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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT