Opinion
No. 14-01-00723-CR and 14-01-00825-CR
Affirmed; Opinion of May 30, 2002, Withdrawn; Corrected Opinion filed August 26, 2002.
On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 and Probate Court, Brazoria County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 114,553 and 114,554
Panel consists of Justices HUDSON, FOWLER, and EDELMAN.
CORRECTED OPINION
Appellant, John M. Ramey, was charged with the offenses of driving without a license and failing to wear a safety belt. After finding appellant guilty of both offenses, the trial court assessed punishment at a $149 fine. In a single issue, appellant contends his constitutional right to travel upon public roads "cannot be restricted by any Governmental agency unless the use thereupon is in an [extraordinary manner]," and that, as the State failed to prove he was "using the roads for [extraordinary] purposes," his conviction was improper. We affirm.
There is no express guarantee of the "right to travel" in either the state or federal constitution. However, the constitutional right to travel from one state to another is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence. Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 498 (1999). The right to travel, as developed in federal jurisprudence, embraces at least three different components: (1) the freedom of a citizen of one state to enter and leave another state; (2) the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second state; and (3) for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that state. Id. at 500.
It is well settled that driving an automobile on public roads is not a constitutionally-protected right, but a privilege. Taylor v. State, 151 Tex.Crim. 568, 209 S.W.2d 191, 192 (Tex.Crim.App. 1948); Naff v. State, 946 S.W.2d 529, 532 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1997, no pet.); Ex parte Arnold, 916 S.W.2d 640, 642 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, pet. ref'd). This privilege is subject to reasonable regulation under the State's police power in the interest of the welfare and safety of the general public. Naff, 946 S.W.2d at 533. Accordingly, we find the statutes at issue do not offend appellant's right to travel. See Barcroft v. State, 881 S.W.2d 838, 841 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1994, no pet.).
Appellant's point of error is wholly without merit, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.