Front License Plate Clarification by Highest Texas Court
09-26-2010, 08:42 AM
#1
Teching In
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lone Star State
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Front License Plate Clarification by Highest Texas Court Well, I know all of ya'll have had a question about the front plate law in Texas, at some point in time. Well, this article should easily clear it all up. Hope the mods see this and potentially make it a sticky to prevent further threads about it. For those that don't know, I am a State Trooper and we have also been confused about this law and had varying degrees of enforcement throughtout the State, until we received this update.
Sorry, I am just now posting it, I have been extremely busy. We received this update a couple of weeks ago.
Cliff notes: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (Highest Texas Court) has final ruling in split decision (7-2) that the front license plate in Texas must be mounted to the front bumper. This ruling will be enforced under the Texas Administration Rules until legislature can amend the Texas law next session. Yes, Texas Admin Laws are enforceable by ALL Texas Peace Officers and you can be issued a citation.
Court: Texas plates must be on front bumper
By MICHAEL GRACZYK
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:52 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 15, 2010
Published: 11:58 a.m. Wednesday, Sept. 15, 2010
Texas drivers must display license plates on the front bumpers of their vehicles, the state's top criminal court ruled Wednesday while upholding the conviction of a man sent to prison for 60 years on a drug charge.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a split decision Wednesday said it's not good enough to just have a plate displayed somewhere else toward the front of the car or truck, like inside the front windshield.
The case involves a man pulled over in Lubbock four years ago because his plate was wedged between the dashboard and the windshield. An officer subsequently found Tawin Spence had about a half-pound of cocaine stuffed in his pants.
Spence appealed, saying his plate clearly was visible, that he shouldn't have been stopped and that the drug evidence used to convict him of possession with intent to deliver cocaine was obtained improperly.
The ruling resolves conflicting opinions from lower state courts.
An appeals court in Austin held the Texas Transportation Code didn't require a plate on the front bumper.
An Amarillo appeals court looked at the code and said the plate must be displayed "where the car begins ... the foremost area of the car."
The Court of Criminal Appeals, agreeing with the Amarillo court, took that to most commonly mean the front bumper.
"'Front' means the foremost part or beginning of a vehicle, not in the front half, or in the front portion," Judge Cathy Cochran said in her majority opinion. "This meaning of 'front' as a location is not ambiguous and does not lead to an absurd result.
"While the Transportation Code does not explicitly define 'front,' common usage and definitions of the word provide ample support for this construction."
Two of the court's nine judges disagreed. Judge Lawrence Meyers, joined by Judge Barbara Hervey, said he'd "construe front and rear to mean any surface facing that direction."
"Using the majority's logic, the rear of the vehicle would be the back bumper," Meyers wrote. "But as we all know, 90 percent of all vehicles do not display the license plate on the back bumper, they are usually on the tailgate or trunk."
Referring to the Transportation Code, Meyers wrote: "The only thing about this statute that is clear is that it is not well written."
Spence, 29, had a previous drug conviction and was on parole less than four months when he was busted Sept. 23, 2006, outside what police said was a known drug house in Lubbock.
His car, a Chevrolet Impala, was described in court documents as having blue sparkle paint, white racing stripes and large wheels. The spot on the bumper where a license plate normally would go instead had a decorative silver chrome plate.
Spence testified at his trial the Texas license plate was "all the way up in the front of the front windshield" and visible from the street.
The officer who made the stop testified that even before he could explain the reason for the stop, Spence said he'd been given a ticket earlier for the same license plate violation.
Spence also had no driver's license, prompting the officer to frisk him and discover the drugs and about $1,400 in cash.
Prison records show Spence got 10 years in prison for cocaine possession in 2001 and was paroled five years later. Conviction on the cocaine charge stemming from the license plate stop in 2006 got him 60 years. He's at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Hughes Unit in Gatesville and becomes eligible for parole consideration in 2013.
