Motor Vehicles — broken tail lamps — probable cause

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Motor Vehicles — broken tail lamps — probable cause

Even if the second light was unlit and was part of the vehicle’s tail lamp, when a vehicle’s tail lamp is made up of three lights, and two of those lights are lit, the tail lamp is “in good working order” as required by sec. 347.13(1).

“As such, Brown contends that the police officers had no basis to stop the vehicle and the stop was unconstitutional. We agree.”

“A tail lamp with one of three light bulbs unlit does not violate WIS. STAT. § 347.13(1) when it otherwise meets the statutory definition of a tail lamp. The statute does not require that a vehicle’s tail lamps be fully functional or in perfect working order. It only requires ‘good working order.’ See id. Here, the two lit light bulbs making up the driver’s side tail lamp satisfied the definition of a tail lamp as ‘a device to designate the rear of a vehicle by a warning light.’ See WIS. STAT. § 340.01(66). Because the two lit light bulbs on the rear driver’s side of the vehicle were sufficient to designate the rear of the vehicle to a vehicle travelling behind it, the officers did not have probable cause of a traffic violation and the stop was unconstitutional. The officers mistakenly believed that the law required all of the tail lamps light bulbs to be lit; and ‘a lawful stop cannot be predicated upon a mistake of law.’ See Longcore, 226 Wis. 2d at 9.”

Reversed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP2907-CR State v. Brown

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Dallet, J., Brennan, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Schieber, Hannah Blair, Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Burgundy, Sarah, Madison