Paxton Opinion Halts Automated Speed Enforcement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has concluded that county constables lack authority to use automated traffic-enforcement systems to issue speeding citations by mail, determining that current state law does not permit such enforcement without an officer’s direct involvement.

In Opinion No. KP-0510, issued Feb. 2, Paxton responded to a request from Bexar County Criminal District Attorney Joe Gonzales regarding a portable system that uses cameras to detect vehicles exceeding a predetermined speed and capture images of the driver and license plate. The system generated citations by mail without interaction between officers and drivers.

The opinion centers on whether a constable, as a county officer, has statutory or constitutional authority to deploy such a system. Paxton wrote that county officials possess only those powers granted in express words or necessarily implied by statute, and that any reasonable doubt must be resolved against an implied grant of authority.

While Texas law expressly prohibits municipalities from operating certain automated speed enforcement systems, the opinion states that legislative silence regarding constables does not equate to permission. Unlike home rule cities, counties and their officers must point to an affirmative grant of authority.

The analysis turns largely on Chapter 543 of the Texas Transportation Code, which governs arrests and notices to appear for traffic offenses. Under that framework, a speeding citation is issued only after an officer has detained or arrested an alleged violator. The opinion states that mailing a citation without a stop does not constitute an arrest because it involves neither physical force nor submission to authority. Because the statutory process for issuing a citation begins with an arrest or temporary detention, the automated system described conflicts with existing law.

The opinion also addresses arguments that broader peace officer duties under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure authorize the practice. Those provisions, Paxton wrote, require constables to preserve the peace using lawful means but do not themselves create new enforcement authority.

Paxton concluded that no law authorizes a constable to employ an automated traffic-enforcement system to issue speeding citations by mail and that the absence of statutory authority is dispositive. The opinion does not address potential constitutional questions or other local approval issues, stating that the lack of legislative authorization resolves the matter.

Following the opinion, Bexar County Precinct 3 Constable Mark Vojvodich discontinued use of the camera-based ticketing system that prompted the request for clarification, according to reporting by KSAT. The station reported that the constable halted the program after the attorney general determined the citations were not authorized under current law.

For technology vendors and county procurement officials, the opinion underscores that new enforcement tools must be grounded in express statutory authority before deployment. Under the current framework, technologies that generate speeding citations without an officer-initiated stop face legal barriers, and any broader authorization for automated enforcement would require action by the Legislature.