Sorry, I am just now posting it, I have been extremely busy. We received this update a couple of weeks ago.
Cliff notes: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (Highest Texas Court) has final ruling in split decision (7-2) that the front license plate in Texas must be mounted to the front bumper. This ruling will be enforced under the Texas Administration Rules until legislature can amend the Texas law next session. Yes, Texas Admin Laws are enforceable by ALL Texas Peace Officers and you can be issued a citation.
Court: Texas plates must be on front bumper
By MICHAEL GRACZYK
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:52 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 15, 2010
Published: 11:58 a.m. Wednesday, Sept. 15, 2010
Texas drivers must display license plates on the front bumpers of their vehicles, the state's top criminal court ruled Wednesday while upholding the conviction of a man sent to prison for 60 years on a drug charge.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a split decision Wednesday said it's not good enough to just have a plate displayed somewhere else toward the front of the car or truck, like inside the front windshield.
The case involves a man pulled over in Lubbock four years ago because his plate was wedged between the dashboard and the windshield. An officer subsequently found Tawin Spence had about a half-pound of cocaine stuffed in his pants.
Spence appealed, saying his plate clearly was visible, that he shouldn't have been stopped and that the drug evidence used to convict him of possession with intent to deliver cocaine was obtained improperly.
The ruling resolves conflicting opinions from lower state courts.
An appeals court in Austin held the Texas Transportation Code didn't require a plate on the front bumper.
An Amarillo appeals court looked at the code and said the plate must be displayed "where the car begins ... the foremost area of the car."
The Court of Criminal Appeals, agreeing with the Amarillo court, took that to most commonly mean the front bumper.
"'Front' means the foremost part or beginning of a vehicle, not in the front half, or in the front portion," Judge Cathy Cochran said in her majority opinion. "This meaning of 'front' as a location is not ambiguous and does not lead to an absurd result.
"While the Transportation Code does not explicitly define 'front,' common usage and definitions of the word provide ample support for this construction."
Two of the court's nine judges disagreed. Judge Lawrence Meyers, joined by Judge Barbara Hervey, said he'd "construe front and rear to mean any surface facing that direction."
"Using the majority's logic, the rear of the vehicle would be the back bumper," Meyers wrote. "But as we all know, 90 percent of all vehicles do not display the license plate on the back bumper, they are usually on the tailgate or trunk."
Referring to the Transportation Code, Meyers wrote: "The only thing about this statute that is clear is that it is not well written."
Spence, 29, had a previous drug conviction and was on parole less than four months when he was busted Sept. 23, 2006, outside what police said was a known drug house in Lubbock.
His car, a Chevrolet Impala, was described in court documents as having blue sparkle paint, white racing stripes and large wheels. The spot on the bumper where a license plate normally would go instead had a decorative silver chrome plate.
Spence testified at his trial the Texas license plate was "all the way up in the front of the front windshield" and visible from the street.
The officer who made the stop testified that even before he could explain the reason for the stop, Spence said he'd been given a ticket earlier for the same license plate violation.
Spence also had no driver's license, prompting the officer to frisk him and discover the drugs and about $1,400 in cash.
Prison records show Spence got 10 years in prison for cocaine possession in 2001 and was paroled five years later. Conviction on the cocaine charge stemming from the license plate stop in 2006 got him 60 years. He's at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Hughes Unit in Gatesville and becomes eligible for parole consideration in 2013.
09-26-2010, 08:48 AM
#2
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Richmond, Texas
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for posting.
This ruling will be enforced under the Texas Administration Rules until legislature can amend the Texas law next session.
Do you know what amendments are proposed?
This ruling will be enforced under the Texas Administration Rules until legislature can amend the Texas law next session.
Do you know what amendments are proposed?
09-26-2010, 09:00 AM
#3
An Amarillo appeals court looked at the code and said
"Using the majority's logic, the rear of the vehicle would be the back bumper," Meyers wrote. "But as we all know, 90 percent of all vehicles do not display the license plate on the back bumper, they are usually on the tailgate or trunk."
Referring to the Transportation Code, Meyers wrote: "The only thing about this statute that is clear is that it is not well written."
Giving a specific definition of "Front" and leaving the definition of "Rear" as ambiguous as it ever was, will continue to waste the time of those who you write a ticket and the tax money of this state's residents.
http://www.familycar.com/roadtests/C...mages/Rear.jpg
While this isn't my CTS-V, it represents my car. You can CLEARLY see I'm in violation of the statute because the plate isn't attached to the rear bumper.
So are you going to pull over all these vehicles who are in violation? Or will you continue to "profile" those without a front plate?
The appellate court has hurdled common sense in order to uphold the shallow conviction of a druggie. Makes me proud of our government and those that run it and work for it.
09-26-2010, 09:34 AM
#6
Teching In
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lone Star State
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A definite repost, but ....
Giving a specific definition of "Front" and leaving the definition of "Rear" as ambiguous as it ever was, will continue to waste the time of those who you write a ticket and the tax money of this state's residents.
http://www.familycar.com/roadtests/C...mages/Rear.jpg
While this isn't my CTS-V, it represents my car. You can CLEARLY see I'm in violation of the statute because the plate isn't attached to the rear bumper.
So are you going to pull over all these vehicles who are in violation? Or will you continue to "profile" those without a front plate?
The appellate court has hurdled common sense in order to uphold the shallow conviction of a druggie. Makes me proud of our government and those that run it and work for it.
Giving a specific definition of "Front" and leaving the definition of "Rear" as ambiguous as it ever was, will continue to waste the time of those who you write a ticket and the tax money of this state's residents.
http://www.familycar.com/roadtests/C...mages/Rear.jpg
While this isn't my CTS-V, it represents my car. You can CLEARLY see I'm in violation of the statute because the plate isn't attached to the rear bumper.
So are you going to pull over all these vehicles who are in violation? Or will you continue to "profile" those without a front plate?
The appellate court has hurdled common sense in order to uphold the shallow conviction of a druggie. Makes me proud of our government and those that run it and work for it.
First, with an appeal such as this, the court can only rule on the issue being appealed. In this case the probable cause for the stop was a violation of the front license plate law. Court made its ruling on that alone. It cannot turn around and give a definition or ruling on anything not pertaining to the case at hand. I also never said I would give a ticket to anyone not abiding by the front plate law, I merely have information that any person can be issued a citation if that officer so chooses. I have written one ticket in 6 years for no front plate. (the violator had been issued 8 different warnings for no front plate in 3 years)
Ok, rear plate. You are not violating the statute by running around with your rear plate mounted as in the picture. The Court DID NOT rule on rear plates, because that was not what the case was being appealed on. The long running debate in Texas has been the front plate. 99% of car manufacturers make an area for the front and rear plate to be mounted. 99% of the public mounts the rear plate where it was designed to be mounted. But for some reason, it is "ugly" or not cool to mount the front plate where it is supposed to go, so thus all of the confusion, ie; front windshield, grill, bumper, air dam, dash. The court sees the need to make a specific decision and did so. I am merely posting THEIR decision for everyones info and to clear the air.
Profile, huh? Well not even going to turn this discussion into a profile debate, so I will let this one go.
How did the court hurdle common sense? It seems they made the decision easy for so many that don't mount their front plate where it is designed to go. In my opinion, it is those people that are hurdling common sense. They fail to use the common sense of mounting it in the proper place and then complain about being "harrassed".
Shallow conviction? Guy had 1/2 pound of Cocaine in his pants!
I am very sorry you have already made up your mind about so many of us that wear a uniform and represent the State of Texas. If I made a statement like that you would see me as biased and making a stereotype, whereas you feel that your statement about the government and people as a whole is logical.
09-26-2010, 09:37 AM
#7
Teching In
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lone Star State
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, Texas will be in a $21 billion shortfall by next Legislative session. I don't make the laws, just enforce them. If you don't like a specific one, contact your legislative representative. This may be the best time for them to make an ultimate decision on removing the front plate law.
Last edited by WstTexas; 09-26-2010 at 09:44 AM.
Trending Topics
09-26-2010, 09:42 AM
#8
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston / University of Texas, Austin
Posts: 6,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
myself along with many other LS1tech members have petitioned and complained FOR YEARS. This isn't something new, and something members have been fighting for years, but it ALWAYS falls on deaf ears.
I know you don't make the laws, but it is **** law that is enforced and mainly a common citation that is used as a reason to pull people over to attempt to find other offenses.
Mind blowing that our crooked politicians have put our govt in 21billion dollars worth of debt....
I know you don't make the laws, but it is **** law that is enforced and mainly a common citation that is used as a reason to pull people over to attempt to find other offenses.
Mind blowing that our crooked politicians have put our govt in 21billion dollars worth of debt....
09-26-2010, 09:49 AM
#10
Teching In
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lone Star State
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know other officers intentions when pulling over violators of the plate law, so I can't comment on that. If I see it, I pull someone over, that simple. Write them a warning and send them on their way. I am trying to educate the public with every contact. Not all of us are the same.
09-26-2010, 09:54 AM
#11
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston / University of Texas, Austin
Posts: 6,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with you on the debt, very frustrating. We don't get alot of equipment we need to perform our jobs. My bullet proof vest cover has been used and washed so many times, that I had to duct tape it to keep the ballistic panels from falling out. Still functions, but is extremely frustrating.
I don't know other officers intentions when pulling over violators of the plate law, so I can't comment on that. If I see it, I pull someone over, that simple. Write them a warning and send them on their way. I am trying to educate the public with every contact. Not all of us are the same.
I don't know other officers intentions when pulling over violators of the plate law, so I can't comment on that. If I see it, I pull someone over, that simple. Write them a warning and send them on their way. I am trying to educate the public with every contact. Not all of us are the same.
I do commend you on this. glad to know we don't have to sit and question and debate the situation when somebody in the know can keep us informed.
and that BLOWS about the equipment, gotta stay safe out there!!
09-26-2010, 10:08 AM
#12
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (30)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Texarkana, Tx
Posts: 4,391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad to see that there is finally some clarification on that law. I have made traffic stops because of no front plate, but have never given a citation for it. Usually they were just given warnings unless there were other issues at hand that were more extensive than just the no front plate.
09-26-2010, 10:11 AM
#13
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Corpus Christi Texas
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets say I DONT have somewhere to mount on my bumper as I have molded in the LP spot. Will one on my air dam still suffice? I will no drill holes in my car.
09-26-2010, 11:47 AM
#18
I will try to address all of your points, but clearly you have your mind made up, so it may fall on deaf ears.
First, with an appeal such as this, the court can only rule on the issue being appealed. In this case the probable cause for the stop was a violation of the front license plate law. Court made its ruling on that alone. It cannot turn around and give a definition or ruling on anything not pertaining to the case at hand. I also never said I would give a ticket to anyone not abiding by the front plate law, I merely have information that any person can be issued a citation if that officer so chooses. I have written one ticket in 6 years for no front plate. (the violator had been issued 8 different warnings for no front plate in 3 years)
Ok, rear plate. You are not violating the statute by running around with your rear plate mounted as in the picture. The Court DID NOT rule on rear plates, because that was not what the case was being appealed on. The long running debate in Texas has been the front plate. 99% of car manufacturers make an area for the front and rear plate to be mounted. 99% of the public mounts the rear plate where it was designed to be mounted. But for some reason, it is "ugly" or not cool to mount the front plate where it is supposed to go, so thus all of the confusion, ie; front windshield, grill, bumper, air dam, dash. The court sees the need to make a specific decision and did so. I am merely posting THEIR decision for everyones info and to clear the air.
