Hey, there! Log in / Register
Court rules you can't be pulled over for putting tape over the motto on your license plates
By adamg on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 11:10am
The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today some evidence against a man charged with driving down I-93 while drunk and with a cracked windshield can't be used against him because he was initially pulled over for having black tape over "Spirit of America" on his license plate.
The trooper did not have any basis to stop the defendant; therefore the stop was improper and the evidence obtained as a result of that stop must be suppressed.
The Registry of Motor Vehicles continues to insist it is illegal to cover up the inane slogan despite a 1977 Supreme Court decision doing something like that is not.
The judge hearing the man's trial initially rejected all evidence from the stop because, he ruled, the intent of state law is to keep the numbers on a plate visible, not slogans. The appellate justices agreed the evidence needs to be tossed, but said it was because state law does not specifically mention tape, unlike license-plate covers or frames, which it does.
The justices wrote that while a mistake may not always be enough to suppress evidence - a trooper could be held blameless for precisely following an incorrect Registry regulation - in this case the issue was that the regulation itself gave the trooper absolutely no basis for stopping the van in the first place because it doesn't mention tape.
In addition to giving motorists the right to argue they can tape over the slogan, the ruling could make it harder for prosecutors to prove their case the man was caught driving drunk for the third time.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Famous Potatoes
Some lawyer in Boise wanted to make a federal case of that state's motto being on his pwecious beemer's behind. He wanted a plate without it (state said no), but was told he could just tape it over.
Why do they say it is illegal, yet still permit green/white nonreflectorized plates with no motto - plates that are not federaly compliant and that are so faded you can't read them?
When will all these stupid-arse fifedomes understand the concept known as Rule of Law applies to THEM?
When will all the stupid self important people
out there give up their obsession with unimportant minutia like insisting it is their Constitutional right that they should be allowed to cover the slogan on a government-issued license plate?
Especially when applying the "Rule Of Law" for a person exercising this "right" results in a hypertechnicality ruling that lets a drunk driver evade a conviction.
In a word - pathetic
The case was not about constitutional rights
Roadman,
I suspect you didn't read the decision, because it had nothing to do with constitutional rights. This case was entirely about whether state law and regulation prohibit the covering of supplemental words on a license plate. The state regulation only refers to license plate frames. Because this covering was not a frame, but was some kind of tape, it was not prohibited. Because it was not prohibited, the Trooper had no legal right to stop the car.
This was not a First Amendment challenge to the slogan, "Spirit of America," on the license plate.
Also, constitutional rights are not hypertechnicalities. They are core safeguards of individual liberty and are what set us apart from the Libyas, Egypts, and Venezuelas of the world.
Not directly a constitutional issue but ...
I had taped over the slogan yesterday because I object to it (which I do, although not because of any political beliefs but because it's such a lame-ass saying; can't we do better?), I could have been pulled over simply for that. Now, with this ruling, I can't.
Yes, the justices seemed to be signaling the legislature that they should add "or tape" to the relevant state law (MGL Chap. 90, sec. 6), so in that sense it's like that perv conviction that was struck down a couple years back because the guy was sending porn to a cop posing as a minor electronically, while the law only specified "on paper."
But combined with the 1977 US Supreme Court ruling, this is a First Amendment victory of a sort. I'll take it - now let's see if the legislature actually attempts to update the law.
Be it a tape or a frame,
they both do the same thing - obscure the slogan. So, if you're going to argue the intent of the law, which the judge in the original ruling clearly stated he based his decision on "the intent of the law", then it seems pretty clear to me - you shouldn't obscure the slogan.
The trooper stopped the vehicle because the slogan was obscured. Unless you can convince me that there is a legitimate and pressing reason to obscure the slogan, or that tape somehow ended up covering the slogan by accident, then arguing that the law about license plates doesn't specifically mention tape in order to defend a drunk driving charge is indeed using a hypertechnicality to avoid a conviction for what most reasonable people would consider a serious crime.
And, with respect, I don't buy the argument "I don't like the slogan, therefore I should have the right to cover it up." On that basis, should we then allow a person who doen't like the apparence of the side mirror or the high level brake light to remove them from their vehicle?
On that basis, should we then
Come on. That is a strawman and we both know it. The examples you gave are clearly related to state and/or federal safety issues. The slogan is not.
Your argument is as valid as: "Oh, so the courts are saying I can't put 35% tint on my entire windshield? What's next, outlawing bumper stickers?"
Not quite right, Adam
Adam,
That's not right. If you taped over the slogan last week (no matter what your reasons were), you could *not* legally have been pulled over. That was the court's whole point: the regulation did not prohibit that conduct.
If your point was that you were more likely to have been pulled over for it last week because the police would have thought it was a violation, that's right I think. Now, more officers are likely to know that they may not stop you for a taped-over slogan.
