Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Motor Vehicles — tail lamps

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//July 16, 2014//

Motor Vehicles — tail lamps

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//July 16, 2014//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Criminal

Motor Vehicles — tail lamps

Wis. Stat. sec. 347.13(1) does not require every single light bulb in a tail lamp to be lit.

“In this case, the only basis that the State presented for the stop of Brown’s vehicle was the unlit bulb in his tail lamp. However, there was no evidence that his tail lamp was not visible from 500 feet to the rear of the car. The officers testified that only one of the bulbs on the back of Brown’s vehicle was unlit. Because having one unlit bulb on the back of a vehicle does not on its own violate the statutory requirements for tail lamps, the State has failed to show that the officers had probable cause to believe that a traffic violation had occurred.”

Affirmed.

2011AP2907-CR State v. Brown

Bradley, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Schieber, Hannah Blair, Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; O’Neil, Aaron R., Madison

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests