquor Control Board, 154 S.W.Zd 322, 325-26 

-(Tex. Civ. App. -- Galveston 1941, writ ref'd). Furthermore, 

the rule that statutes in & materia will be construed together 

applies with peculiar force to those enacted at the same session 

of the legislature. Wright v. Broeter, 196 S.W.Zd 82, 85 (Tex. 

1946). Accordingly, we believe that the broader and newlyenacted provision of Senate Bill 1302 relating to the display 

requirement should take precedence over the language of House 

Bill 1772, and that, as a result, an officer is authorized to 

p. 4296 
Honorable Wilson E. Speir - Page 4 (H-1043) 

stop any vehicle not displaying an inspection certificate "as 

required by the Department" of Public Safety. 

As we have previously observed, House Bill 1772 does not 

purport to amend subsection (f), 

for motor-assisted bicycles, 

regarding the inspection fee 

subsection (i). 

but merely to redesignate it as 

Because of the later enactment of House Bill 

1772, the re-designation must be deemed to prevail. In our 

opinion, however, the substantive change wrought in former 

subsection (f) by Senate Bill 1302 is effective to increase 

the inspection fee to two dollars , of which one dollar is to 

be placed in the Motor Vehicle Inspection Fund. Thus, the 

Senate bill's amendment to subsection (f) accurately states 

the law, but subsection (f) should be designated, after the 

effective date of the statute, as subsection (i). 

SUMMARY 

Senate Bill 1302, Acts 65th Leg., is 

effective in its entirety to amend subsections (e) and (f) of section 140, 

article 6701d, V.T.C.S., except that 

the five-day grace period established 

by House Bill 1772, Acts 65th Leg., 

should be read into subsection (e), and 

the Senate Bill's subsection (f) should 

be re-designated as subsection (i). 

Very truly yours, 

k:w 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

DAVID M.>NDALL, 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

jst 

p. 4297