HomeMy WebLinkAboutPO 5330: ADM. SEARCH WARRANTSinteroffice
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Mayor, City Council, City Man~er
Mark Sokolow, City Attorney
April 11, 2003
Authority for Inspectors to go on private property as
to junked vehicles
P. O. 5330 - April 15, 2003 Council Meeting
Per Section 683.074, et. seq., Transportation Code, an
inspector can go on private property to abate a public nuisance,
i.e., junked vehicle. Nevertheless, this does not apply to a
junked vehicle that is inside a building and is not visible from
the outside. The local magistrate can issue a search warrant
under Article 18.05 Code of Criminal Procedure if there is
probable cause to believe that there is a health hazard or unsafe
building condition or a violation of any fire, health or building
regulation, statute or ordinance. I have discussed this matter
with the Director of Community Services and with Judge Morrison.
He will start obtaining search warranus as they are needed.
Per Attorney General Opinion No. MW-228, attached is
Proposed Ordinance No. 5330 authorizing administrative search
warrants by inspecEors.
MTS/ts
Attachments:
Attorney Opinion MW-228
Article 18.05 Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 683.074-683.077 Transportation Code
cc: Director of Community Services
Municipal Court Judge
z.~o5330 .memo_3u~k vehicles
P.O. No. 5330
04/11/03 ts
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 30-3 TO THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES AS IT PERTAINS TO
ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH WARRANTS
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the public's interest
to add Section 30-3 uo the Code of Ordinances as it pertains uo
Administrative Search Warrants.
NOW THEREFORE,
CITY OF PORT ARTHUR:
BE IT ORDAINED BY TEE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
Section 1. That the
are true and correct.
Section 2.
to add Section 30-3 to
facts and opinions in the preamble
That the Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as
the Code of Ordinances as follows:
"Section 30-3. Administrative Search Warrants.
The Municipal Court Judge is herein authorized to issue code
enforcement search warrants to City inspectors charged with
enforcement of City codes dealing with, but not limited to,
the presence of a fire hazard or health hazard or unsafe
building condition or a violation of any fire, health or
building regulation, statute or ordinance. Such
administrative search warrants may be issued only upon sworn
affidavits supported by probable cause and may authorIze
inspection of premises to determine the presence of any code
violations."
z.p05330 ]
Council of the City of Port
vote: AYES: Mayor
Council:
Section 3. That this Ordinance, not requiring
publication, shall be effective immediately.
Section 4. That a copy of the caption of
be spread upon the Minutes of the City Council.
READ, ADOPTED AND APPROVED on this day of
, A.D., 2003, au a Regular Meeting of the City
Arthur, Texas, by the following
, City
NOES:
this Ordinance
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED FOR ADMINISTRATION:
CITY MANAGER
OSCAR G. ORTIZ, MAYOR
z.po5330 2
PAGE 2
1ST CASE of Level i printed in FULL format.
OFFICE OF ~"HE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
Opinion No. MW-228
1980 Tex. AG LEXIS 79
August 25, 1980
CORE TERMS: search warrant, home rule, issuance, municipal, probable cause,
ordinance, inspection, seizure, arrest, enact, enumerated, criminal offense
authorize, inspectors, issuing, hazards
SYLIOkBUS:
[*1]
Re: Whether a home rule city can provide for the issuance of administrative
search warrants
REQUESTBY:
MARK WHITE, Attorney General of Texas
OPINION:
Honorable John T. Montford
Criminal District Attorney
Lubbock County Courthouse
Lubbock, Texas 79401
You ask whether a home rule city can enact an ordinance providing for
administrative search warrants, and whether a municipal court judge, acting as a
magistrate, can issue such administrative sea~ch warrants. For the reasons to
be hereinafter stated~ we believe that both questions should be answered in the
affirmative.
The law ms well settled that a home rule city derives its powers from article
XI, section 5 of the Texas Constitution. Lower Colorado River Authority v. City
of San Marcos~ 523 S.W. 2d 641 Tex 1975] A home rule city is nog required to
look go the legislature for a grant of power 5o acc. but only [o ascer5aln
whether the legislature has acted 5o limit the cl[y's constitutional power.
Burch v. City of San Antonio. 518 S.W. 2d 540 .Tex. 1975 Therefore. all powers
enumerated in ils charter which are not denied it by the consglgU5lon or general
laws of the State of Texas~ may be lawfully exercised by a home rule city.
[*2]
We find no constitutional or statutory provision prohibiting a home rule city
from providing for the issuance of administrative search warrants to ensure
compliance with the city codes enacted to protect the health, safety and welfare
of its inhabitants.
City of Lubbock Ordinance No. 7859 provides for the issuance by municipal
court judges of "code enforcement search warrants' ~o city inspeccors charged
with enforcement of city codes dealing with. but nog limited ~o zoning and
environmental control, mnd housing and building inspectIon. Such administrative
search warrants may be issued only upon sworn affidavits supported by probable
cause and may authorize inspection of premises go determine the presence of
PAGE 3
1980 Tex. AG LEXIS 79, *2
any code violations. ~o authority to effect any arrest or seizure of any
property is granted by these administrative search warrants issued to city
inspectors, none of whom are commissioned peace officers under article 2.12 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
We believe Lubbock City Ordinance No. 7859 to be in substantial compliance
with article 18.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which specifically
authorizes the issuance of administrative search warrants to city [*3]
health officers and fire marshals. Article 18.05 was enacted by the legislature
in response to decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States, which
established the need for compliance with the warrant requirements of the Fourth
Amendment in administrative searches of both residential and commercial
premises. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967); See v. City of
Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (1967). See also Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978);
Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978).
We believe the issuance of such administrative search warrants by a home rule
city to be a reasonable exercise of its general police powers enumerated in
article 1175, V.T.C.S., which extend to the reasonable protection of the public
health, safety and welfare. Texas Power and Light Company v. City of Garland,
431 S.W. 2d 511 (Tex. 1968); John v. State, 577 S.W. 2d 483 (Tex. Crim. App.
1979).
It is therefore our opinion that a home rule city may enact an ordinance
providing for the issuance of administrative search warrants in compliance with
the provisions of article 18.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
~krticle 18.01(c) of the Code of Criminal [*4] Procedure prohibits a
municipal court judge from issuing an evidentiary search warrant under article
18.02(10), which provides for the seizure of evidence in a criminal case.
However, as recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Camara and See,
supra, there is a distinction between an administrative search warrant and a
criminal search warrant, and each requires a different standard of probable
cause for its issuance.
A criminal search warrant may be issued only upon a finding of probable cause
supported by an affidavit that a criminal offense has been committed and that
certain specified property is therefore subject to seizure. Code Crim. Proc.
arts. 18.01, 18.02. Additionally, a criminal search warrant may order the
arrest of the suspected offender. Code Crim. Proc. art. 18.03.
An administrative search warrant under article 18.05 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure may only be issued for the purpose of allowing an inspeculon of
specific premises to determine the presence of hazardous conditions prohibited
by law. In determining probable cause for the issuance of an administra[ive
search warrant under article 18.05 the magistrate is not limited ~o evidence
[*5] of specific knowledge, but may consider any of the following:
(1) the age and general condition of the premises;
(2) previous violations or hazards found present mn the premises;
(3) the type of premises;
1980 Tex. AG LEXIS 79, *5
PAGE 4
(4) the purposes for which the premises are used; and
(5) the presence of hazards or violations in and the general conditions of
premises near the premises sought to be inspected.
Probable cause ~o believe that a criminal offense has been committed is hOE a
prerequisite to the issuance of an administrative search warrant under article
18.05, nor may an administrative search warranu order the arrest of any person
or the seizure of any property.
Accordingly, we believe that a municipal cour~ judge sitting as a maglsura~e
pursuanE 5o article 2.09 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would no~ be
prohibited by the language of article 18.01[c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
from issuing an administrative search warrant as authorized by article 18.05 and
City of Lubbock Ordinance No. 7859
SUMMARY
A home rule cl~y can enact an ordinance providing for administrative search
warrants 5o be issued by a municipal court judge.
