Most of us are completely unaware of the two small bulbs that illuminate our license plates at night.
The police, however, are fully aware of these lights.
And if they notice that one isn’t functioning properly at night, they know that they have a lawful (I’d like to say pretextual) reason to stop you.
Nevertheless, this strategy failed in a recent appellate case.
Boston police saw a man drive past them in a Lexus SUV at approximately 1 o’clock in the morning.
The officers claimed that one of the two license-plate bulbs was out and, consequently, they could not read the vehicle’s plate number from a distance of 60 feet.
The applicable law here is summarized by the Appeals Court as follows:
G. L. c. 90, § 6, as amended through St. 1971, c. 207, requires that “during the period when the vehicle or trailer is required to display lights,” vehicles must “illuminate[]” the “rear register number” so it is “plainly visible at a distance of sixty feet.” See 540 Code Mass. Regs. § 4.04(10)(a) (2018). G. L. c. 90, § 7, as amended through St. 2008, c. 523, § 5, explains that the period of time requiring a display of lights is “one half an hour after sunset to one half an hour before sunrise, and during any other period when visibility is reduced by atmospheric conditions so as to render dangerous further operation without lights being displayed.” See 540 Code Mass. Regs. § 22.05(1) (2018). The judge found that at a “distance of more than sixty feet away from the car, Miller could not read the plate.
The officers used the allegedly faulty bulb as a pretext to stop the defendant.
The defendant allegedly pulled over, ran from the SUV, and threw a load firearm away from him as he ran.
Ultimately the police caught the man and charged him with firearm offenses.
His attorney filed a motion to suppress the firearm.
The motion argued that reasonable suspicion of a motor vehicle violation did not exist when police initiated the stop.
During the motion hearing both officers claimed that they could not see the defendant’s license plate when they were within 60 feet of his vehicle.
The two officers also testified that–due to the faulty bulb–they initially entered the wrong number into their mobile data terminal.
It was only on the second try that they enter the correct plate number.
However, the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), which monitors such mobile data terminals, showed only one entry from the officers.
In other words, according to the CJIS, the officers entered the plate number correctly on the first try.
Ultimately a superior court judge concluded that there was not a legitimate reason for the stop. Consequently, the alleged firearm was suppressed.
The Commonwealth appealed the ruling and earlier this week the Appeals Court upheld the lower court’s decision.
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.