ILNews

Justices: License plates can't be in rear windows

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Justice Robert Rucker says his four Indiana Supreme Court colleagues have issued a ruling that transforms millions of law-abiding residents into traffic offenders.

The four-justice majority on Thursday decided that state law makes it illegal to display temporary license plates in a vehicle's rear window, and that those paper or cardboard plates must comply with the same statute governing permanent metal plates. That holding came in Kerry L. Meredith v. State of Indiana, 89S04-0808-CR-430, and was echoed in the shorter companion case of Jeffrey Young v. State, 49S02-0905-CR-252.

"A drive down nearly any Indiana street on any given day will reveal Hoosier motorists applying old-fashioned common sense: attaching temporary paper tags to the inside of the back window in order protect them from deterioration by the elements," Justice Rucker wrote in Meredith. "By today's decision the majority has transformed law-abiding citizens into traffic offenders. This is patently wrong in my view; therefore I dissent."

The Wayne Circuit case involves a cocaine possession case where Kerry Meredith was pulled over in 2005 in Richmond. An officer stopped behind Meredith's vehicle at a red light and couldn't spot a license plate in the usual location or anywhere else on the car. After activating his spotlight, the officer saw a paper plate in the rear window but couldn't see an expiration date because of tinted windows. He initiated a stop and saw the tag was valid, but when talking to Meredith the officer sensed excessively nervous behavior, noticed Meredith's bloodshot eyes, and what smelled like alcohol. A breath test came up negative, but Meredith consented to a vehicle search that led to police finding cocaine inside.

Before and during trial, Meredith moved unsuccessfully to suppress the evidence and a jury returned a guilty verdict. Meredith argued the initial stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches and seizures, and the Indiana Court of Appeals last year reversed his conviction, finding the officer should have walked away once he saw the temporary tag was valid.

That exact legal issue arose in Jeffrey Young's case out of Marion Superior Court, which involved similar circumstances of police finding cocaine after a traffic stop in 2007. The appellate court had also reversed that conviction, and justices granted both cases for review.

Writing for the majority in both cases, Justice Brent Dickson concluded that statutory requirements for the illumination and mounting of license plates on the rear of a vehicle apply to all plates, whether permanent or temporary. Meredith's case delved into the display and illumination of plates before a vehicle is permanently registered and involves other statutory provisions, such as the Bureau of Motor Vehicles having authority to issue rules about requirements for proper display of temporary tags. But the court ruled the statute doesn't differentiate between the various types.

"Placing a license on the inside of the back window clearly does not satisfy the requirement that license plates be displayed upon the rear of the vehicle," Justice Dickson wrote, citing Merritt v. State, 829 N.E.2d 472 (Ind. 2005). "Likewise, the defendant's license plate was not illuminated by a separate white light so that it was clearly legible from fifty feet. Officer Lackey was therefore justified in stopping the defendant."

The court also ruled that Meredith wasn't in custody, even if the officer felt the man "wasn't free to go," and so no warning was necessary.

Justice Rucker disagreed on the traffic stop aspect, finding that the General Assembly had given the BMV power to regulate temporary license plate displays but the agency didn't issue any guidance.

"But this is not because the bureau necessarily intends that the rules for permanent license plates should apply," he wrote. "If that were so, then the bureau would have no reason to require ninety-day plates to be 'displayed in the same manner as a standard license plate.' Unlike temporary plates that are made of paper or cardboard... ninety-day plates are 'manufactured from the same material as a license plate issued under IC 9-18-2. By creating a rule for one type of plate, the bureau has left open the issue for other temporary plates."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT