Texas License Plate Conversation
Previously, I wrote about the new law that governs visual access to automobile license plates in Texas. To put it simply, I was pissed.
When I heard of the law, I wrote an e-mail and sent it to several friends. I also sent it to my father, primarily because he is a deputy sheriff in Comal County and I wanted to get his professional opinion of the law and any "insider info" from the police. Below are the contents of the discussion. His words are italicized and mine are bolded.
His response to my initial e-mail:
Chas!
FYI:
The Texas Traffic Code has always [since 1923..!] made it an offense to have an "obscured" license plate.
The Sept ''03 legislation, contrary to your interpretation, now makes it somewhat more difficult to "harass" as you put it, by spelling out in rather plain language [all ACLU approved, believe it or not] exactly what is and what is not an obscured license plate.
"A dirty license plate is against the law in this county..." will no longer fly. Actuallly, Austin, Dallas and I believe Midland have initiated the photo traffic light system, where you get a digital photo of your car running the light [also ACLU approved] but of course, all of the "auto zone" et al out to make a buck folks are now selling reflective material to cover the numbers [the background is already reflective] in a no bones about it attempt to defeat the Austin, Dallas and Midland attempt to stop a few red light penetrators.
Anyway, the only folks that will likely be affected by this new law is the Michigan, Ohio, and NY car dealers that have been making ever increasingly large advertisements on their license plate frames that now cover everything except the last two numbers/characters. Obscuring the state's name from your plate for the sake of a used car dealer advertisement does not rank real high with me.
My contention isn't with a law against making it hard or impossible to read a license plate. "Unclean" is certainly ambigious and begged for more clarity. But I'm unhappy with the law's new wording, regardless.
Sec. 502.409. WRONG, FICTITIOUS, ALTERED, OR OBSCURED [UNCLEAN] LICENSE PLATE.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person attaches to or displays on a motor vehicle a number plate or registration insignia that:
502.409(a)(7)(B) is, in my opinion, written far too broadly. I saw ten license plate accessories that "alter or obscure" an "original design feature of the plate" on the way in to work this morning. That design feature primarily being the TEXAS across the top of the plate. Now, I'm confident that Texas law enforcement would be able to determine whether those license plates I saw were Texas-issued or not just as they'd be able to determine the license plate's number. I can spot a Texas plate easy. However, by the very wording of this law, those folks are criminals because the TEXAS was completely covered up. This is where my problem lies. I truely do see this as a tool for pulling people over that have otherwise done nothing wrong.
If I were to put a piece pf masking tape over the blue-colored panorama art across the bottom of my plates, I'd be liable for a fine and a traffic stop...and that has *zero* to do with a peace officer's ability to read my plate's numbers efficiently.
It is of course unlikely that a wave of petty fines is about to hit this state because I believe most cops don't consider the two examples above to be worthy of a fine or the hassle of a traffic stop. That shouldn't excuse a sloppy bill from being written into sloppy law.
Chas,
Get over it. I don't know about Austin, but no one in NB or Comal County is running around hasseling anyone over license plates.
I see your point, but I don't anticipate your concerns becoming much of a problem.
In order for a peace officer to make a traffic stop, he/she must first have "probable cause" [the infamous "PC"] that an offense was committed. Most typically, "observing" an offense, is most commonly what happens; i.e. [a] speeding [b] ran stop sign [c] no inspection sticker [d] no headlights [e] no seat belts, etc., etc., etc.
Now I would like to say that all laws are enforced vigorously and equally at all times. However, since we are not in a perfect world that does not always happen. Usually, when an officer wants to stop someone because they are acting "suspicious" [they act like they are hiding something under the front seat, they are driving just a little bit reckless -- crossing either of the lines, ran up on your rear real fast, then realized you were an officer then tailgated you, or you thought you recognized the dirtball that beat up his wife last week and you took the report, but you aren't exactly sure. The law requires you to have PC to make a stop. You can't just stop the guy on a hunch. Yes you can always say it looked like he didn't have a seat belt on, but that will work only once or twice. The rub that you are concerned with, is perhaps, the new license plate law will give officers additional room to make a stop when other PC is not available. The way our attorney at the sheriff's office [asst D.A.] explained this new law to us, is that it actually makes it more restrictive to make a stop for an obscured license plate than it did before. It must now meet one of the "tests" that you listed. Earlier, if all else failed, and you wanted to make the stop, and didn't really have PC, dirty license plate it was!
