Question

I live in Polk County and I recently was given a citation, by an elderly State Trooper, for having my auto dealership tag frame covering a small portion of my tag. The portion that was covered was the part of the "Florida" on the bottom of the tag.

I asked a lawyer friend and some local police officers and they did not think the citation was correct, but could not/did not explain further. The lawyer mentioned that there was a case over in Orlando several years ago that explains the law, but did not get specfic. Probably, did not want to give out free advice. Anyways...

Does anyone know if the ticket was correct?

Also, as an alternative, what case law were they referring too?

Thanks for the help and be safe.

look up the statue # on the internet and read what it says. Obscured Tag f.s. 316.605.1 should answer your question there.

Grandpa was correct in his interpretation of the statue, you can't block any part of your tag. You need to read the new statue as of July 07. Now with that being said, if you only got one citaiton for that traffic stop, YOU'RE DAMN LUCKY. Grandpa usually gives a min of 3 cits per stop and piles on the cits. He writes 100 cits a week. Better count you chickens and blessings that you had your seatbelt on, had your license, correct addresss on your license, registration card, and signaled when you got over to the right. He is outta control, but hey that's today's FHP CITATIONS, CITATIONS, CITATIONS, no matter how chicken sh$@#$!!!!!!

Grandpa was correct in his interpretation of the statue, you can't block any part of your tag. You need to read the new statue as of July 07. Now with that being said, if you only got one citaiton for that traffic stop, YOU'RE darn LUCKY. Grandpa usually gives a min of 3 cits per stop and piles on the cits. He writes 100 cits a week. Better count you chickens and blessings that you had your seatbelt on, had your license, correct addresss on your license, registration card, and signaled when you got over to the right. He is outta control, but hey that's today's FHP CITATIONS, CITATIONS, CITATIONS, no matter how chicken sh$@#$!!!!!!


Sorry...but Grandpa and you are wrong according to the 5th DCA!!! Read the case law below for reason: HINT: The part obscured needs to be an essential part of the registration.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Irvin ST. JEAN, Appellee.
No. 96-2813.
Aug. 1, 1997.
Defendant was charged with drug offenses and moved to suppress evidence. The Circuit Court, Orange County, Reginald K. Whitehead, J., granted motion. State appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that fact that county name on license plate of defendant's vehicle was obscured by ornament around perimeter of tag was not sufficient to show that defendant had committed traffic violation, and, thus, police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's automobile.

Fact that county name on license plate of defendant's vehicle was obscured by ornament around perimeter of tag was not sufficient to show that defendant had committed traffic violation, and, thus, police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's automobile, where use of license plate rims to obscure plate rims or frames was common practice that had never before been reported as traffic infraction. West's F.S.A. § 316.605(1).

PER CURIAM.
The state seeks review of an order of the lower court suppressing evidence seized incident to a traffic stop, concluding that the stop was illegal because there was no reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation had occurred. We affirm.

By stipulation, the only evidence presented to the court at the hearing was the arresting officer's investigative report, which set forth that the officer stopped the defendant's car because he had “observed the tag on the vehicle was obscured by a[sic] ornament around the perimeter of the tag making the county name not visible.” This was asserted to be a violation of section 316.605, Florida Statutes (1995). A subsequent search of the trunk of the vehicle uncovered a quantity of cocaine.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the cocaine, arguing that the stop of his vehicle was illegal because it is not a traffic violation to obscure the name of the county on a tag. The trial court agreed and granted the motion.

*957 Section 316.605(1), Florida Statutes (1995), provides, in relevant part, that every vehicle on the state roadways shall at all times display the license plate assigned to it by the state:

with all letters, numerals, printing, writing, and other identification marks upon the plates clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.

In construing the statute, the trial court concluded that section 316.605(1) does not require the county name be “plainly visible” because it is not an essential “identification mark” on the state's license plate. The trial court reasoned that if the county name were such an “identification mark,” the state would not issue personalized prestige plates or the many different speciality license plates that do not bear the county name.FN1 Also, section 320.06(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), allows any county, upon majority vote of the county commissioners, to elect to have the county name removed from the license plates sold in that county.

