## THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ?rExAs

AUWMN. TreKAs 787ll

August 29, 1977

Honorable Wilson E. Speir Director, Texas Department of Public Safety 5805N. 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 theAct passed by the 65th Legislature.

Dear Colonel Speir:

you have requested our opinion regarding the construction of two amendments to section 140of 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, noperson shall operate on the highways of this State anymotor vehicle registered in this State unless avalid certificate of inspection isdisplayed thereon as reauired bv this Section. It isa defense t'oaprosecution under th= Section that avalid inspection permit for thevehicle 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 theDepartment and requirethe
owner or operator toproduce an official inspection-certificate for theVehicle being operated.
(f) All motor-assisted bicycles shall be subject to annual inspection in the same manner as aremotorcycles, except (1)the fee for inspection shall be Two Dollars ($2.001,One Dollar ($1.00)of which shall

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

be paid to the Department tobeplaced in the Motor Vehicle Inspection Fund and used for thepurposes prescribed by law, and (2) the only items of equipment required tobe inspected are the brakes, headlamps, and reflectors, which are required to comply with the standards prescribed in Section 184 of thisAct. The Department shall promulgate rules and regulations relating to the inspection ofmotor-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~drthe inspection, noperson shall operate onethe highways of this State any motor vehicle registered in this State unless avalid certificate of inspection isdisplayed thereon as required by this Section and any inspector orpatrolman 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 thewindshield and require the owner or operator toproduce an official inspection certificate for the Motor Vehicle being operated.
(Languageadded by the 65th Legislature is emphasized.) House Bill 1772 does not purport to amend subsection (f),but merely to redesignate itas subsection (i).

Senate Bill 1302was 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 onApril 28, 1977, and the Senate ratified itonMay 28, 1977. InEx 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. 4295Honorable 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 twobills can be harmonized, House Bill 1772must prevail, since itwas finally enacted two days later than Senate Bill 1302. In our opinion, however, there is only one portion of subsection (e)inwhich an irreconcilable conflict exists between the two amendments. House Bill 1772 amended'subsection (e)only toprovide an additional five-day grace period following the expiration of theperiod designated for amotor vehicle inspection, during which the operator of a motor vehicle may not be required to exhibit his inspection certificate. Since House Bill 1772was enacted subsequent to Senate Bill 1302, this five-day provision must be deemed to be apart of the Senate bill's amendment of subsection (e).

The remainder of the twoversions 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"; itpermits an officer to "stop any vehicle not displaying this inspection certificate," rather thanmerely anymotor vehicle, and it creates a defense toprosecution "if avalid inspection permit for thevehicle is in effect at the time of the arrest." Senate Bill 1302 also amends subsection (e)topermit an officer to stop avehicle "notdisplaying this inspection certificate as required by the department." (Emphasis added). House Bill 1772 retains the requirement that the certificate be displayed "on thewindshield."

Inour opinion, the Senate version regarding this display requirement should prevail. Aswe have noted, the only change in subsection (e)effected by House Bill 1772 relates to the five-day grace period. Inorder tobe constitutionally effective, however, itwas 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, 361U.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 isauthorized to

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

stop anyvehicle 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), formotor-assisted bicycles, regarding the inspection fee
subsection (i). butmerely to redesignate itas Because of the later enactment of House Bill 1772, the re-designation must be deemed toprevail. In our opinion, however, the substantive change wrought in former subsection (f)by Senate Bill 1302 is effective to increase the inspection fee to twodollars,ofwhich 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