I'll send you the website [address is in CA] that you can buy dark blue, [so dark blue it looks black!] pre cut "reflective" numbers and letters that are a match to your state's font, that you can install on your license plate, so that when you get a snapshot made of your plate [remember your background is already reflective!] the whole thing looks like one big bright reflection to the camera, otherwise, in normal light, it looks like a normal license plate. This is carrying it a bit too far, I suppose.
I see your point about restricting the law from a test of the plate being "clean" to a test of several objective rules. That, in retrospect, is certainly a better thing than before. I also see and understand your point about people deliberately trying to make their plates "stealthy."
I still consider it sloppy law with the language I quoted before. Had the legislation restrained itself to protecting the visibility of the plate number, I wouldn't have a problem. It's the opening for abuse I don't like. In some laws, the opening is small and you'd have to strain yourself to justify it. With this law, the objective standards classify far too many license plate frames as illegal.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. If you wish, we can talk about it more this weekend, especially if some of your sheriff's buddies will be there.
Chas,
All good points! If you feel the law is in fact "sloppily worded" then see your local legislator -- don't blame that on your local sheriff!
Speaking of obscured plates, there was an actual case here in Comal County only a few months ago where two deputies were responding to a family violence call, one deputy was considerably closer to the call than the other. A standard practice upon arrival at a disturbance, family violence call, etc is to "run" the license plates of the vehicles in the driveway. This gives you an idea of who might be "home". Often it will give you a good idea of whether or not the "actor" is home. Unable to "run" the plate because it was obscured, but thinking it was the actor's vehicle [he had dealt with the actor earlier in the week...] the first deputy elected to wait for his back-up to arrive before entering [usually a very good practice]. Turns out it was not the actor's vehicle, but one similar, and the time spent waiting for back-up resulted in a delay in contacting EMS, and some complications to the victim, all of which probably would have been avoided if the first deputy could have confirmed that the vehicle in the driveway was not the actor's -- without the actor on scene, usually one deputy will make entry.
Other uses: this morning in San Antonio, an aggravated kidnapping on the NE side, actor fleeing on IH 35 north, exiting onto Loop 337 and heading west on SH 46 towards 281 in a burgandy Mercury Cougar. We know all of this info because the actor is using his cell phone and we are getting fixes from the various towers he is hitting with his phone. SAPD has no license plate, because it is obscured. We know there are two occupants, one male and one female. However, without a license plate, guess what -- all burgandy or even close to burgandy Merc Cougars in Comal County got stopped this morning. Now there were only about 3 or 4 of them, but all of which would have been unnecessary with a good license plate.
Indeed, I affix most of the blame to the authors of the laws, not the people who've got to enforce them. Everyone's human and we all make mistakes. Ya just kinda want those with the power to really screw other people to be more careful.
If you don't mind, I'm going to post this dialogue on my website. It covers some good information and might help someone searching for a police viewpoint other than that of an interviewed DPS trooper or spokesperson.
Post away!
So, have my opinions changed? Not really. I still consider it a bad law and I had hoped for more of an acknowledgement from my father regarding it's bad design. But he makes a good case for the law's intent. I'm just not happy with the way it was implemented.
UPDATED 2/15/2007 3:45pm
License Plate Frames Banned in Texas
Comments
I think it is stupid. As long as your not covering up the digits on your liscens plate i really dont think it should matter. As far as the officers enforcing it, i believe most will disregard it but there is always that "hotshot" officer that will get you for the dumbest things.
Posted by: Jeb | October 26, 2003 02:13 AM
I had never heard of this law until yesterday. My wife was in our local grocery store and the little old man that carried her bags to the car told her to remove the license place advertisement. He told her two of his customers had already been cited for breaking that law. I guess the Texas State Troopers in Parker County have nothing better to do. Funny how they always run speed traps and seatbelt stings on the 15 of the month. Fines are then due on the last day of the month just in time for month end reporting.