FN1. See § 320.0805-.08056, Fla. Stat. (1995).
The state has cited no authority for the proposition that obscuring the county name in such a fashion violates section 316.605. The state relies only on the language of the statute. We agree that in using the term, “identification mark” as applied to state license plates in section 316.605(1), the legislature did not intend to include the name of the state and county at the top and bottom of the plate that identify the name of the state or county. Although the language of section 316.605 is broad, the overall statutory scheme suggests that the “identification marks” that must be visible and legible are those that “identify” the “registration.” See § 320.06(1)(b), (3)(a) (1995).
The use of license plate rims or frames which obscure the county name appearing at the bottom of the plate is a common practice of long-standing among the citizens of our state. They are frequently supplied by car dealers and many otherwise law abiding citizens install them specially to show allegiance to a club, fraternity, college or sports team or, as a means of other self-expression. It is extremely odd that such an obvious and prevalent practice has generated no reported decisions and no enforcement that the state can identify. Absent any more clear prohibition against this activity in Florida statutes, we decline to declare it a traffic infraction.

We make one additional observation about this statute that was not raised by the parties, in the likely event this issue comes up in another district. It appears to us that essential to a correct interpretation of section 316.605 is the phrase, “visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.” FN2 Plainly, any writing contained on a Florida tag produced and sold by the state that is not “visible and legible” at 100 feet could not be an “identification mark” as referred to in this statute. Otherwise, under the statutory scheme, every citizen who complies with the law by displaying the tag assigned to it by the State of Florida would be in violation of the law requiring legibility at 100 feet. This would yield an absurd result and cannot be what the legislature intended. We question whether the state could establish that the county name on the tags supplied by the State of Florida is visible and legible to a person with normal vision at 100 feet.

FN2. It appears that “they” as used in the statute, refers to “identification marks.” If “they” refers to “plates,” the state's position is no better.
AFFIRMED.

The original poster stated the "State" name was covered, not a county name. Therefore, I would consider that an essential part of the tag. Citation is good under 316.605......Sorry Lawyer boy.






Grandpa was correct in his interpretation of the statue, you can't block any part of your tag. You need to read the new statue as of July 07. Now with that being said, if you only got one citaiton for that traffic stop, YOU'RE darn LUCKY. Grandpa usually gives a min of 3 cits per stop and piles on the cits. He writes 100 cits a week. Better count you chickens and blessings that you had your seatbelt on, had your license, correct addresss on your license, registration card, and signaled when you got over to the right. He is outta control, but hey that's today's FHP CITATIONS, CITATIONS, CITATIONS, no matter how chicken sh$@#$!!!!!!


Sorry...but Grandpa and you are wrong according to the 5th DCA!!! Read the case law below for reason: HINT: The part obscured needs to be an essential part of the registration.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Irvin ST. JEAN, Appellee.
No. 96-2813.
Aug. 1, 1997.
Defendant was charged with drug offenses and moved to suppress evidence. The Circuit Court, Orange County, Reginald K. Whitehead, J., granted motion. State appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that fact that county name on license plate of defendant's vehicle was obscured by ornament around perimeter of tag was not sufficient to show that defendant had committed traffic violation, and, thus, police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's automobile.

Fact that county name on license plate of defendant's vehicle was obscured by ornament around perimeter of tag was not sufficient to show that defendant had committed traffic violation, and, thus, police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's automobile, where use of license plate rims to obscure plate rims or frames was common practice that had never before been reported as traffic infraction. West's F.S.A. § 316.605(1).

PER CURIAM.
The state seeks review of an order of the lower court suppressing evidence seized incident to a traffic stop, concluding that the stop was illegal because there was no reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation had occurred. We affirm.

By stipulation, the only evidence presented to the court at the hearing was the arresting officer's investigative report, which set forth that the officer stopped the defendant's car because he had “observed the tag on the vehicle was obscured by a[sic] ornament around the perimeter of the tag making the county name not visible.” This was asserted to be a violation of section 316.605, Florida Statutes (1995). A subsequent search of the trunk of the vehicle uncovered a quantity of cocaine.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the cocaine, arguing that the stop of his vehicle was illegal because it is not a traffic violation to obscure the name of the county on a tag. The trial court agreed and granted the motion.

*957 Section 316.605(1), Florida Statutes (1995), provides, in relevant part, that every vehicle on the state roadways shall at all times display the license plate assigned to it by the state:

with all letters, numerals, printing, writing, and other identification marks upon the plates clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.