PROCEDURE
in the number o(
l~ated
de-
front, and
and county rood
, ~ from location
State v. Manry
ytobe
1973) 573 S~W2A
kept and po~
v~thsta~d
· 1979) 577 S.W2~
~o ~-~ ] Search was valid, even if one officer par~¢ipat-
described with isg in search was acting outside his jurisdiction,
Gonzsle~ where at least one of the peace officers who pattie-
226, certiorari ipated in search and whose name was listed in the
62 L.Ed.2d 71. retarn was a deputy in the county in which search
~ soL, ute of occurred. Dickey v. State (App. 11 Dist. 1991) 816
commonly used in S.W£d 832.
Morales v. S~ate (App. 13 Disc
,745 S.W.2d 483.
· ~arch warrant could be signed by
who did not have authbrity to act in
in which search would ~ccur. Dickey
(App. 11 Dist. 1991) 816 S.W.2d 832.
. Date on affidavit supporting search warrant be-
ing day Later than date on search warrant did not
/nvalidate warrant; evidence stdficiently explained
re,on for warrant predating affidavit as be/ng
is/g~,-er~ence, and testimony was snffic/ent to pre-
y/de assurance that both affidavit and warrant
were presented to warrant-issuing judge at same
time. Turner v· State (App. 9 Dist. 1994) 886
&W£d 859, petition for discretionary review re-
31 Peace omar
~.oW~.~arra? directed to sheriff or any peace officer
~ ~ty of P~sadena County, Texas with premises
~o be searched described as located in "City of
/%~adena, Harris County, Texas," did not vioLate
l'equirement of subd. (3) of this artichi that a
~e~rch warrant command any peace officer of the
proper county to search the place n,~med as trial
/our~ judicially noticed that Pasadena is located in
Harris County and also any city police officer is
officer of the county.- Fort v. State
,. 1981) 615 S.W.2d 738.
and "~
the cormnissisn
Walt-
~ ta be seized
described,
~ .amendment eon-
(CrApp.
dated by rns~ois-
1985) 703
· review r~
of
10. General warrants
Fourth Amendment prohibits general warrant
n giving officers roving connalssion to search
seize on their own whim. McInnLa v. State
1 Dist. 19~) 634 S.W.2d 912, reversed 657
Search warrant for "gambling paraphernalia"
~ther identffied the
~ precisely as the nature of the
Elliott v. State (App. 14 Dist.
681 S.W2cl 98, petition for discretionary
S.W2d 359.
Motor vehicles
Error in admission of notebooks seized from
was not described in search war-
· w~s not harm]ess
a reasonable doubt where the notebooks
in documenting the nature and scale
narcotics transactions between defendant and
the combination and contrib-
~ to the credibility of surveillance
Lindley v. State (App. 12 Dist. 1990)
S.W.2d 723, rehearing overruled, petition for
Art. 18.05
discretionary review granted, vacated 838 S.W.2d
257, on remand 855 S.W2d 729.
Search warrant authorizing search of place de-
scribed in affidavit, and affidavit described apart-
ment and "all vehicles know~ by affiant to be
under care and control ul" named individuals failed
to particularly describe the automobile and there-
fore evidence obtained from search of automobile
was inadrnisslhie. Lind]ey v. State (App. 12 Dist.
1990) 855 S.W.2d 7'23, rehearing overruled, petition
for discretionary ~%~view granted, vacated 838
S.W.2d 257, on remand 855 S.W.2d 729.
When a warrant exists to search fixed premises,
it is necessary ~or affidavit to contain a particular
description of vehicles to be searched. Lindiey v.
State (App. 12 Dist. 1990) 855 S.W;2d 723, rehear-
ing overruled, petition for discretionary review
granted, vacated 838 S.W£d 257, on remand 855
S.W.2d 729.
12. Reference to affidavit
Search warrant that dOes not contain basic infor-
mation required by statute can nevertheless be
valid so long as warrant incorporates by reference
affidavit and affidavit contains all of information
required by statute. Turner v. State (App. 9 Dist.
1994) 886 S.W.2d 859, petition for discretionary
Fact that search warrant and supporting affida-
vit, which was incorporated by reference in war-
rant and contained statatorfly required iaformation
that was missing from warrant, were not physically
attached when murder defendant was served copy
of warrant prior to search did not render search
pursuant to warrant improper; procedural aspects
surrounding issuance and execution of warrant
ensured that adequate probable cause existed for
search and sufScient prophylactic measures were
taken to protect privacy rights of innocent third
parties. Turner v. State (App. 9 Dist. 1994) 886
fSfi~W~2.d 859, petition for discretionary ~wiew
Description contained in affidavit supporting
search warrant limits and controls description con-
ta~ed in warrant. Ashcra5 v. State (App. 13 Dist.
1996) 934 S.W.2d 727, rebearing overcaled, petition
for aiscreti0nary review refused, rehearing on peti-
tion for discretionary review denied.
Description contained in affidavit limita and
~roLa description contained in warrant. Stete v.
Tipton (App. 13 Dist. 1996) 941 S.W.2d 152, peti-
tion for discretionary review refused.
Failure of police officers who were executing
search warrant, which did not itself conta/n partic-
?arized description of premises to be searched but
incorporated by reference af~davit Which did, to
provide suspect with copy of affidavit referenced in
warrant at time of search did not prejudice suspect
and did not render search invalid; nothing indicat-
ed that affidavit was not physically present at site.
State v. Tipton (App. 13 Dist. 1996) 941 S.W.2d
I52, petition for discretionary review refused.
!Art. 18.05. Warrants for fire, health, and code inspections
:~: (a) Except as prov/ded by Subsection (e) of this art/cie, a se~wch warrant ma be issued to
the fire marshal, health officer, or code enforcement official of the state or of anvy county cit~
237 ' ~ ~' ~'
Art. 18.05 CODE OF CRIMINAL
or other politiesl subdivi~ien for the purpose of allowing the h~spectien of any'~,
pren~ses '
to detormme the presence of a fire or health hazard or unsafe beilding
a violation of any fire, health, or bdilding regulation, statute, or ordinance.
(b) A search warrant may not be issued under this article except upon
evidence of probeble cause to believe that a fire or health hazard or violation or
building condition is present in the pren~es sought to be h~spected.
(c) In determining probable cause, the magis~ate is not limited to evidence of
knowledge, but may consider any of the following:
(1) the age and general condition of the premises;
(2) previous vial~tions or hazards found present in the premises;
(3) the type of preroJses;
(4) the purposes for which the premises are used; and
(5) the presence of hazards or violatiuns in and the general condiUen of premises near
premises sought to be inspected.
(d) Each city or county may designate one code enforcement official for the
being issued a search warrant az authorized by Subsection (a) of this ~cle. A
subdivision other than a city or county may designate one code enforcement official for
purpose of being issued a search warrant ~ authorized by Subsection (a) of this article
the political subdivision routinely inspects premises to determine whether there is a
health hazard or unsafe building condition or a violation of fire, health,
statute, or ordinance.
(e) A search warrant may not be issued under this article ~o a code enforcement
a county with a popular/on of 2.4 million or more for the purpose of allowin
specified premises to de~ermine the presence of un unsafe bdilding condition or a violation C
a building regulation, statute, or ordinance.
Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 382, § 1, eft. Aug. 2~ 1989.
Library References
Affidavit for search warrant, £we or health ha~
ard, see McCormick et al., 7A Texas Practice
§ 87.09 (10th ed.).
Art. 18.06. [317, 319] [368, 370] [356, 358] Execution of warrants
[See main volume for (a)]
(b) On searching the place ordered to be searched, the officer executing the warrant sha~
present a copy of the warrant to the owner of the place, ff he is present. If the owner,
place is not present but a person who is present is in possession of the place, the officer
present a copy of the warrant to the person. Before the officer takes property from th~
place~ he shall prepare a written inventory of the property to be taken. He shall legibl~ ~lareh
endorse his name on the inventory and present a coPy of the inventory to the owner or
person in possession of the property. If neither the oWner nor a person in possession of
property is present whe~f the officer exeCUtes the warrant, the officer shall leave a not
warrant and the inventory at the place.
Sec.(b) amen~led by Acts i981, 67th Leg., p. 2789, eh. 755, § 2, eft. Sept. 1, 1981.
Library References Code
18.67,
Time within which warrant must be executed,
th ' Return on warrant, see Dix & Dawson, 40 Tex~
e %tee day rule, in general, see Dix & Practice § 6.102.
Dawson, 40 Tex~s Practice § 6.82, et seq.
Inventory, see Dix & Dawson, 40 Texas Practice 'lime l~mit for execution of arrest warrant, see
§ 6.101. Dix & Dawson, 40 Texas Prate/ce § 8.44. days that
238 calculated
Transportation - CHAPTER 683 Page 14 of 20
(2) the date of acquisition of the vehicle.
(c) The demolisher shall keep the record until the first anniversary of the date of acquisition of the
vehicle.
(d) The record shall be open to inspection by the department or any law enforcement agency at any
time during normal business hours.
(e) A motor vehicle demolisher commits an offense if the demolisher fails to keep a record as
provided by this section.
(f) An offense under Subsection (e) is a misdemeanor punishable by:
(1) a fine of not less than $100 or more than $1,000;
(2) confinement in the county jail for a term of not less than l0 days or more than six months; or
(3) both the fine and confinement.
Acts 1995.74th Leg., ch. 165, { l, eft. Sept. l, 1995.
SUBCHAPTER E. JUNKED VEHICLES: PUBLIC NUISANCE; ABATEMENT
§ 683.071. Definition
In this subchapter, "junked vehicle" means a vehicle that is self-propelled and:
(1) does not have lawfully attached to it:
(A) an unexpired license plate; or
(B) a valid motor vehicle inspection certificate; and
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/tr/trOO68300.html 4/7/2003
Transportation - CHAPTER 683
(2) is:
(A) wrecked, dismantled or partially dismantled, or discarded; or
(B) inoperable and has remained inoperable for more than:
(i) 72 consecutive hours, if the vehicle is on public property; or
(ii) 30 consecutive days, if the vehicle is on private property.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 746, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 798, § 1,
eft. Sept. 1, 2001.
§ 683.072. Junked Vehicle Declared to be Public Nuisance
A junked vehicle, including a part of a junked vehicle, that is visible from a public place or public
right-of-way:
(1) is detrimental to the safety and welfare of the public;
(2) tends to reduce the value of private property;
(3) invites vandalism:
(4) creates a fire hazard;
(5) is an attractive nuisance creating a hazard to the health and safety of minors;
(6) produces urban blight adverse to the maintenance and continuing development of municipalities;
and
Page 15 of 20
(7) is a public nuisance.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/tr/trOO68300.html 4/7/2003
Transportation - CHAPTER 683 Page 16 of 20
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1995.
§ 683.073. Offense
(a) A person commits an offense if the person maintains a public nuisance described by Section
683.072.
(b) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200.
(c) The court shall order abatement and removal of the nuisance on conviction.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1995.
§ 683.074. Authority to Abate Nuisance; Procedures
(a) A municipality or county may adopt procedures that conform to this subchapter for the abatement
and removal from private or public property or a public fight-of-way of a junked vehicle or part of a
junked vehicle as a public nuisance.
(b) The procedures must:
(1) prohibit a vehicle from being reconstructed or made operable after removal;
(2) require a public heating before removal of the public nuisance; and
(3) require that notice identifying the vehicle or part of the vehicle be given to the department not
later than the fifth day after the date of removal.
(c) An appropriate court of the municipality or county may issue necessary orders to enforce the
procedures.
(d) Procedures for abatement and removal of a public nuisance must be administered by regularly
salaried, full-time employees of the municipality or county, except that any authorized person may
remove the nuisance.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/tr/tr0068300.html 4/7/2003
Transportation - CHAPTER 683 Page 17 of 20
(e) A person authorized to administer the procedures may enter private property to examine a public
nuisance, to obtain information to identify the nuisance, and to remove or direct the removal of the
nuisance.
(f) On receipt of notice of ramoval under Subsection (b)(3), the department shall immediately cancel
the certificate of title issued for the vehicle.
(g) The procedures may provide that the relocation of a junked vehicle that is a public nuisance to
another location in the same municipality or county after a proceeding for the abatement and removal
of the public nuisance has commenced has no effect on the proceeding if the junked vehicle
constitutes a public nuisance at the new location.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, elf. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1226, § 1, eff. June 18, 1999.
§ 683.075. Notice
(a) The procedures for the abatement and removal of a public nuisance under this subchapter must
provide not less than 10 days' notice of the nature of the nuisance. The notice must be personally
delivered or sent by certified mail with a five-day return requested to:
(1) the last known registered owner of the nuisance;
(2) each lienholder of record of the nuisance; and
(3~ the owner or occupant of.'
(A) the property on which the nuisance is located: or
(B) if the nuisance is located on a public right-of-way, the property adjacen~ to the right-of-way.
(b) The notice must state that:
(1) the nuisance must be abated and removed not later than the 10th day after the date on which the
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/tr/t~068300.html 4/7/2003
Transportation - CHAPTER 683
notice was personally delivered or mailed; and
(2) any request for a hearing must be made before that 1 O-day period expires.
(c) If the post office address of the last known registered owner of the nuisance is unknown, notice
may be placed on the nuisance or, if the owner is located, personally delivered.
(d) If notice is returned undelivered, action to abate the nuisance shall be continued to a date not
earlier than the 1 lth day after the date of the return.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 413, § 13, eft. Sept. 1, 2001.
§ 683.076. Hearing
(a) The governing body of the municipality or county or a board, commission, or official designated
by the governing body shall conduct hearings under the procedures adopted under this subchapter.
(b) Ifa hearing is requested by a person for whom notice is required under Section 683.075(a)(3), the
heating shall be held not earlier than the 11 th day after the date of the service of notice.
(c) At the hearing, the junked motor vehicle ~s presumed, unless demonstrated otherwise by the
owner, to be inoperable.
(d) If the information is available at the location of the nuisance, a resolution or order requiring
removal of the nm sance must include the vehicle's:
(1) description:
(2) vehicle identification number; and
(3) license plate number.
Page 18 of 20
Acts 1995. 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1995.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/tr/trO068300.html 4/7/2003
Transportation - CHAPTER 683 Page 19 of 20
§ 683.0765. Alternative Procedure for Administrative Hearing
A municipality by ordinance may provide for an administrative adjudication process under which an
administrative penalty may be imposed for the enforcement of an ordinance adopted under this
subchapter. If a municipality provides for an administrative adjudication process under this section,
the municipality shall use the procedure described by Section 54.044, Local Government Code.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 413, § 14, eft. Sept. I, 2001.
§ 683.077. Inapplicability of Subchapter
(a) Procedures adopted under Section 683.074 or 683.0765 may not apply to a vehicle or vehicle par~:
(1) that is completely enclosed in a building in a lawful manner and is not visible from the street or
other public or private property; or
(2) that is stored or parked in a lawful manner on private property in connection with the business of
a licensed vehicle dealer or junkyard, or that is an antique or special interest vehicle stored by a motor
vehicle collector on thc collector's property, if the vehicle or pan and the outdoor storage area, if any,
are:
(A) maintained in an orderly manner;
(B) not a health hazard; and
(C) screened from ordinary public view by appropriate means, including a fence, rapidly growing
trees, or shrubbery.
(b) In this section:
(1) "Antique vehicle" means a passenger car or truck that is at least 25 years old.
(2) "Motor vehicle collector" means a person who:
(A) owns one or more antique or special interest vehicles; and
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/~r/trOO68300.html 4/7/2003
Transe~ rtation - CHAPTER 683 Page 20 of 20
(B) acquires, collects, or disposes of an antique or special interest vehicle or part of an antique or
special interest vehicle for personal use to restore and preserve an antique or special interest vehicle
for historic interest.
(3) "Special interest vehicle" means a motor vehicle of any age that has not been changed from
original manufacturer's specifications and, because of its historic interest, is being preserved by a
hobbyist.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eft. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 413, § 15, eft. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1431, §
1, eft. Sept. 1, 2001.
§ 683.078. Junked Vehicle Disposal
(a) A junked vehicle, including a part of a junked vehicle, may be removed to a scrapyard, a motor
vehicle demolisher, or a suitable site operated by a municipality or county.
(b) A municipality or county may operate a disposal site if its governing body determines that
commercial disposition of junked vehicles is not available or is inadequate. A municipality or county
may:
(1) finally dispose of a junked vehicle or vehicle part; or
(2) transfer it to another disposal site if the disposal is scrap or salvage only.
Acts 1995.74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, elf. Sept. 1, 1995.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/tr/tr0068300.html
4/7/2003
