Texas Transportation Code �� 601.450-454 provides for the establishment of a database for the purpose of verifying whether owners of motor vehicles are covered by liability insurance.
And some police agencies are using this database to check cars on the roadway; if the database showes that a vehicle is not covered, then some officers may stop that vehicle.
Transportation Code � 601.051 provides that "A person may not operate a motor vehicle in this state unless financial responsibility is established for that vehicle..." And Section 601.191 provides that "A person commits an offense if the person operates a motor vehicle in violation of Section 601.051." Furthermore, the Administrative Code provisions relating to Sections 601.450-454 require that the database be 98% accurate. So it would seem that a vehicle's absence on the database would provide at least a reasonable suspicion of a traffic offense.
But Section 601.454(d) further provides that "A person commits an offense if the person knowingly uses information obtained under this subchapter for any purpose not authorized under this subchapter." The subchapter explicitly prohibits an agent from using the information for a commercial purpose, but does not include any specific authorizations for use of the information. Section 601.452 states that the purpose of the program is to verify whether owners have established financial responsibility and the reduce the number of uninsured motorists. Nevertheless, DPS's general counsel has apparently decided that the database should not be used as the sole basis for a traffic stop.
Well, police officers are generally entitled to rely on information from private citizens in formulating a reasonable suspicion. And the requirement that the database be 98% accurate would seem to justify that suspicion.
Maybe using this database in such a manner somehow violates privacy laws that apply to insurance companies?
But it also seems that prohibiting police officers from using the database would frustrate the stated purpose of the statute, which is to verify financial responsibility and to reduce the number of uninsured motorists.
Be aware that the database does not contain every vehicle that has coverage meeting the requirements in Chapter 601, TTCA. Number one, there can be a brief lag time between issuance of an insurance policy and it getting it the database. Second, since Chapter 601 provides other methods of meeting the financial responsiblity requirements (fleet policies, bonds, etc.), not all of the vehicles covered by these methods are input into the database. My understanding is that some owners such as rental car companies that cover their vehicles with huge fleet policies don't enter all their vehicles into the database. This is the reason why our agency does not use a "hit" on the DB as RS to stop the driver of a vehicle.
Janette A
Posts: 674 | Location: Austin, Texas, United States | Registered: March 28, 2001
I have a brief to write on this subject. DPS developes some reasonable suspicion but due to DPS policy cannot make a traffic stop so he calls local deputy who follows in behind the vehicle and runs the tags. Tags come back as insurance unconfirmed, so deputy makes a traffic stop and finds large amount of meth. The reasonable suspicion developed by DPS is weak so I need to rely on the unconfirmed insurance as a basis for the stop (at least in part). Appellant claims the data base is for LE to use AFTER a stop and relys on the TEXASSURE website to support his argument. Suggestions are appreciated!
As a practical matter that database will never actually be 98% accurate unless the State creates a clearinghouse system for liability insurance similar to child support. If drivers paid the clearinghouse and then the clearinghouse paid the insurance companies we'd have a more accurate database.
This is my opinion as a developer of software systems including large databases with multiple third party data sources. I'm only addressing this from a systems design angle, I'm not implying that my evaluation has any legal significance or is even topical for this case or any other.
The July 2008 issue of the "DPS Chaparral" states: "It is important to note that DPS does not believe the law allows the database to be used for probable cause in stopping a vehicle. The vehicle would first have to be pulled over for a separate traffic violation."
Defense attorneys are apparently using this statement in support of their motions to suppress evidence gathered in traffic stops.
I thought you might be referring to some other type of RS. We (DPS Troopers) are told that we will not use the database as PC or RS to stop a vehicle. As someone mentioned above, many companies with fleet vehicles, those with umbrella policies, do not put ALL of their vehicles in the system and the system will always show that no coverage is found and should be verified manually; we see this all the time when doing federal safety inspections on commercial motor vehicles. I can also attest to the fact that the system is not fully reliable in that it is entirely possible for a driver to have a valid insurance card and it not be listed in the system for more that 3-4 days.
Posts: 30 | Location: Austin,Williamson County, Texas | Registered: August 13, 2005
If the data base is not reliable enough to give an officer PC or RS to make a traffic stop, then what is its value after making a stop? Why would it be any more reliable after making a stop than before making a stop? If LE cannot rely on it, then it serves no purpose. What are the pitfalls of such an argument?
The quantum of proof to show reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause and falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard.
US v. Sokolow, 109 SCT 1580 (1989)
Posts: 62 | Location: Fort Worth, TX | Registered: November 02, 2001
That's an excellent point. I appreciate the reliability concerns, but by the same token, how much of this is letting the as-consistent-with-innocent-behavior standard creep back in?
Suppose a driver stopped for speeding says he has insurance but forgot to put the new proof card in the car. If the database confirms valid insurance then the officer can turn the driver loose with a warning and everyone saves a bunch of time. The inverse of this scenario could also happen.
Also suppose you were in a fender-bender but it wasn't your fault. Now maybe friendly Officer Smiley checks the insurance database and gives you a little "heads up" that, although the other guy's insurance card looks legit, it couldn't be confirmed. Your car is still drivable so you decide to examine your policy to verify your uninsured motorist coverage before taking it to the shop because you might just want to live with the problem for a while and save up money to fix it rather than busting your budget and eating beans and ramen for a month.
Seems like there's a conceptual difference between a database that shows a report that a vehicle is stolen or that a warrant has been issued for a particular person and what we have here which is the absence of information that a particular car is insured. Is that difference significant?
Is it? Theoretically all properly unsured vehicles should be on the database. Shouldn't an absence of one indicate RS that something is wrong? Likewise no law abiding person should show up with a warrant, so doesn't the presence of one mean something is wrong?
Hey why not just do away with reasonable suspicion and search people at random? No law abiding person would have anything to fear.
Several jurisdictions in Texas are already using computer controlled cameras to cross-reference license plates to warrants. Within 10 years this technology may be mounted at every intersection. Do you want to be pulled over when doing nothing wrong because of some clerk's typographical error? There are good reasons that many people don't have that level of trust in their insurance company.
The standard is reasonable suspicion. The officer has information at hand that says this car may not be insured. The law requires all vehicles on public roads to be insured. The law is for the protection of the public. If he has reason to believe an uninsured vehicle is on the roadway, does he not have a duty to investigate, make sure the vehicle is insured, before allowing it to continue on the public roadway?
If an officer sees what he believes is an unlicensed driver based on the fact that a DL check shows an invalid or suspended driver's license, doesn't he owe a duty to stop the driver. Maybe there's a glitch in the system and driver's suspension has been lifted, but the officer still has the right to stop.
What is the difference? Oh, I know, we don't want officer's stopping us law abiding citizens cause their may be a glitch in the database. I'm sure lots of wanted criminals would like to make the argument that they can't be stopped because their might be a glitch in the warrants database.