In construing the statute, the trial court concluded that section 316.605(1) does not require the county name be “plainly visible” because it is not an essential “identification mark” on the state's license plate. The trial court reasoned that if the county name were such an “identification mark,” the state would not issue personalized prestige plates or the many different speciality license plates that do not bear the county name.FN1 Also, section 320.06(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), allows any county, upon majority vote of the county commissioners, to elect to have the county name removed from the license plates sold in that county.

FN1. See § 320.0805-.08056, Fla. Stat. (1995).
The state has cited no authority for the proposition that obscuring the county name in such a fashion violates section 316.605. The state relies only on the language of the statute. We agree that in using the term, “identification mark” as applied to state license plates in section 316.605(1), the legislature did not intend to include the name of the state and county at the top and bottom of the plate that identify the name of the state or county. Although the language of section 316.605 is broad, the overall statutory scheme suggests that the “identification marks” that must be visible and legible are those that “identify” the “registration.” See § 320.06(1)(b), (3)(a) (1995).
The use of license plate rims or frames which obscure the county name appearing at the bottom of the plate is a common practice of long-standing among the citizens of our state. They are frequently supplied by car dealers and many otherwise law abiding citizens install them specially to show allegiance to a club, fraternity, college or sports team or, as a means of other self-expression. It is extremely odd that such an obvious and prevalent practice has generated no reported decisions and no enforcement that the state can identify. Absent any more clear prohibition against this activity in Florida statutes, we decline to declare it a traffic infraction.

We make one additional observation about this statute that was not raised by the parties, in the likely event this issue comes up in another district. It appears to us that essential to a correct interpretation of section 316.605 is the phrase, “visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.” FN2 Plainly, any writing contained on a Florida tag produced and sold by the state that is not “visible and legible” at 100 feet could not be an “identification mark” as referred to in this statute. Otherwise, under the statutory scheme, every citizen who complies with the law by displaying the tag assigned to it by the State of Florida would be in violation of the law requiring legibility at 100 feet. This would yield an absurd result and cannot be what the legislature intended. We question whether the state could establish that the county name on the tags supplied by the State of Florida is visible and legible to a person with normal vision at 100 feet.

FN2. It appears that “they” as used in the statute, refers to “identification marks.” If “they” refers to “plates,” the state's position is no better.
AFFIRMED.

Buddy-

I read the case law and if you would have you would have noted that the DCA included "state" in what it considered as non-essential.

No wonder you are a 34k a year employee...

Lawyer's asst.

The original poster stated the "State" name was covered, not a county name. Therefore, I would consider that an essential part of the tag. Citation is good under 316.605......Sorry Lawyer boy.

This Guy has promoted himself to a Judge...."I would consider" Beofre making a comment know what you are talking about.




Grandpa was correct in his interpretation of the statue, you can't block any part of your tag. You need to read the new statue as of July 07. Now with that being said, if you only got one citaiton for that traffic stop, YOU'RE darn LUCKY. Grandpa usually gives a min of 3 cits per stop and piles on the cits. He writes 100 cits a week. Better count you chickens and blessings that you had your seatbelt on, had your license, correct addresss on your license, registration card, and signaled when you got over to the right. He is outta control, but hey that's today's FHP CITATIONS, CITATIONS, CITATIONS, no matter how chicken sh$@#$!!!!!!


Sorry...but Grandpa and you are wrong according to the 5th DCA!!! Read the case law below for reason: HINT: The part obscured needs to be an essential part of the registration.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Irvin ST. JEAN, Appellee.
No. 96-2813.
Aug. 1, 1997.
Defendant was charged with drug offenses and moved to suppress evidence. The Circuit Court, Orange County, Reginald K. Whitehead, J., granted motion. State appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that fact that county name on license plate of defendant's vehicle was obscured by ornament around perimeter of tag was not sufficient to show that defendant had committed traffic violation, and, thus, police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's automobile.

Fact that county name on license plate of defendant's vehicle was obscured by ornament around perimeter of tag was not sufficient to show that defendant had committed traffic violation, and, thus, police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's automobile, where use of license plate rims to obscure plate rims or frames was common practice that had never before been reported as traffic infraction. West's F.S.A. § 316.605(1).

PER CURIAM.
The state seeks review of an order of the lower court suppressing evidence seized incident to a traffic stop, concluding that the stop was illegal because there was no reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation had occurred. We affirm.

By stipulation, the only evidence presented to the court at the hearing was the arresting officer's investigative report, which set forth that the officer stopped the defendant's car because he had “observed the tag on the vehicle was obscured by a[sic] ornament around the perimeter of the tag making the county name not visible.” This was asserted to be a violation of section 316.605, Florida Statutes (1995). A subsequent search of the trunk of the vehicle uncovered a quantity of cocaine.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the cocaine, arguing that the stop of his vehicle was illegal because it is not a traffic violation to obscure the name of the county on a tag. The trial court agreed and granted the motion.

*957 Section 316.605(1), Florida Statutes (1995), provides, in relevant part, that every vehicle on the state roadways shall at all times display the license plate assigned to it by the state:

with all letters, numerals, printing, writing, and other identification marks upon the plates clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.

In construing the statute, the trial court concluded that section 316.605(1) does not require the county name be “plainly visible” because it is not an essential “identification mark” on the state's license plate. The trial court reasoned that if the county name were such an “identification mark,” the state would not issue personalized prestige plates or the many different speciality license plates that do not bear the county name.FN1 Also, section 320.06(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), allows any county, upon majority vote of the county commissioners, to elect to have the county name removed from the license plates sold in that county.

FN1. See § 320.0805-.08056, Fla. Stat. (1995).
The state has cited no authority for the proposition that obscuring the county name in such a fashion violates section 316.605. The state relies only on the language of the statute. We agree that in using the term, “identification mark” as applied to state license plates in section 316.605(1), the legislature did not intend to include the name of the state and county at the top and bottom of the plate that identify the name of the state or county. Although the language of section 316.605 is broad, the overall statutory scheme suggests that the “identification marks” that must be visible and legible are those that “identify” the “registration.” See § 320.06(1)(b), (3)(a) (1995).
The use of license plate rims or frames which obscure the county name appearing at the bottom of the plate is a common practice of long-standing among the citizens of our state. They are frequently supplied by car dealers and many otherwise law abiding citizens install them specially to show allegiance to a club, fraternity, college or sports team or, as a means of other self-expression. It is extremely odd that such an obvious and prevalent practice has generated no reported decisions and no enforcement that the state can identify. Absent any more clear prohibition against this activity in Florida statutes, we decline to declare it a traffic infraction.

We make one additional observation about this statute that was not raised by the parties, in the likely event this issue comes up in another district. It appears to us that essential to a correct interpretation of section 316.605 is the phrase, “visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.” FN2 Plainly, any writing contained on a Florida tag produced and sold by the state that is not “visible and legible” at 100 feet could not be an “identification mark” as referred to in this statute. Otherwise, under the statutory scheme, every citizen who complies with the law by displaying the tag assigned to it by the State of Florida would be in violation of the law requiring legibility at 100 feet. This would yield an absurd result and cannot be what the legislature intended. We question whether the state could establish that the county name on the tags supplied by the State of Florida is visible and legible to a person with normal vision at 100 feet.

FN2. It appears that “they” as used in the statute, refers to “identification marks.” If “they” refers to “plates,” the state's position is no better.
AFFIRMED.

So let him appeal the citation and enjoy your court time OT. Until we have the trooper's opinion, the Counselor is simply relying on the motorists side of the story....

Pay the cite, or appeal it...either way its win/win for FHP.....Appeal it and we still get paid....

Be safe.

So let him appeal the citation and enjoy your court time OT. Until we have the trooper's opinion, the Counselor is simply relying on the motorists side of the story....

Pay the cite, or appeal it...either way its win/win for FHP.....Appeal it and we still get paid....

Be safe.

What a great thinker and a real ethical guy you must be...with that mind set, there is no wonder why your department is considered the "bottom of the barrell" when guys like you make comments like that.

A citizen wrote-in with a serious question, and someone did the research and found case law that should educate us on the law and make us better at our jobs. But NO, some of us get defensive and make stupid commments about "good for us" and other childish comments.

You should have asked yourself before posting such slop:
Who was the citizen that wrote the "question" and asked for some advise? Maybe a state legislature.
Who was the guy that did the research and found out something that I did not know? It is obvious he is educated, maybe a judge.

What now is there impression of the FHP?