Profile, huh? Well not even going to turn this discussion into a profile debate, so I will let this one go.
How did the court hurdle common sense? It seems they made the decision easy for so many that don't mount their front plate where it is designed to go. In my opinion, it is those people that are hurdling common sense. They fail to use the common sense of mounting it in the proper place and then complain about being "harrassed".
Shallow conviction? Guy had 1/2 pound of Cocaine in his pants!
I am very sorry you have already made up your mind about so many of us that wear a uniform and represent the State of Texas. If I made a statement like that you would see me as biased and making a stereotype, whereas you feel that your statement about the government and people as a whole is logical.
First, with an appeal such as this, the court can only rule on the issue being appealed. In this case the probable cause for the stop was a violation of the front license plate law. Court made its ruling on that alone. It cannot turn around and give a definition or ruling on anything not pertaining to the case at hand. I also never said I would give a ticket to anyone not abiding by the front plate law, I merely have information that any person can be issued a citation if that officer so chooses. I have written one ticket in 6 years for no front plate. (the violator had been issued 8 different warnings for no front plate in 3 years)
Ok, rear plate. You are not violating the statute by running around with your rear plate mounted as in the picture. The Court DID NOT rule on rear plates, because that was not what the case was being appealed on. The long running debate in Texas has been the front plate. 99% of car manufacturers make an area for the front and rear plate to be mounted. 99% of the public mounts the rear plate where it was designed to be mounted. But for some reason, it is "ugly" or not cool to mount the front plate where it is supposed to go, so thus all of the confusion, ie; front windshield, grill, bumper, air dam, dash. The court sees the need to make a specific decision and did so. I am merely posting THEIR decision for everyones info and to clear the air.
Profile, huh? Well not even going to turn this discussion into a profile debate, so I will let this one go.
How did the court hurdle common sense? It seems they made the decision easy for so many that don't mount their front plate where it is designed to go. In my opinion, it is those people that are hurdling common sense. They fail to use the common sense of mounting it in the proper place and then complain about being "harrassed".
Shallow conviction? Guy had 1/2 pound of Cocaine in his pants!
I am very sorry you have already made up your mind about so many of us that wear a uniform and represent the State of Texas. If I made a statement like that you would see me as biased and making a stereotype, whereas you feel that your statement about the government and people as a whole is logical.
Shallow conviction, in my mind's eye, in that it's a means to justify an end. A lot of taxpayer resources were spent in order to justify the poor schmuck's conviction.
Don't deflect the issue, here. It's not about upholding the idiot's drug conviction. It's about using, as stated by an appellate court judge, a poorly written statute.
As a citizen, I find it rather dictatorial that that those who enforce the law can get away with loosely written statutes and those of us who do our best to abide by those statutes are held to a higher standard.
Now, based upon your vieled attempt to "inform", you can and will look for vehicles without a plate on the very front of a car or truck.
So it begs the question ... how many farmers in west Texas will you and your ilk pull over and cite with cattle guards on the front and the plate on the bumper versus sports cars? Does the same law apply?
I bet my dollars or your donuts that farmer Jones will get a pass. Got "profiling'?
As for the rest, it doesn't require a crimial justice degree to make the short leap to extrapolate that the definition of "front" means should be applied to "rear".
09-26-2010, 12:48 PM
#19
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,894
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why doesn't texas focus on nailing those with NO insurance and NO drivers license...better yet all those idiots talking/texting on the cell phones? Seriously all 3 of those are FAR FAR more important then a dumb piece of plastic on the front of a car. Forcing this law is just another way for the state to make quick money by constantly pulling over those who do not have one on when its just a minor thing compared to what I said above.
Seriously, whats more important? Illegal drivers or a legal driver with no front plate.
Seriously, whats more important? Illegal drivers or a legal driver with no front plate.