Yep, you're right
What I meant to say was that a couple days ago, I might have been pulled over, after which I could appeal and wait for my case to wend its way to the appeals court, while as of yesterday, all I have to do is photocopy the decision and keep it in my glove box :-).
out there give up their
out there give up their obsession with unimportant minutia like insisting it is their Constitutional right that they should be allowed to cover the slogan on a government-issued license plate?
Well, they're right, and this was settled a long time ago. It would be better for the police to just train their officers about this, or for the RMV to take steps to deal with it legally.
The original court case on this was Wooley v. Maynard back in the 70s. Maynard was a Jehovah's Witness in NH who covered up the 'Or Die' part of the slogan on his plates up there because he disagreed with it and didn't want to have to display a message like that everywhere he went. He got arrested several times, and in the end it went to the Supreme Court. The Court decided that the whatever policy the state had in broadcasting its motto, it was outweighed the free speech right of the drivers to disagree with that motto and not have to carry around something they found objectionable. The motto isn't the same as the ID numbers on the plate, and if they want the plate design to be visually distinguishable from that of other states, there are other ways (probably better ways) than the motto.
The state could either issue motto-free plates to people who wanted them, or it could put up with people covering up the motto. Sounds like MA is in the same fix. It's easy enough to correct; print up some blank plates that lack the motto and let people get them if they choose. I can't say that I have a problem with this.
Or you could
not drive.
Driving is a government regulated privilege, not a right. You can't protest stop signs, and you shouldn't government issued plates; period.
Driving is a government
Driving is a government regulated privilege, not a right.
I hear that a lot. While I don't mind reasonable regulations, regarding safety standards for vehicles, training requirements for drivers, vision checks, sobriety, etc. why shouldn't it be a right? Why isn't it? Why would it be bad if it were a right? Do people not have a right to walk across a public street (at, say, a crosswalk, in such a way as to not endanger themselves or others)? If there is no such right to cross the street, could the government force pedestrians that wanted to leave their block to wear a prominent slogan on their outer clothes or on a sign? What if you found the slogan personally and morally repugnant (e.g. someone who is anti-abortion being forced to carry a sign that says 'pro-choice')?
You can't protest stop signs
I don't have the right to stand next to a stop sign and picket? Or to complain about it at town meeting? That's news to me.
and you shouldn't government issued plates; period.
No less an authority than the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you. Read Wooley to understand their reasoning, but the gist of it is that the government cannot compel people to think or proclaim things. Being compelled to carry around a government slogan, prominently displayed on your own property if you want to have a licensed car is such a compulsion. Just don't drive isn't an adequate response; when we're talking about compulsory speech, there has to be a damned good reason on the part of the state. For license plate mottos, such a reason has yet to be found.
You sure can protest stop
You sure can protest stop signs. Doing so is a constitutional right.
Boy am I glad you're not in a position of authority.
Vigilante much?
I'd rather see him get away without a conviction than have the judge permit improperly gathered evidence.
You seem to have trouble understanding the concept of "Rule of Law" entirely.
The law protects everyone, even those people you think are scumbags. You should be happy it works that way. The alternative is much worse.
So, just how is society protected by
allowing a repeat drunk driver to remain on the road by arguing that the trooper didn't have the right to stop them because his license plate was only obscured with tape and not a permanent frame?
But I guess you'd rather the trooper did nothing and let the driver go on his way to possibly crash into somebody further down the road.
It's rulings like these that make defense lawyers so despised.
Again, you really seem to
Again, you really seem to have difficulty with the concept of "Rule of Law".
There are plenty of laws which allow a police officer to stop a vehicle which is displaying signs of being driven by a drunk driver.
"Tape over the slogan" is not an indication of drunken driving.
In this country, it is important that enforcement of laws is also carried out lawfully. This is absolutely fundamental to the system. Nobody is above the law.
You could just shut up ...
But you are free to go on and on about which rights people should and shouldn't use just because YOU think it is stupid. And to rant and rave about how you think it is okay that the registrar and the cops don't think the law limits their behavior, too.
A man who thinks he gets to decide what rights are important for others to use or not use. In a word - pathetic.
OK then - give me a legitimate reason
why a person should be allowed to alter a government-issued license plate. Because they don't like the slogan - give me a break!
What unreasonable burden is placed on a person by requiring them to have that slogan on their plates? Answer - NONE.
What legitimate and tangible benefit is denied to that person by denying them the "right" to alter that license plate. Answer - NONE.
But I guess insuring that the "rule of law" continues to allow people the right to self-expression by vandalizing government property is more important than keeping a third time drunk driver off the road.
The reason you can do it is
The reason you can do it is because there is no law saying you can't. There's no other argument that matters. If you'd like to change the law to prohibit it, then go for it: start a movement.
Here's another
The purpose of a license plate is to identify the car and verify that the registration is up to date. For that you need:
A bunch of numbers
A place to indicate the expiration date
The issuing state
Famous Potatoes doesn't do that. Nor does Spirit of America or any other such slogan. If it was, you know, important then all plates would have it.
As it is, the plates that MA STILL HAS - the unreflectorized green one - are major fail for identifying a vehicle. They are hard to read, fading fast, grace only the rear of the vehicle - and yet they don't have the slogan on them.
What federal requirements do
What federal requirements do the green plates not meet?
Reflectorization
The feds require plates to have a minimal level of reflectorization so that they may be read at a distance at night.
The green plates do not meet this standard - particularly since they are at least 10 years old now.
Don't think so
Got proof of that? I Googled around and didn't find anything. The best I could find to the contrary was this:
I'm with him
While it sucks, we have laws, regulations, and procedure in place to protect our liberties. Dotting i's and crossing t's is essential due diligence, not optional, especially in matters where the state is bringing suit against a citizen.
If a cop doesn't know the law, or can't follow it; it's time to get ride of the cop.
A guy gets off because a LEO wasn't acting within the realm of the law. Sucks, but maybe it'll be a warning not to take the easy way out in the future.
And just a FYI / something to think about. Off the street is a job well done in many a LEO's book, letting the courts sort it out afterwards.
While it has it's abuses, it also is effective in times like this were the cops probably didn't have enough to make an stop/arrest otherwise, even though this guy had drinks and was a repeat offender.
They got him off the road this time at least, which is a small win.
they are reflective
Why do they say it is illegal, yet still permit green/white nonreflectorized plates with no motto - plates that are not federaly compliant and that are so faded you can't read them?
They're reflective, and everyone on the state side consistently says that if the plate can't be read from X number of feet, it's not a legal plate. You should fail your inspection or be pulled over.
The better question is: why the hell do we have to have a front plate, when a number of states don't require it? Answer: front plates assist in MA keeping up with speeding tickets. Per capita, MA officers write more speeding tickets than in any other state. Amazing what it's done traffic safety, huh? Worst in the nation, just about.
You might want to check some stats first
We may be a state full of Massholes, we may have all learned how to drive from the back of cereal boxes and yet ...
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811000.PDF
Shows that, at least as of 2007, we had the lowest per-mile auto fatality rates in the country.
No, I'm not arguing this is because of front license plates, but, please, let's not over-inflate how bad we are.
And, yes, cops DO pull people over if they can't read plates. Happened to my wife, when the red somehow gradually disappeared from the numbers on her rear plate (fortunately, she only got a warning).
I like the attitude in
I like the attitude in Washington DC with their plate motto: "Taxation Without Representation."
OK folks - file this one under "face, egg on my"
As a result of the discussion of my earlier comments, I decided to see what Massachusetts state law actually has to say in regards to obscured license plates.
The folliwng is an excerpt from the text of MGL Chapter 90, Section 6
Section 6. Every motor vehicle or trailer registered under this chapter when operated in or on any way in this commonwealth shall have its register number displayed conspicuously thereon by the number plates furnished by the registrar in accordance with section two or five or by temporary number plates authorized by the registrar as hereinafter provided, one number plate to be attached at the front and one at the rear of said motor vehicle, and one number plate to be attached at the rear of said trailer, but if the registrar issues but one number plate it shall be attached to the rear of the vehicle so that it shall always be plainly visible. The said number plates shall be kept clean with the numbers legible and shall not be obscured in any manner by the installation of any device obscuring said numbers (emphasis added), and during the period when the vehicle or trailer is required to display lights the rear register number shall be illuminated so as to be plainly visible at a distance of sixty feet......
So it appears that, despite RMV "rules" to the contrary, it is perfectly legal under Massachusetts law to obscure the "Spirit of America" slogan by any means, be it black tape or a permanent frame.
I'm still not happy that a drunk driver got off because of this, but at least I can now agree with the ruling.
Once again, that's what I get when shooting from the hip.
What I don't get is....
(regarding the NH case) Wouldn't the Jehovah's Witnesses actually die in order to live free? And why wouldn't they block out the name "New Hampshire" since they probably don't believe in organized states with names?
I don't think the JWs have a
I don't think the JWs have a problem with Governments, per se. They just have no allegiance to them. They don't have a problem with the need for driver's licenses and boards of health and the like.
But I bet if they had a choice,
they would remove government logos altogether from whatever they needed to use (cars, licenses, etc)
I can understand . . .
. . . having a beef with a state slogan like "Live Free or Die" but "Spirit of America"? What problem could anyone have with that?
With all the specialty plates around these days I think the registry should revive the Cod Fish plate. Early on- in the 20's- the registry issued the famous "Cod Fish" plate- with a representation of a Cod Fish on it. The only problem was that the Cod Fish was pointing away from the word "Mass" on the plate. The year the plate was issued Cod fishermen had one of the worst years ever- with very poor catches. They blamed the plate for bad luck by showing the Cod Fish swimming away from Mass and the plate was changed the next year with the Cod Fish pointing towards Mass.