So let him appeal the citation and enjoy your court time OT. Until we have the trooper's opinion, the Counselor is simply relying on the motorists side of the story....

Pay the cite, or appeal it...either way its win/win for FHP.....Appeal it and we still get paid....

Be safe.

What a great thinker and a real ethical guy you must be...with that mind set, there is no wonder why your department is considered the "bottom of the barrell" when guys like you make comments like that.

A citizen wrote-in with a serious question, and someone did the research and found case law that should educate us on the law and make us better at our jobs. But NO, some of us get defensive and make stupid commments about "good for us" and other childish comments.

You should have asked yourself before posting such slop:
Who was the citizen that wrote the "question" and asked for some advise? Maybe a state legislature.
Who was the guy that did the research and found out something that I did not know? It is obvious he is educated, maybe a judge.

What now is there impression of the FHP?

I can not agree more with ya...

I have been on for 10 years and I did not know what that case law said about obscured tags. As a matter of fact, I did not know until today that case law could "massage" the law in such a unique way.

Thanks for the posting and keep them up. I found them very interesting and very educational. I think that this type of stuff is exactly what these forums should be used for...besides the Jerry Spriger stuff that I also enjoy :wink:

Is Polk County in the 5th DCA?

Hey Lawyers Assistant, I make 6 figures, while you are laboring for some jerk for less than 50!

Lawyer's Assistanat out to ask Perry Mason if the 5th DCA's opinions are binding in the 2nd DCA!

That is why she is a secretary!

Is Polk County in the 5th DCA?

Hey Lawyers Assistant, I make 6 figures, while you are laboring for some jerk for less than 50!

Sure you do....

Lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.

Jeremy Bentham

If you guys are so smart, then why are you working for peanuts?????? I have read the posts and the "asst. lawyer" guy is correct and you guys are over glorified meter maids.

Here he/she is trying to educate you and you get defensive and attack. That info. has been the buzz in drug interdiction for several years and FHP did not even know it...."catch up with the times....you wanna be real cops"

Yes, it is applicable in the 2nd DCA, because there is no conflict between the DCAs. That is the legal basics ....go back to your minimum wage jobs, while I sleep in satin sheets in my 750k house.

If there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers.

Charles ****ens

If the laws could speak for themselves, they would complain of the lawyers in the first place.

Lord Halifax

Lawyers spend a great deal of their time shoveling smoke.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Where there are too many policemen, there is no liberty. Where there are too many soldiers, there is no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there is no justice.

Lin Yutang

Last resort of the weak mind... Insults...

What's the difference between a lawyer and a garbage man?


The garbage man performs a useful function.

So lawyer boy, how can you have a contrary opinion if they do not proceed with this case.

By the way, I left FHP and my low paying job long ago. I am sitting in my two story house overlooking the country club getting ready to head to my 1500 acre hunting planttion in South Ga. later today and do not have to hustle tag cases on line to pay for it!

I have had my citations upheld for charging obstruction of the State.

Point in fact is such: If that motorist with a FL tag is travelling out of state and is obscuring his tag for the reason of anonymity (for whatever reason) and they get into some type of incident with police, whether it be a pursuit, shooting, get a way vehicle in a crime, how is a bystander, or a police officer for that matter going to identify the vehicle? Especially given the fact that FL has a plethora of diverse tags available to the general public. We don't know what all of our tags look like, let alone an out of state agency.

Same respect, vice versa: You're attempting to overtake a vehicle on I-4 travelling 100mph. The name of the state is obstructed, lets throw in that they may have just committed a felony, or that its a felon in the vehicle that could be identified by a DL/Reg check... You can't see the State to even run the the 10-28.

It's a major safety issue. For those of you who think it is not, and choose to be complacent. It's time for you to hang up the gunbelt, and pickup your retirement badge.

To, "Trooper Grandpa": Good stop.

Be safe.

All you "attorneys" are going simply by what the "motorist" said. As LEO up North, I can tell you that unless you have the troopers side of the story, don't bother taking sides....When you ASSuME.....

No trooper is going to risk his livliehood, however under-paid they may be, to make an illegal MV stop. Its just not worth it...There are plenty of other people to stop...

So as I said, Trooper enjoy your court time, so long as Grandpa knows the stop was justified, it doens't matter. When said "motorist" is found responsible or not responsible, Trooper Grandpa will still be getting paid...