HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 7110 ORDINANCE NO. rJ�jO
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 (REGULATING
MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC) OF THE FORT WORTH
CITY CODE (1964) , AS AMENDED; BY ADDING A NEW
SECTION THERETO DESIGNATED AS SECTION 26-40a;
PROVIDING THAT THE STATE NEED NOT PROVE THE
INSTALLATION (NOR AUTHORITY THEREFOR) OF ANY
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE OR SIGNAL, BUT PRO-
VIDING THAT THE PERSON CHARGED WITH A VIOLA-
TION MAY AS A DEFENSE PROVE THAT THE SIGN,
SIGNAL OR DEVICE WAS NOT SO INSTALLED OR
AUTHORIZED; MAKING THIS ORDINANCE CUMULATIVE
OF PRIOR ORDINANCES; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES
AND PROVISIONS OF THE FORT WORTH CITY CODE IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE;
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A
PENALTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT WORTH, TEXAS:
SECTION 1.
That Article II, entitled Traffic-Control Device,
Signs, and Signals, of Chapter 26 of the Code of the City
of Fort Worth (1964) , as amended, be and the same is here-
by amended by adding a new section thereto, designated as
Section 26-40a, which section shall read as follows:
"Section 26-40a, Proof Required in
Prosecution.
"In any prosecution for any viola-
tion of this chapter, it shall not be
necessary for the state to prove the
installation or authority therefor, of
any sign, signal or traffic control
device. Any person charged with a
violation of this chapter shall have
the right to prove the sign, signal
or traffic control device was not so
installed or authorized as a defense. "
SECTION 2.
That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all pro-
visions of ordinances and of the Code of the City of Fort
Worth (1964) , as amended, affecting motor vehicles and
traffic, except where the provisions of this ordinance
are in direct conflict with the provisions of such ordi-
nances and such Code, in which event such conflicting
provisions of such ordinances and such Code are hereby
repealed.
SECTION 3,
That all rights or remedies of the City of Fort
Worth, Texas, are expressly saved as to any and all viola-
tions of the provisions of Chapter 26 of the Code of the
City of Fort Worth (1964) , as amended, and of any other
ordinance affecting motor vehicles and traffic which have
accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordi-
nance; and, as to such accrued violations and all pending
litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in
court or not, under such chapter and/or other ordinances,
same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be
prosecuted until final disposition by the courts.
SECTION 4,
That it is hereby declared to be the intention of
the City Council that the sections, paragraphs, sentences,
clauses and phrases of this ordinance are severable, and
if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of
this ordinance shall be declared void, ineffective or un-
constitutional by the valid judgment or final decree of
a court of competent jurisdiction, such voidness, ineffec-
tiveness or unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the
remaining phrases, clauses, sentenses, paragraphs and sec-
-2-
tions of this ordinance, since the same would have been
enacted by the City Council without the incorporation
herein of any such void, ineffective or unconstitutional
phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section.
SECTION 5.
That any person violating any of the provisions of
this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not less than one dollar ($1.00)
nor more than two hundred dollars ($200.00) .
SECTION 6.
That this ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after the date of its passage and publi-
cation, as required by law, and it is so ordained,
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
-5✓e 70 �11
S. G. Johndroe, Jr,
City Attorney
ADOPTED:
61
EFFECTIVE:
-3-
City of Dort Worth, Texas 1�'
UNE Mayor and Council Communication
BAILIFF
QRAHAM DATE REFERENCE SUBJECT: Amendment to Article II, PAGE
NUMBEChapter 26 (Motor Vehicle and Traffic) 1
JOHNOROE 1/6/75 G•-2596 of the Code i or
SOUTHARD
w AL1, In B�vins v. State, 367 S.W.2d 699 (Tex.Crim. 1963), the Court upheld an
(IgLLgq ordinance providing that the state in prosecutions for traffic violations
was no longer required to prove the authority for or the installation of
any traffic control device., sign, or signal, and instead the defendant was
given the right to prove as a defense that said authority or installation
was lacking.
In the opinion of the Department of Law, the adoption of a similar ordinance
might greatly reduce the number of traffic offense complaints quashed on
appeal by frivolous pre-trial motions challenging the allegation of such
installation or authority.
RNL:ms
SUBMITTED BY: DISPOSITION
Y COUNCIL: 1 P CES BY
APP/ROVVEEDD / ❑ OTHER (DESCRIBE)
r
SECRETARY
fff DATE
.d
CITY MANAGER /