Stop and detention were unlawful

Listen to this article

A temporary license plate, standing alone, does not justify the stop of a motor vehicle, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in a summary reversal issued Nov. 9.

Raymond Lord, Jr., was stopped by sheriff’s deputies, because, instead of a permanent license plate, he had only a temporary plate. As the deputies approached the vehicle, they noticed a revolver in plain view behind the front seat. A search of the car turned up another handgun. Subsequent investigation revealed that the temporary license plate was valid.

Lord was charged with two counts of carrying a concealed weapon. He moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the deputies did not have sufficient basis to conduct the stop, relying on State v. Griffin, 183 Wis.2d 327, 515 N.W.2d 535 (Ct.App.1994).

In Griffin, the court upheld a stop where the driver had only “license applied for” sign, but no permanent or temporary state issued plates.

The trial court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that, without stopping the vehicle, the officers could not verify that the temporary plate was valid.

After pleading guilty, Lord filed a post-conviction motion, but this was also denied.

Lord appealed, but the court of appeals affirmed in an unpublished decision, State v. Lord, 289 Wis.2d 551, 710 N.W.2d 726 (Table), 2006 WL 223355 (Wis.App., Jan. 31, 2006)(unpublished).

The Supreme Court granted review, but the State subsequently moved the court to summarily reverse.

In a per curiam decision, the court granted the motion, with Justice David T. Prosser, Jr., filing a concurring opinion.

In its motion conceding error, the State acknowledged that the decisions of the lower courts conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), that law enforcement officers cannot stop an automobile to determine whether it is properly registered unless the officers have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that either the automobile is being driven contrary to the laws governing its operation or that any occupant is subject to seizure in connection with the violation of an applicable law.

Although the court is not bound by a party’s concession of law, the court accepted it, finding it is well-settled law requiring no extensive research or explanation.

In Prouse, the court held, “except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Prouse, 440 U.S. at 663.

	Related Article Case Analysis

The court concluded that the decision of the court lower court would enable law enforcement officers to stop any vehicle to verify
the registration solely because the vehicle is displaying temporary license plates, even though state statutes and administrative rules permit them, in contravention of Prouse.

Accordingly, the court summarily reversed.

Justice Prosser wrote a separate concurring opinion to state that the court should have summarily reversed, without issuing any explanation.

Prosser explained, “The court makes this substantive decision [that Prouse applies to temporary plates] without oral argument and without the articulation of an opposing view. The decision may be correct, but it puts law enforcement officers in a more difficult position when they deal with vehicles with temporary plates than vehicles with permanent plates because officers are seldom able to run computerized checks on temporary license plates. This distinction is important because temporary plates frequently turn out to be invalid.”

Click here for Case Analysis.