OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

0IRA.u) c. MI”ll 

111O”“cv as”- 

nzzle 12, 19a9 

Honorable EOmer 08rPi8On, +?F. 

Wp@hll6At Of Fubllo 3afeEy 

AWtiU, TeXaa 

, 

,' 

mu SF: 

oginlen IJO* oRet ii'hether 

btrek_g look upon ei\$rucq in 

ordef ta umload the 

ie traitspoi~ted"l&d and the Urlrsr of the truck 

Olait~S th+t.h% ha8 Ilb key, but that this 1OCk ia 

p&aced SJ *he van at thta point of Fsrl&in and tho 

receiver of the merchandise has 4 .%8ter key with 

wbich to remove the lock and unload the 630da.n 

You request :Jur OpiizbA hs.to rhetiiar 3r not under 

euab cirowaetoncelr a Uaense ? seleht :napector h4a the nuthorlty to bremk the 13ck end deturmlne whather 3r not t&o 

motor tehlole has bees correotly rcglsterea: that is, -ðer 

the truak eotuailg we&h8 a8 aueh as the re&lstration paperr 

woulb'indiaate, thereby detetinfng the net load trmnlrportea 

OA #O SIOtOr Vebhle. 
"on. Ifooter tarri8on, Jr., Page 2 

,.xtlol& t?27n, YOCtion Sa, ima1 Code, reads aa follows : 

*(a) Epon aFplloatlon for reglstratlon or 

any commarolal motor vehicle, truck-tractor, 

trallar or semi-trailer, the applicant shall 

deliver to the tax collector, x one gf'his 

duly authorized deputies, an affldarlt, duly 

swers to before an orficor authorized to adalnlater oaths, showing the weight or aaid vehicle, 

whloh affidavit shall be kept on tila by the 

0ol:eator. The lioesse reaeipt issued to the 

applicant shall also show said a-elght. A copy 

of said receipt shall be <:arrled at all time 

on any such rehlcle while SBF~O is upon the public hirjhway. &oh affidavit, or a certified 

eopy tharsof, my be introduoed ~8 evldanoe 

showing th4 wal@it of esld v+hial.e, and such 

affidavit shall be prism faale evidence 3 th-. 

well;ht tberaot; yrovlded, however, that Pt my 

be shorn that said affidavit is false or that 

said pralgbt insarted therein is incorrect." 

A:rticle &27a, 5eation 6 or the venal zoe reads as 

roll.:Wa: 

vnny license an% w&&t loa,pootor of the :tate 

Righway department, hsVl:ig rceson to baliove that, 

the gross weight of e loaded vehicle la unlurful., 

1s authorlsod to weigh the same either by mane 

of portable or stationary scales, and to royuire 

that suah vehlole be driven to the nuarest soales 

in the event such saales are within two n&lea. 

The iziapector may theA req,ilre the driver or operator to unlosd imediately suoh portion ~3 the 

load as say be nescssary to decrease the gross 

weight of suah vehicle to the mrimus gross wei&ht 

spealfled by this Wt." 

To the facto submitted to us, you iadvise that e Licenae a :~alght TD3peCtOr believes that a truck 1s transporting 

mora than 7,000 psunds, his the r,redicate ior atorplng the 

truok Ix- tha purpose of wel&ing the~sme. ..B would mntion 

th.st the acre belief of SUO!I on lnspeotor that a truok is 

transporting nore than 7,COO pouc%s would not b!? sufficient to 

authorize such a >roce%ure on the rart 3f the izsgeotor. ;TiS 

balief,sust be supported by r~~sanable grounds. 

7 In the case of ihltehead VS. Xicharddron, 127 S.W.- 

fed) 512, the Cl6trlot court had entorsd a Juderent perman- 
c ( 

Hon. Eoner Garrison, Jr,, page 3 

antly enjsinlng tile rubllo Safety :omisalon 3f Texas and 

its zmnbers ami tha ?‘exzs tIif:hway I’atrol trorp unloading 

mtm trucks belmficg t3 ay,pFtllants In order to -IUIU+Z~ it; 

ame, tlnrl to ascertain tbelr weight when empty. 

such 

:s 

of civil gpeals of Lallrte reversed 2nd rendered juidgincnt dissolving cluoh restraint snd holdin& t!iat when &tn 

inapeotor hse ceaaan to believe that the law is b815g violated, and that such owrse ia deemed necessary to verify 

the iiliraotlon, he may unload all or any portion of a load 

sound on such a vehicle for the purpose or datuminis6 the 

correct we*hts and ascartainiag rhether the law is being 

violated. In support of such holding, we cite also the ca&ws 

0f k%W ‘isay Lmber C0111pany vs. Smith, 96 S.N. (2ti) 282; .%at8 

of Texa5 vs. r'er::uson, at al, 125 ti.';!. (Zd) 272; and ijlohtirdson VS. Rurley, 126 s.W. (2d) 1COl. 

?;hhen an inspector oom~s upon 3 motor truok, which 

he ha8 good reason to bellsve and doeo believe is oarrying a 

load in excess of thiit -2llowed by law, it is hi3 duty to 

wei;-h suoh loaded truok and then to unload the S~~:ZE xld 

Weigh it empty anti In tkrtt way to ascertain whether tta .iuw 

Is bei@ violstad. San the truclr operator defeat. the lr;w ucd 

frustrate the officer In the performance of hi6 duty ty refuelnq to ulllook the van anb permit the processes cd the law 

to be oarrled out in an orderly and peaoefi;l zanner? :;e 

think 307.. ‘,h% 6CtiOn Ji such OfiiCers i;i~td~hiCg the loaded tmck, In anpty?:q the s(lds( and ~:si:_hi.n~: It mgty is in 

the nrtture ~1f' a search. If neo86aury in tii% cxecutlon 3f 0 

searoh warrant an officer my break ~;d anter the gremisss 

wtict, are to be searcked. 56 2.J. 1242; 24 :?.i.L. 700. 

;Phere M sificer has tie authority to uako u search without 

a warrant it wzul& seem that his powers and duties shoulir be 

the 8s~ as lf he had ip search war ant authorizinq the same 

kind of a search. 

.issumfrg that the inspector has xirfio?ent ground6 

for hfe belief that the truck oarlrs a loa& in excess of 

that permitted by law, :?ur answer to your question is an uffirni~tive one. 

Yours very truly