Posted by: Gob | October 28, 2003 09:43 AM
This just isn't fair.
My girlfriend got pulled over yesterday at a "speed trap" in Houston, and the officer decided to tack on this violation as well. She had your normal "car dealer" frame which cuts off the top half of the word "Texas". Neither of us had heard of this law taking effect.
I know that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" but don't we have the right to have some sort of notification that this new law is in effect.
Is it my responsibility to watch the news or read the newspaper cover to cover EVERY SINGLE DAY to make sure something like this has taken effect.
Here's a few ways i think we could have been informed:
- A notice sent out on Sept. 1 to all licensed drivers and everyone can be ticketed starting a month later.
- A notice sent with our license/rregistration renewals with a year to comply. i.e. if you renewed in July 2003 you aren't in violation until next July 2004 because you won't get the notice till then.
- You don't pass your yearly inspeection if you have this cover on your plates.
If you have a broken headlight or non-working signal, because that's illegal, so why not this??
My REAL question is the officer wrote down her license number on the ticket and also that it was a Texas plate.
HOW did he know it was a Texas plate, if he couldn't "read" it on the license??
This is just an excuse to drum up some extra $$$ for our financially troubled government agencies. If they really were just interested in having us remove them instead of the money, they would handle it one of my suggested ways or another.
thanks for listening.
Posted by: d mueller | October 30, 2003 11:57 AM
Here's something that we can try...How about not putting anything over your license plate? It's illegal so don't do it. Don't want the cops to have an extra reason to pull you over?...then don't put anything over your license plate. Common sense. Why would anyone want to advertise where they bought their car in the first place? Unless you're getting paid for the advertising, it's silly to have those license plate ads. Yes, I agree that certain parts of the plate that get covered don't interfere with its identification; however, why have exceptions? It's easier to enforce the law when there are no exceptions. Try this one...next time you get a ticket for this violation...ask your car dealership to pay for it..HA HA.. then continue to advertise for those slime balls for free...get the point? you can e-mail me at helpingtexas@yahoo.com for more discussion.
Posted by: PENGUIN | February 17, 2004 06:14 PM
I worked for ACLU at the 2003 Texas Legislature and I don't know what your Dad is talking about. ACLU did not support that license plate bill. Ever, anywhere. And we LED opposition to a bill (which, again to contradict your father, did NOT pass) that would have allowed cities to issue red light tickets based on traffic cameras.
If you don't like police making traffic stops unrelated to any real traffic offense or probable cause, you need to join the ACLU, not bash them. Nobody else in Texas is doing as much to fight this practice.
Posted by: Scott Henson | April 7, 2004 07:37 AM
Mr. Henderson, I don't know who to believe. The Texas ACLU website doesn't mention this issue on any of it's pages or in it's 2003 Legislative Agenda ( http://www.aclutx.org/news/ACLUTXSafeandFreeAgenda.pdf ). In any event, ACLU approval or disapproval wouldn't change my mind any.
Posted by: Drizz | April 8, 2004 09:41 AM
Believe who you want, but your father is incorrect about the camera bill. See ACLU's action alert opposing the red light camera bill last session at: http://lists.gp-us.org/pipermail/texgreen/2003-April/001886.html. It did not pass, but the city of Garland has installed them anyway. For a roundup of ACLU anti-surveillance activities at the Texas Legislature, see http://www.aclutx.org/legal/one_nation_surveillance.pdf.
We did not engage in the license plate debate on either side -- we frankly thought the auto dealers lobby would kill it, and they should have.
Regards,
Scott Henson
Posted by: Scott Henson | April 19, 2004 08:22 AM
THE LAW IS THE LAW, LIKE IT OR NOT. WHEN I SEE A PLATE COVERED SO YOU CANNOT READ THE NUMBERS I SUSPECT THE PERSON HAS JUST COMMITED A CRIME OR IS GOING TO COMMIT ONE. LOTS OF DRUG DEALERS ON THE ISLAND DO THAT SORT OF THING. COVER PART OF THE PLATE FOR A WHILE THEN ANOTHER PART.
EVEN IF YOUR PLATE LIGHT IS BURNT OUT YOU CAN STILL GET A TICKET.
