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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT