Temporary Plates Case Analysis

Listen to this article

The court appears to issue a clear, easily-applied rule of law — temporary license plates do not constitute reasonable suspicion, and officers may not stop the vehicle to verify registration solely on the basis of that fact.

Nevertheless, the decision renews a question that had appeared settled: can an officer stop a vehicle with “license applied for” plates, which are also lawful?

This question was presented in three cases in 1994: State v. Griffin, 183 Wis.2d 327, 515 N.W.2d 535 (Ct.App.1994), pet. rev. denied, 520 N.W.2d 88, cert. denied., 513 U.S. 950; State v. Brackenridge, 185 Wis.2d 709, 520 N.W.2d 110 (Table), 1994 WL 186554 (Wis.App., May 17, 1994)(unpublished); and State v. McGhee, 185 Wis.2d 708, 520 N.W.2d 110 (Table), 1994 WL 232216 (Wis.App., May 17, 1994)(unpublished).

In each case, the court of appeals held that “licensed applied for” signs were grounds for a stop. Judge Charles Schudson wrote an eloquent dissent in both Breckinridge and McGhee that should be borrowed from liberally, along with the decision in the case at bar, by any defendant arguing that Griffin was incorrectly decided.

In each of the three 1994 cases, the motorist had temporary plates issued by the dealer, rather than the state. Each motorist also had the proper paperwork showing that the vehicle was properly registered.

None of the motorists were in violation of any law by driving in this manner (all were arrested for other offenses based on the officers’ observations after the stop).

In each case, however, the court held that the stop was proper, because the officer had no way, without stopping the vehicle, to determine whether the vehicle actually was properly registered.

The court in Griffin distinguished instances, such as in the case at bar, where the motorist has temporary plates issued by the state, observing, “A temporary plate issued by the DOT displays identifying information and the date of expiration.” Griffin, 515 N.W.2d at 537. Because plates issued by the dealer contain no identifying information, and no date of expiration, the court held that the stop was lawful.

Thus the question is whether this identifying information and date of expiration on temporary plates is significant enough to warrant the distinction.

Arguably, it is not. As Justice Prosser noted in his concurrence, “officers are seldom able to run computerized checks on temporary license plates.”

If this is indeed true, then there is no principled basis for a distinction, and Griffin could be overruled; in both instances, an officer cannot verify whether the car is lawfully registered, except by stopping the vehicle; the same rule should then govern both.

This begs the question, however, why officers can’t run checks on such plates. Since the state has issued them, it should bear the responsibility of creating a means for officers to check their validity, without having to stop the motorist; the burden should not be placed on motorists, even if one agrees with the lower court in the case at bar that the intrusion of stopping a motorist to ensure the car is validly registered is “very minimal, temporary and brief.”

	Related Article Stop and detention were unlawful

There is also little to no distinction between the two types of plates from the perspective of other motorists. When a reasonable, law-abiding motorist sees another vehicle that has either no plates, “license applied for” tags, or temporary plates, the motorist assumes the vehicle is both unregistered and uninsured, and gives it a wide berth. As Prosser noted, “temporary plates frequently turn out to be invalid.”

Unless the Supreme Court reverses Griffin, however, officers must make a distinction that civilian motorists do not: vehicles with “license applied for” tags issued by a dealer can be stopped, just to check registration; but vehicles with unexpired temporary tags cannot. Vehicles with no plates can be stopped regardless — not because there is reasonable suspicion the vehicle is unregistered, but because there is probable cause that the driver is operating without plates at all, a separate violation.

For defendants in cases involving “license applied for” tags, it is worth preserving the objection, and arguing that the order in the case at bar sub silentio overrules Griffin. As Judge Schudson noted in his dissents in McGhee and Brackenridge, “For the first time in Wisconsin, an appellate court has declared that a citizen’s lawful conduct, standing alone, can form the complete basis for a police stop (emphasis in original).”

The spirit of the order in the case at bar is contrary to Griffin, even if there is some basis for a distinction.

– David Ziemer

Click here for Main Story.

David Ziemer can be reached by email.