The Coyote Catches the Roadrunner: Judicial Scrutiny of Probable Cause and Signage Under the Texas Towing and Booting Act
Introduction
The labyrinthine provisions of the Texas Towing and Booting Act, TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. §§ 2308.001-.595 (West 2025) (the "Act"), often present a formidable challenge for towing companies operating within the state. The series of appeals involving Brazos Valley Roadrunners (hereinafter, "Roadrunners") from various Justice of the Peace Courts to County Courts at Law, and subsequently to Courts of Appeals, offers a compelling study in the consistent judicial interpretation of probable cause and statutory signage requirements. These cases collectively illustrate a marked tendency by appellate courts to scrutinize towing companies' compliance strictly, often resulting in rulings adverse to Roadrunners. This article analyzes five recent opinions, predominantly from the Waco Court of Appeals, to discern emerging trends and offer practical takeaways for legal practitioners navigating the complexities of unauthorized vehicle removal.
Case Analysis
1. Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Niles
In Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Niles, the Waco Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that Roadrunners lacked probable cause to tow Brian Niles' vehicle from the Coyote Parking Lot. Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Niles, No. 10-21-00278-CV, 2022 WL 1789978, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco June 1, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). The case involved Niles parking in a numbered space on a gameday, with his wife and a friend's wife holding the spot while a friend paid the $5 parking fee. Id. Niles then pulled his vehicle into the spot and left for the football game, only to find his vehicle towed upon return. Id. Roadrunners appealed the County Court at Law's judgment, which had affirmed the Justice of the Peace Court's ruling in Niles' favor, arguing insufficient evidence to support Niles' authorization to park or the lack of probable cause to tow. Id.
Brian Niles, the appellee, represented himself pro se on appeal. Despite the lack of a formal responsive brief from a legal professional, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that Niles was authorized to use the parking facility because the parking fee was paid. Id. at *4. This case underscores the judiciary's focus on whether the vehicle owner has, in fact, complied with the parking facility's requirements, even if the sequence of events is unconventional. The towing company, Roadrunners, lost at every level of review in this case.
2. Brazos Valley Roadrunners, L.P. v. Cichy
Brazos Valley Roadrunners, L.P. v. Cichy presents another instance where Roadrunners failed to establish probable cause. Brazos Valley Roadrunners, L.P. v. Cichy, No. 10-19-00424-CV, 2021 WL 3191917, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco July 28, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). Ian Cichy parked his vehicle in the Coyote Parking Lot and attempted to pay with a credit card, but discovered the lot only accepted cash. Id. He briefly left the lot (approximately ten feet away) to obtain $5 cash from a coworker, returned, and deposited the cash. Id. He also testified he spoke to "spotters" who confirmed he was "all good". Id. Despite this immediate payment and apparent confirmation, his vehicle was towed two hours later. Id. Roadrunners contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the finding of no probable cause. Id.
Similar to Niles, Ian Cichy represented himself pro se in this appeal. The Waco Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in Cichy's favor, finding no error in the determination that Roadrunners lacked probable cause. Id. at *2. The court's ruling suggests a judicial inclination to interpret "authorization" broadly when a vehicle owner makes a good faith effort to comply with parking requirements, particularly when there's an immediate effort to pay. The appellate court specifically limited its holding to the facts of the case, noting that it expressed "no opinion on whether a towing company or parking-facility owner would have probable cause to tow if a longer time elapsed between parking and payment." Id. at *2 n.2. Roadrunners lost in this case.
3. Brazos Valley Roadrunners, L.P. v. Lee
In Brazos Valley Roadrunners, L.P. v. Lee, the Waco Court of Appeals again affirmed a judgment against Roadrunners regarding a lack of probable cause to tow. Brazos Valley Roadrunners, L.P. v. Lee, No. 10-19-00251-CV, 2021 WL 3191954, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco July 28, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). Nari Lee parked in the Coyote Parking Lot, initially walked across the street without paying to understand the payment procedure, but returned within a minute to pay the fee before her vehicle was removed. Id. Roadrunners claimed the video footage showing Lee leaving without paying was available, but the portion showing her subsequent payment was not due to the limited storage capacity of their video system. Id.
Nari Lee also represented herself pro se on appeal. The critical aspect of this case was the missing video evidence of Lee's payment. Id. at *2. Roadrunners' owner testified that she was unaware of a claim of subsequent payment when saving the video, making her unable to preserve the full sequence of events. Id. Despite this, the court affirmed the judgment against Roadrunners, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that probable cause was lacking. Id. This case highlights the burden on towing companies to demonstrate probable cause at the time of towing, and the potential for a lack of complete documentation to weigh against them. Roadrunners lost here.
4. Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Hargrove
Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Hargrove from the Texarkana Court of Appeals offers a robust analysis, affirming the trial court's finding of no probable cause and, notably, a failure by the parking lot owner (Dixie Chicken, Inc.) to comply with statutory signage requirements. Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Hargrove, 628 S.W.3d 607, 613 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2021, no pet.). Randall Hargrove parked his truck in the Coyote Parking Lot, realizing he only had two $20 bills for a $5 fee. Id. at 610. He walked less than 200 feet to an adjacent market to get change, immediately returned, and paid the $5 fee. Id. His vehicle was towed nonetheless. Id.
Randall Hargrove represented himself pro se. The court found that Hargrove was authorized to use the lot due to his "reasonably prompt payment," concluding Roadrunners lacked probable cause. Id. at 613. More significantly, the court detailed the deficiencies in the signage: the signs stating patrons had to pay before walking away from the spot did not contain the international towing symbol, a statement that "unauthorized vehicles will be towed at the owner's expense," or a statement of the days or hours of towing enforcement, all required by TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. §§ 2308.252(a), 2308.301 (West 2023). Id. at 614. This case underscores that both probable cause and strict adherence to signage regulations are prerequisites for lawful towing. Roadrunners lost on both fronts.
5. Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Herrera
In Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Herrera, the Waco Court of Appeals addressed an appeal by Roadrunners concerning the award of attorney's fees to Julio Herrera, whose vehicle was towed without probable cause. Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Herrera, 708 S.W.3d 289, 290 (Tex. App.—Waco 2025, no pet.). The Justice of the Peace Court and subsequently the County Court at Law found against Roadrunners on the probable cause issue. Id. The specific appeal centered on whether Herrera was required to affirmatively plead for attorney's fees in justice court and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the fee award. Id. at 291.
Julio Herrera was represented by counsel, Joshua J. Benn. The court held that strict pleading rules applicable in courts of record do not apply in justice court, and an oral request for attorney's fees at a trial de novo is sufficient. Id. at 292. However, the court found the evidence insufficient to support the awarded attorney's fees of $1,390.50 when the attorney testified to a flat fee of $750. Id. The court modified the judgment to reduce the attorney's fees to $750, but affirmed the underlying judgment in favor of Herrera regarding the lack of probable cause. Id. at 292–93. Thus, while Roadrunners achieved a partial victory on the amount of attorney's fees, the fundamental finding of no probable cause—and thus a loss on the towing issue—remained intact.
Trends and Takeaways
The consistent thread running through these Brazos Valley Roadrunners cases is the appellate courts' unwavering commitment to the strict enforcement of the Texas Towing and Booting Act, particularly concerning the requirements for probable cause and proper signage.
Probable Cause is Paramount and Contextual: The "probable cause" analysis in these cases consistently focuses on the vehicle owner's authorization to be in the parking spot. The courts have interpreted this generously in favor of the vehicle owner, particularly when there is a demonstrated good-faith effort to comply with parking rules, even if compliance is delayed or unconventional. Whether the owner briefly leaves to obtain cash (Cichy, 2021 WL 3191917, at *1; Hargrove, 628 S.W.3d at 610) or pays immediately after initial parking (Niles, 2022 WL 1789978, at *1; Lee, 2021 WL 3191954, at *1), the courts find probable cause lacking if payment is made or attempted reasonably promptly. The emphasis is on the totality of circumstances at the time of the tow, and whether the vehicle is, in fact, "unauthorized." This suggests that towing companies must have a real-time, accurate assessment of a vehicle's status rather than relying on brief periods of perceived non-compliance.
Strict Construction of Signage Requirements: Hargrove stands out as a critical reminder that even if a towing company believes it has probable cause, a failure to meet the exacting statutory requirements for signage under Subchapter G of the Act can independently invalidate a tow. Hargrove, 628 S.W.3d at 614. The absence of the international towing symbol, specific language ("unauthorized vehicles will be towed at the owner's expense"), or stated hours of enforcement can render a tow unlawful, irrespective of the vehicle's status. Id. This imposes a dual burden on towing companies: establish probable cause and ensure perfect signage compliance.
The Pro Se Advantage (or Lack Thereof for Roadrunners): A striking observation across several of these cases (Niles, 2022 WL 1789978, at *1; Cichy, 2021 WL 3191917, at *1; Lee, 2021 WL 3191954, at *1; Hargrove, 628 S.W.3d at 610) is that the appellees, the towed vehicle owners, often appeared pro se. Despite this, they consistently prevailed on the core issue of probable cause. This pattern suggests that the facts, as presented, clearly supported the vehicle owners' positions under the Act, or that Roadrunners struggled to present compelling evidence to overcome the lower courts' findings. It also might indicate that the courts are particularly protective of consumers in these towing disputes, even when pitted against a legally represented entity.
Evidentiary Burden and Record Keeping: The Lee case highlights the importance of comprehensive and retained video evidence. Lee, 2021 WL 3191954, at *2. Roadrunners' inability to produce video footage of Lee's payment due to a limited storage system contributed to their loss. Id. Towing companies must maintain robust record-keeping systems that can capture the entire sequence of events relevant to a tow, especially given the "at the moment" nature of probable cause.
Pleading in Justice Court: Herrera provides a procedural clarification: the strict pleading rules of higher courts do not apply in justice courts, allowing oral requests for attorney's fees at trial de novo hearings. Herrera, 708 S.W.3d at 292. However, it also serves as a warning regarding the necessity of sufficient evidence to support the amount of attorney's fees claimed. Id.
Conclusion
The Roadrunner cases illustrate a consistent judicial posture in Texas regarding the Texas Towing and Booting Act: the scales of justice appear to be tilted in favor of the consumer when it comes to disputes over tow hearings - at least in the facts of these cases. Brazos Valley Roadrunners consistently lost on the central issue of probable cause in these appeals. Towing companies and parking facility owners must adhere to a high standard of care, ensuring not only that probable cause exists at the precise moment of towing but also that all statutory signage requirements are met with precision. Failure on either front, as these cases demonstrate, will likely lead to an unfavorable outcome for the towing company.