Posted by: castnet | October 24, 2004 10:02 AM
castnet, "the law is the law, like it or not" isn't an argument. So what? We can change the law and we can ignore it.
Do you automatically assume someone is a criminal or is about to be a criminal simply because you can't see something that might identify them, that might or might not have been deliberately hidden?
Posted by: Drizz | October 26, 2004 10:38 AM
We are talking about items that do not in *any way* block visibility to the identifying numbers of a license plate. In many cases these are not things we even put on...any car you buy will probably have some sort of advertising trim around the license plate on it. It should not be the consumer's responsibility if auto dealers are applying things to your car that are in violation of Texas law. The law should be reworded so it is the auto dealer's responsibility if something they have put on the car is in violation of Texas law.
Arguing that "The Law is the Law" assumes that laws are always good and properly written. We all know what they say about "assume." Laws should be written to protect the people...not to appease some special interest or to line the pockets of municipalities.
Posted by: Icarter | May 5, 2005 05:38 PM
i have a question...is it illegal to take off the front plate completely??? what if it is in the dash??? thanks a bunch
Posted by: Krys | May 8, 2005 07:27 PM
Unfortunately I lost my respect for the police officer a long time ago. I respect and obey the law but I lothe cops. Because, the bottom line is that law enforcement has lost it's way. All they are is a bunch of revenuers. Their prime purpose
to "Protect and Serve" never did exist. All the cops know what is going on and they don't give a crap because they have that badge to flash if they get stopped. Basically their job sucks and they know it but it's still their job and it pays the bills so they keep quiet. Not to mention that they all are on a head trip. A few of my friends are cops, and I use the word friend with tongue in cheek, gun and badge totin cops with big heads because of it. Just the terms your dad uses in reference to people shows no respect for anyone not in the club. He talks like a cop even to his own son. I heard from a reliable source, that in Michigan traffic ticket funds support the cops medical benefits and pension plan. So there you have it.......The cities can no longer raise our taxes because politicians fear losing their jobs, so they give the job of collecting taxes, disguised as traffic violations, to the cops. I am from Michigan and I see things getting worse every month. Traffic checks for seat belts, speed traps, and other infringements on our rights to freedom as Americans. Insurance companies and the likes are running our lives and I have had it. What to do about the whole thing...............Can't fight em....join em,,,,,,Yeah right!!!
Posted by: PWHjr | June 21, 2005 10:49 PM
My son just got a ticket for it in Schertz. "Texas" is not obscured on the Bluebonnet frames that came with the car (2004).
Can we fight this without a lawyer?
Posted by: Bill Motz | November 2, 2005 12:02 AM
Mr. Motz, I am not a lawyer so take this more as a suggestion rather than advice. As I mentioned above, if there was anything that "alters or obscures" an "original design feature of the plate" you could be liable for this. What I'd do is take pictures of the license plates from a variety of distances and angles and show that the crucial information remains functionally visible at all times. Present it to the judge and basically ask him to let you go.
Resisting the law, which would be a better option in my opinion, gets expensive quickly. However, in neither case is formal legal counsel mandated.
Posted by: Drizz | November 2, 2005 12:28 PM
I work in a truckstop/gas station, and have seen MANY vehicles with questionable items on their tags. I myself hate 2 tags (I feel it makes a person "only a number", and not a person in the eyes of any govt. agency), and while I feel Ohio legislature are afraid of the cops, they DO need to get our tags made out of something other than steel. My sister had gotten hit for a burned out plate light on her '01 truck, yet I see alot of vehicles (including cop cars) with tag lights out. I got hassled one time for tinted covers, so I bought clear ones on my next vehicle. I got hassled for that too. "screw it, I said and left them on. Now they are on both ends of my car and my wife's car. As to what was said above in regards to informing people about the laws both current and pending, I agree. I don't feel it should be on the backs of the motorist to have to look stuff up, that there should be a pamphlet available in whatever state you are in that either lists the laws, or where you can look in the library/internet for the laws. A search brought me here, but though I don't live near TX, I was intrigued to read what was being said.
Posted by: Phantom 135 | March 19, 2006 06:58 AM