Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Member |
Is this defined anywhere? And what are some thoughts on whether "Use of a Radar Detector" under FMCS 392.71(a) constitutes a statute that "relates" to motor vehicle control? The answer determines whether a CDL holder is eligible for a def. disp. under CCP art. 45.051. Has anyone done that? | ||
|
Member |
Section 644.051(c) authorizes the director of DPS to adopt all or part of the federal motor carrier safety regulation by rule. Rule 4.11(a) adopt the FMCSR. There are some exceptions set out in 4.12 for CMVs operating intrastate. Janette A | |||
|
Member |
No doubt, the director has adopted the federal rules, etc. We enforce those all the time. I just need to know whether it relates to "motor vehicle control". Any authority one way or the other? | |||
|
Member |
a legal definition of "motor vehicle control" would be nice to have. | |||
|
Member |
The Texas Legislature did not define "motor vehicle control" as it is used in 45.051, CCP. Nor could I find it anywhere in the Transportatin Code although the term is used in adminstrative rules for vehicle emissions control systems. However, 49 CFR 384.226 makes it clear that the only offenses for which a holder of CDL can receive deferred on are parking, vehicle defect, and weight violations: 384.226 Prohibition on masking convictions. "The State must not mask, defer imposition of judgment, or allow an individual to enter into a diversion program that would prevent a CLP or CDL holder's conviction for any violation, in any type of motor vehicle, of a State or local traffic control law (other than parking, vehicle weight, or vehicle defect violations) from appearing on the CDLIS driver record, whether the driver was convicted for an offense committed in the State where the driver is licensed or another State." The "no deferred" provision in 45.051 was added by the Legislature to bring Texas into compliance with federal statutes and rules. It seems reasonable that possession of a radar detector by the operator of a CMV would fall within the intent of the intended scope of the statute. But I agree with Dee--a definition would be nice. Janette A | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
© TDCAA, 2001. All Rights Reserved.