04-15-2010, 05:41 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
| NOW HAS OVER 13000 BITCHS Platinum Member
Super Mod
Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tyler Texas Age: 23
Posts: 15,192
|  Texans get in here!
read!
they always love when private citizens dont know thier rights.
I made a Plano prosecutor look like a complete jackass because he didnt know either.
There is caselaw on it.
oh, and the exact law:
§ 502.404. OPERATION OF VEHICLE WITHOUT LICENSE PLATE OR REGISTRATION INSIGNIA.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person operates on a public highway during a registration period a passenger car or commercial motor vehicle that does not display two license plates, at the front and rear of the vehicle,
the law doesnt state "on the front bumper" just "at the front"
Caselaw, from the Texas Supreme Court:
The page cannot be found ... onId=12576
most important part:
Quote:
Losoya refers us to the statutory predecessor of section 502.404(a), which provided that it was an offense to operate a motor vehicle "without having displayed thereon, and attached thereto, two (2) license number plates, one (1) at the front and one (1) at the rear." Act of May 23, 1975, 64th Leg., R.S., ch. 621, § 3, 1975 Tex. Gen. Laws 1919, 1920 (Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6675a-3e, § 5, since repealed) (emphasis added). The omission of the emphasized phrase from section 502.404(a) supports Losoya's argument that the present statute does not require the license plate to be physically attached to the vehicle. This, in turn, is some evidence that the license plate need not be attached to the front bumper of the vehicle as the State contends.
The apparent purpose of section 502.404(a) is to facilitate the identification of a motor vehicle by its license plate number whether it is moving toward or away from the viewer. While a place to display the license plate is usually found on the front bumper, the statute does not expressly require the use of this location. The display of the plate in some other place or manner is not inconsistent with the language or purpose of the statute. The officers testified that they could see the license plate in the windshield. We conclude that Losoya's display of his front license plate in the manner shown here did not violate section 502.404(a) as to give the officers grounds to reasonably suspect a violation of that statute.
The State also argues, as it did below, that the evidence shows a violation of transportation code section 502.409(a)(5) and (7), which at the time in question prohibited the display of a license plate that "has letters, numbers, or other identification marks that because of blurring matter are not plainly visible at all times during daylight" or that "has a coating, covering, or protective material that distorts angular visibility or detectability." Act of May 30, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1189, § 17, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4153, 4161 (Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 502.409(a)(5), (7), since amended). The State refers to Drozd's testimony that he could not read Losoya's license plate because of the glare of the sun on the windshield.
There is no evidence that the letters and numbers on Losoya's front license plate were blurred, obscured, or otherwise unreadable because any material on either the plate or the windshield. We do not believe that sunlight can reasonably be considered to be "blurring matter." There is also no evidence that the windshield distorted angular visibility or detectability. We find no basis in this record for reasonably suspecting a violation of section 502.409(5) or (7). We overrule the State's first issue or point of error.
The order granting the motion to suppress is affirmed.
so, yes, its that easy.
|
---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 PM ----------
Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
__________________  |
|  |
"For every ricer action there is a equal or greater ricer reaction"
need to keep looking
Linear Mode
