"This is an uncommonly bad law." Today, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals handed down its opinion in State v. Johnson, a decision involving the interpretation of Texas Transportation Code section 502.409(a)(7)(B) which prohibits the obstruction of a Texas license plate. That section provides that "[a] person commits an offense if the person attaches to or displays on a motor vehicle a number plate or registration insignia that...has a coating, covering, or protective material that...alters or obscures the letters or numbers on the plate, the color of the plate, or another original design feature of the plate." Once again, Judge Cochran got it right in her concurring opinion.
Judge Cochran correctly concluded that the majority decided the legal question correctly (i.e., that it is a violation of State law) but that section 502.409(a)(7)(B) "is an uncommonly bad law...because it allows the police to arbitrarily stop, ticket, arrest, and search any person who is driving a car whose license plate frame covers up any portion of that plate's design." (emphasis added). And after taking the very unusual position of telling the State Legislature that this section is an "uncommonly bad law," Judge Cochran goes further and points out that members of the Legislature (as well as members of the Judiciary) are entitled to "special" licenses plates that don't have all the design work that your's and mine have and yet the same license plate frame which would obscure our license plate will not obscure their's.
Look at the license plate I attached to this post. Every car dealer in this State automatically attaches it's own license plate frame to a new vehicle. The minute you drive off their lot you are violating State law and can be stopped for the offense which is a pretext for investigating and searching your vehicle.
Update: Scott Hansen over at Grits for Breakfast just informed me that Rep. Harold Dutton of Houston filed HB 473 which would amend the statute as follows:
(7) has a coating, covering, or protective material that:
(A) distorts angular visibility or detectability; or
(B) alters or obscurs the letters or numbers of [
Rep. Hutton's bill is much more reasonable and would satsify Judges Cochran and Johnson but it won't satisfy Judge Meyers who argued in dissent that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to identify who is violating the statute.
Posts
2 comments:
It seems like the defense should reargue the case on constitutional grounds at the trial level and then bring it up through the appellate courts again.
I would like to ask another question. Under what provisions governs where a police officer can stop a motor vehicle. Such as a active busy street in an active lane of traffic. It has always been my understanding that a vehicle must stop in a place that is safe.
Post a Comment