Well, that depends! This is one of the most commonly asked questions and a commonly used excuse by police to stop vehicles. If you do an informal survey by simply watching other cars in California, you’ll notice that approximately one in ten do not have an actual license plates on the front of the car. California DMV typically issues two license plates for each motor vehicles (other than motorcycles) and Vehicle Code §5200(a) requires two license plates to be attached to your vehicle. So, the absence of a front license plate in California is an established and accepted basis for a traffic stop.

What about out-of-state drivers?

But wait, if a person is driving a car that is registered in another state and has out-of-state license plates and the police officer does not know whether or not that state requires one or two license plates, the absence of two license plates is not a constitutional basis to stop a vehicle. In the case of People v. Reyes, (2011) 196 Cal.App.4^th 856, the Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and granted a motion to suppress (preventing the evidence from being used in court) eliminating most of the harmful evidence that was discovered by the police after the stop, which included a bag of cocaine. This is what a Santa Rosa criminal defense attorney refers to as a “mistake of law”.

Police officer’s mistake of law

In the case of U.S. v. Twilley, (2000) 22 F.3d 1092, 1095, the Ninth Circuit held that a mistake of law does not provide an objectively reasonable basis for a police officer to stop a vehicle. In that particular case, the vehicle displayed only one Michigan license plate, but since the officer did not know the law in Michigan, he mistakenly assumed the vehicle required two license plates. In short, if an officer makes a traffic stop based on a mistake of law, that stop violates the Fourth Amendment and evidence acquired as a result of that unconstitutional stop will be thrown out of court. Most states do require two plates but there are 19 states (or approximately 40% of the states) that currently only require one plate.

Further, in People v. White, (2003) 107 Cal.App.4^th 636, 641, a Fourth Appellate District decision, the officer observed a vehicle with only one Arizona license plate and as a result, stopped the vehicle. Just like Michigan and Florida, Arizona only requires one license plate. The court ruled that a police officer’s suspicion which is based on a mistake of law cannot constitute a constitutional basis to justify a legal traffic stop.

Ambiguity means the vehicle should not be stopped.

As noted by a Santa Rosa criminal defense lawyer, as to an out-of-state vehicle, if a police officer does not know whether one or two license plates are required that ambiguity prevents the police officer from stopping the vehicle. Otherwise, police officers could rely on their ignorance of the law and that would provide a strong incentive for police officers to pull an out-of-state vehicle over in all circumstances. “Ignorance of the law” is no excuse for citizens or police officers who are entrusted to enforce the law. For more information about California search and seizure issues, click here.