record and lists the four criteria cited by Patel for a valid breath alcohol test. Id. § 17.5(b). And a later section, entitled, “Hearings,” provides that all administrative hearings are governed in accordance with the Texas Transportation Code and Title 1, Chapter 159 of the Texas Administrative Code. Id. § 17.9 (2012) (Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, Hearings). Thus, it is apparent that the four requirements listed in section 17.5(b) are for DPS’s internal use when it is making an initial determination as to whether to proceed with a license revocation. There is no indication that the legislature intended the requirements of section 17.5(b) be met at the administrative hearing. Cf. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Cortinas, 996 S.W.2d 885, 890 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the Texas Transportation Code
holding that specific statutory provisions take priority over general statutory provisions holding that a sentence not in compliance with the mandatory provisions of a sentencing statute was illegal and appealable holding that strict compliance is not required holding that dps was not required to prove officers compliance with administrative or statutory provisions directing him to provide defendant copy of criminal complaint holding that where administrative complaint contained references to statutory provisions but failed to allege any act or omission in violation of those provisions the complaint did not afford proper notice to the licensee and that therefore disciplinary action could not be predicated on those statutes