Sarge
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- St Louis, MO
ZmOz said:
In most cases they assume the out of stater isn't required to run a front plate in their home state.
Sarge
Can you be pulled over for no front license plate?
- Thread starter ZmOz
- Start date
In most cases they assume the out of stater isn't required to run a front plate in their home state.
Sarge
w_howey
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Mudwest
LRRH said:
I removed the entire holder, and only get bothered in one particular town that has a reputation for ticketing any non-residents.
- Location
- 29°58'28.9"N 99°15'15.5"W
When I moved back from FL the locals would harrass me 'cause I had no front plate, the rear was a FL plate,
FL drivers liscence.
In Fl, they never give you a front plate.
One local genius told me I would have to "write them a letter and have them send you one or you can't drive in IL."!
I was pulled over once a week by the same damn brain dead cop, finaly, I told the local Chief what was happening and the harrassment stopped.
Even at a road side "saftey" check, sponsored by the Illinois State Police, I was waved in and given the first degree about not having a front plate, even then, FL DL, and rear plate.
What a bunch of Morons!
FL drivers liscence.
In Fl, they never give you a front plate.
One local genius told me I would have to "write them a letter and have them send you one or you can't drive in IL."!
I was pulled over once a week by the same damn brain dead cop, finaly, I told the local Chief what was happening and the harrassment stopped.
Even at a road side "saftey" check, sponsored by the Illinois State Police, I was waved in and given the first degree about not having a front plate, even then, FL DL, and rear plate.
What a bunch of Morons!
- Location
- East of Cincinnati
Okay, you know it's illegal, you're asking how likely you are to get caught. I'd say it depends on how many other cars on the road are running without a plate.
Cincinnati sits right on the river, the border between Ohio and Kentucky. Ohio requires a front plate, Kentucky does not. So, with people crossing the river to work, shop, whatever, about every third car in traffic has no front plate. So when I run without one, I blend right in. The only way a cop is gonna catch it is if he watches cars coming at him, consiously notes which ones have no front plate, then watches the same cars drive away and compares which are ohio vs kentucky. If a cop is willing to spend that much time on something so trivial, I'll pay the damn ticket.
But that's the thing. Yes, I think it's a dumb law. I think a front plate is ugly, I think kentucky is just as safe without em, and I think if I gotta pay $100 a year for a 75 cent piece of tin I should be able to hang it in my garage if I want.
But I do understand that dumb or not, it is the law, and if I get caught, I'll pay the ticket (like $75 here, I think). But I like my odds, and I'm willing to take my chances...
hth
Robert
Cincinnati sits right on the river, the border between Ohio and Kentucky. Ohio requires a front plate, Kentucky does not. So, with people crossing the river to work, shop, whatever, about every third car in traffic has no front plate. So when I run without one, I blend right in. The only way a cop is gonna catch it is if he watches cars coming at him, consiously notes which ones have no front plate, then watches the same cars drive away and compares which are ohio vs kentucky. If a cop is willing to spend that much time on something so trivial, I'll pay the damn ticket.
But that's the thing. Yes, I think it's a dumb law. I think a front plate is ugly, I think kentucky is just as safe without em, and I think if I gotta pay $100 a year for a 75 cent piece of tin I should be able to hang it in my garage if I want.
But I do understand that dumb or not, it is the law, and if I get caught, I'll pay the ticket (like $75 here, I think). But I like my odds, and I'm willing to take my chances...
hth
Robert
Danno
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Lawrenceburg, TN
Beezil, it doesn't surprise me in the least considering you live in Chicago :laugh3: I bet the cops there consider you a violation of the laws of nature and get a hard on when they see you coming down the street. :kissyou:
Beezil said:
Beej
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Wet Coast of BC
In BC, we are required to run front plates, just like most Canadian provinces, but in Alberta (where I'm originally from) you only have to have the rear, unless you have vanity plates, in which case you must run both. At any rate, when I had Alberta plates and was driving in other provinces or states, I used to occasionally get asked why I did not have a front plate. (Only once did I get pulled over expressly for this). The statement "I'm an Albertan" was always good enough to explain. When I switched over to BC plates, my jeep did not have the bracket necessary so I did not mount the front. Whenever I would drive through a checkstop, they would say "Are you aware that you don't have a front plate?" And I would say "What?! Oh man, what happened to it? Ah, I bet my buddy removed it as a joke. I'll take care of it tonight." I never once got a ticket.
B.
B.
RichP
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Effort, Pa
Pennsylvania only has rear plates. Got my front bracket around from my 98XJ someplace. Depends on the state. Might have something to do with prison work programs...
kubtastic
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Tacoma, WA
Why don't you read about your state's rules more closely:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/forms/vehiclecodebk.shtml
If a cop has a reason to believe that you have committed a violation, then you can be stopped and detained.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/forms/vehiclecodebk.shtml
If a cop has a reason to believe that you have committed a violation, then you can be stopped and detained.
There you go. It's a violation, and cops can pull you over for violations in Oregon. As a class D, it could be up to $90. You should thank me for actually figuring this out.
Last edited:
bchulett
NAXJA Member #999
- Location
- Southern California
I'm no attorney ... this can be interpreted that a registration plate is the one mounted on the rear of the vehicle ...
kubtastic said:
Last edited:
bchulett
NAXJA Member #999
- Location
- Southern California
This is California code ... more direct and to the point:
sidriptide
nobody of any consequence
- Location
- western massachusetts
i would interpret it as whatever plates you are given at the time of registration must be displayed properly....bchulett said:
and to touch on something stated earlier.. officers from one state or municipaity have NO JURISDICTION over laws from other staes.. they can use their knowledge of other states laws to interpret their own laws.. but an officer cant write you up for violations of your home-state's laws if he has no jurisdiction in that state... i was once ticketed for speeding in Va.. driving with a suspended Ma lic.. the Va cop could not do anything besides ticket me for the speeding in his state.. he explained that the commonwealth of Va had not suspended my priveledge to drive.. so i lucked out big time to say the least..
Sarge
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- St Louis, MO
sidriptide said:
Not exactly true. IL doesn't require a motorcycle helmet but if you ride into MO without a helmet they will/may ticket you.
Sarge
- Location
- East of Cincinnati
sidriptide said:
Sarge said:
But sid's suggesting the opposite: If the guy from MO rides into IL without a helmet, the IL cop can't write the guy a ticket based on the guy's home laws.
Robert
JohnnysXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Fort Collins CO
I don't known the particulars in Ore. but as a general rule, if your state allows photo speed or red light enforcement, then expect no front plate to be a primary violation (one a cop can pull you over for) it is like this here in Colorado, and elsewhere the folks at American Traffic Technology make money.
kubtastic
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Tacoma, WA
bchulett said:
The question that started this thread is whether a cop can pull you over for not displaying both plates, and specifically in OR. Everyone agrees you need 2 plates.
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
Oh, I'm sure you can. Does it make sense? Certainly not.
This issue serves to point up a sticky legal issue; the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se. Unfortunately, the former seems to be gaining a lot of ground.
Malum prohibitum is the concept that an action or inaction is deemed to be illegal just because "we say so." There is no moral or ethical justification for the ban upon it, it simply is. Why? Who knows - control? Funding? Could be anything. Vehicle registration is a reasonable example of this: while I can understand paying a single instance of vehicle registration at the time of a change of ownership, I cannot understand the justification for a recurring charge (read: tax) which simply generates revenue for the state while offering no tangible benefit to the taxpayer for the money paid out. Once the change of ownership is registered with the state database for vehicle ownership, there is no need to pay to maintain the data - which has itself likely not changed. Factor in the "service" received at the typicaly Motor Vehicles Branch Office, and you really aren't getting anything for your money (my objection to taxation is not the actual fact of taxation in and of itself, but the fact that the people - who are paying these taxes - aren't offered a chance to review what is going to happen to the money as a rule, and that there is typically little to no return on investment.) So, what am I really paying for - other than just funding something similar to the old MAFIA "protection" scams (you pay us and we'll leave you alone...)
Another example is the typical speed law - especially on freeways. I'd like to hear what the typical margin is between the roadway design speed and the artifical speed limit set by law, I'm sure it's more than we are lead to believe. I fail to see the moral justification for a speed limit on freeways - apart from the use of the speed law as a mechanism for funding a police department that really ought to have better things to do. Think of speeding tickets as another "driving tax" that they're going to hit you with sooner or later. I cringe every time they buy more equipment for "traffic enforcement" out here (the latest are the CHP "Stealth Camaros" from a few years ago - painted all white with 3" high lightbars) because I just know that they're planning on ticket revenue to pay for the equipment, rather than using money they already have.
I don't buy safety as a reason for speed limits - if safety was really at issue, they'd do a much better job of driver training and you'd see more people failing operator's license tests. Considering the calibre of driver I see out here, I think half of them should be failed out of hand.
"Carpool lanes" are another example of a law as useful as the vermiform appendix, but I'd never shut up if I got started on that one...
So, what is the reason behind having the front plate? It's another issue of malum prohibitum - only it allows them to enforce an unjustifiable law with the use of equipment rather than personnel. Photo RADAR is essentially unworkable without a front plate (there's just too much error on a receding vehicle, and the plate can be obscured too quickly.) If an intersection has problems with too many people not heeding the control device, then post someone out there to GET them under control (I actually think red light tickets aren't big enough - that's a safety hazzard, and while I don't like that we have so many drivers who can't handle the road and therefore make control devices a necessary evil, there is no legal or moral justification for willfully endagering other people. Enough said there.) If there's a problem that requires attention, put a cop there and not some electronic device. I find it interesting that there are still quite a few states which have continued to maintain the opinion that photographic enforcement devices (photo RADAR, red light cameras, &c.) are still considered to be a violation of Sixth Amendmdent rights - specifically, that an unattended device violates the rights of the accused "to be confronted by the witnesses against him." How is one meant to effectively cross-examine an electronic device designed for unattended operation in open court?
Since I haven't covered it yet, you're probably wondering what is meant by malum in se (unless you have taken at least basic Latin.) Anything which is considered malum in se is something that is wrong by its very nature or is immoral, unethical, or damaging upon its face. Examples of this include the "capital" crimes (murder, assault, rape, and the like,) nearly any "crime against the person,) or anything forbidden in the classic "Ten Commandments" which has been codified into law. This would also include anything which does not work in the furtherance of justice when such matters are being heard in open court - perjury, obstruction, and the like. Simply put, this is any action where the "reasonable" individual would easily see that there is a moral or ethical reason not to do this, and could explain this reason simply and clearly. Really, this is pretty obvious.
Can not having a front plate - even when the law says one is required - be said to be malum in se? I'd really like to hear this explanation. Frankly, I'd like to hear the justification for about half of the laws we are saddled with and subject to, which we have probably never heard of.
Yeah - I've gone and started ranting again, but perhaps this is going to provoke some thought, and maybe help to start a simplification of our system of laws, rather than sitting by and allowing further complication. How many of you break at least one law per week without knowing you do it? I'd bet that number is higher than we all think...
5-90
This issue serves to point up a sticky legal issue; the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se. Unfortunately, the former seems to be gaining a lot of ground.
Malum prohibitum is the concept that an action or inaction is deemed to be illegal just because "we say so." There is no moral or ethical justification for the ban upon it, it simply is. Why? Who knows - control? Funding? Could be anything. Vehicle registration is a reasonable example of this: while I can understand paying a single instance of vehicle registration at the time of a change of ownership, I cannot understand the justification for a recurring charge (read: tax) which simply generates revenue for the state while offering no tangible benefit to the taxpayer for the money paid out. Once the change of ownership is registered with the state database for vehicle ownership, there is no need to pay to maintain the data - which has itself likely not changed. Factor in the "service" received at the typicaly Motor Vehicles Branch Office, and you really aren't getting anything for your money (my objection to taxation is not the actual fact of taxation in and of itself, but the fact that the people - who are paying these taxes - aren't offered a chance to review what is going to happen to the money as a rule, and that there is typically little to no return on investment.) So, what am I really paying for - other than just funding something similar to the old MAFIA "protection" scams (you pay us and we'll leave you alone...)
Another example is the typical speed law - especially on freeways. I'd like to hear what the typical margin is between the roadway design speed and the artifical speed limit set by law, I'm sure it's more than we are lead to believe. I fail to see the moral justification for a speed limit on freeways - apart from the use of the speed law as a mechanism for funding a police department that really ought to have better things to do. Think of speeding tickets as another "driving tax" that they're going to hit you with sooner or later. I cringe every time they buy more equipment for "traffic enforcement" out here (the latest are the CHP "Stealth Camaros" from a few years ago - painted all white with 3" high lightbars) because I just know that they're planning on ticket revenue to pay for the equipment, rather than using money they already have.
I don't buy safety as a reason for speed limits - if safety was really at issue, they'd do a much better job of driver training and you'd see more people failing operator's license tests. Considering the calibre of driver I see out here, I think half of them should be failed out of hand.
"Carpool lanes" are another example of a law as useful as the vermiform appendix, but I'd never shut up if I got started on that one...
So, what is the reason behind having the front plate? It's another issue of malum prohibitum - only it allows them to enforce an unjustifiable law with the use of equipment rather than personnel. Photo RADAR is essentially unworkable without a front plate (there's just too much error on a receding vehicle, and the plate can be obscured too quickly.) If an intersection has problems with too many people not heeding the control device, then post someone out there to GET them under control (I actually think red light tickets aren't big enough - that's a safety hazzard, and while I don't like that we have so many drivers who can't handle the road and therefore make control devices a necessary evil, there is no legal or moral justification for willfully endagering other people. Enough said there.) If there's a problem that requires attention, put a cop there and not some electronic device. I find it interesting that there are still quite a few states which have continued to maintain the opinion that photographic enforcement devices (photo RADAR, red light cameras, &c.) are still considered to be a violation of Sixth Amendmdent rights - specifically, that an unattended device violates the rights of the accused "to be confronted by the witnesses against him." How is one meant to effectively cross-examine an electronic device designed for unattended operation in open court?
Since I haven't covered it yet, you're probably wondering what is meant by malum in se (unless you have taken at least basic Latin.) Anything which is considered malum in se is something that is wrong by its very nature or is immoral, unethical, or damaging upon its face. Examples of this include the "capital" crimes (murder, assault, rape, and the like,) nearly any "crime against the person,) or anything forbidden in the classic "Ten Commandments" which has been codified into law. This would also include anything which does not work in the furtherance of justice when such matters are being heard in open court - perjury, obstruction, and the like. Simply put, this is any action where the "reasonable" individual would easily see that there is a moral or ethical reason not to do this, and could explain this reason simply and clearly. Really, this is pretty obvious.
Can not having a front plate - even when the law says one is required - be said to be malum in se? I'd really like to hear this explanation. Frankly, I'd like to hear the justification for about half of the laws we are saddled with and subject to, which we have probably never heard of.
Yeah - I've gone and started ranting again, but perhaps this is going to provoke some thought, and maybe help to start a simplification of our system of laws, rather than sitting by and allowing further complication. How many of you break at least one law per week without knowing you do it? I'd bet that number is higher than we all think...
5-90
Beej
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Wet Coast of BC
Holy dingdong 5-90! How long did it take to write all of that? 
I have to wholeheartedly agree with this though:
I have to wholeheartedly agree with this though:
I can't stand bad drivers. That's why I blow past them on the shoulder at 100mph while leaning my whole body out the window and giving them a double bird...5-90 said:
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
Couple minutes. Writing a book has certainly improved my typing, and things like this are usually running through my mind anyhow. It's not something I had to consciously formulate, if that's what you're wondering.
I'd like to do a "stream of consciousness" interview with someone, sometime, just to see what you could get out of me with free association. I often wonder what's going on in here <tapping forehead>...
Anyone want to give it a go? You'll have to meet up with me in corpus to do it, and I'll want to see the results once you get them transcribed. Requirements are an open mind and a near-immunity to taking offence at anything - my opinions are not always popular. I will require that the interview be transcribed and recorded in written form at the end of the thing, and I'll have final say on what gets displayed and where (mainly, this would be a thought exercise.) You are not allowed to have a "direction" in mind at the start of the interview.
5-90
I'd like to do a "stream of consciousness" interview with someone, sometime, just to see what you could get out of me with free association. I often wonder what's going on in here <tapping forehead>...
Anyone want to give it a go? You'll have to meet up with me in corpus to do it, and I'll want to see the results once you get them transcribed. Requirements are an open mind and a near-immunity to taking offence at anything - my opinions are not always popular. I will require that the interview be transcribed and recorded in written form at the end of the thing, and I'll have final say on what gets displayed and where (mainly, this would be a thought exercise.) You are not allowed to have a "direction" in mind at the start of the interview.
5-90
bchulett
NAXJA Member #999
- Location
- Southern California
I don't recall saying you could never be pulled over for not having two plates mounted on a vehicle where it's required by law ...
The code you referenced in Oregon is poorly written and doesn't clarify the front plate requirement ... unlike the code written for the state of California. Nevertheless, the real issue is if an officer would pull you over for this infraction. Maybe yes, maybe no.... similar to most minor infractions, cops basically use their own judgement to determine if you're a menace to society.
Like I mentioned earlier ... I haven't had a front plate mounted for the past 33 years---currently on two vehicles. In addition, I've altered (custom painted) a personalized plate on my show car to reflect the period the car was built.
In the state of California that's a misdemeanor, $1000 fine and six months in jail. The cops have never bothered me...
The code you referenced in Oregon is poorly written and doesn't clarify the front plate requirement ... unlike the code written for the state of California. Nevertheless, the real issue is if an officer would pull you over for this infraction. Maybe yes, maybe no.... similar to most minor infractions, cops basically use their own judgement to determine if you're a menace to society.
Like I mentioned earlier ... I haven't had a front plate mounted for the past 33 years---currently on two vehicles. In addition, I've altered (custom painted) a personalized plate on my show car to reflect the period the car was built.
In the state of California that's a misdemeanor, $1000 fine and six months in jail. The cops have never bothered me...
kubtastic said:
biscuitboy87
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- CA/OR
i dont run a front plate in california.
or in oregon. i might get pulled over for it, and it would be within the legal limits of the police to ticket me, but compared to other things that go on...DUI's, really bad drivers and whatnot, its just not a big deal.
i suppose if i had something to hide i might try and find one less reason to get harassed for, and having the plate would satisfy that criteria.
i suppose, also, that being able to read the plate from the front would come handy for the officer if he was pulling me over for speeding in reverse...
maybe ending up pointing the wrong direction could be another reason?
it has been my experience that they have bigger fish to fry and my plate missing off the front isn't one of those fish.
or in oregon. i might get pulled over for it, and it would be within the legal limits of the police to ticket me, but compared to other things that go on...DUI's, really bad drivers and whatnot, its just not a big deal.
i suppose if i had something to hide i might try and find one less reason to get harassed for, and having the plate would satisfy that criteria.
i suppose, also, that being able to read the plate from the front would come handy for the officer if he was pulling me over for speeding in reverse...
maybe ending up pointing the wrong direction could be another reason?
it has been my experience that they have bigger fish to fry and my plate missing off the front isn't one of those fish.
Similar threads
