CopyCited 96 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 67 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1061, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8288, 2007 WL 1063010
...take
him to the station.
Officer Cute transported Chaney to the Orange County Correctional Facility
without incident. Chaney was given a traffic citation for operating a vehicle with
an obscured license plate, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 316.605.2 He was also
charged with the misdemeanor offense of resisting an officer without violence, in
2
That provision states, in pertinent part, that “all letters, numerals, printing, writing, and
other identification ma...
CopyCited 37 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 15666, 1990 WL 120077
...operation of motor vehicles. Id. Florida’s Uniform Traffic Control law, Fla.Stat. §
316.001 et seq. (1990), requires that all writing upon license plates be “plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.” Fla.Stat. §
316.605....
CopyCited 33 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2003 WL 21087992
...be clearly visible from the rear of the vehicle." §
320.131(4), Fla. Stat. (2000) (emphasis added). While the Legislature has required that permanent license plates must be "plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front," §
316.605(1), Fla....
...ncy had no record of the officer even having made the stop. To reverse a trial court's determination of reasonableness on the bases of these facts and then to reverse a conviction is simply unjustified. Accordingly, I dissent. NOTES [1] In contrast, section 316.605(1), Florida Statutes, which requires that the tag be "plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front," pertains only to permanent tags....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 217529
...The officer asked Sands if he had any illegal drugs or contraband in the van and if he could search the vehicle. When Sands said no, the officer called for a canine unit and began issuing a citation for displaying a tag that was not visible for a distance of at least 100 feet, a violation of subsection 316.605(1), Florida Statutes (1997)....
...The dog alerted to the presence of drugs and 2.7 grams of cocaine were found in the van. Charged with possession of cocaine, Sands entered a plea of no contest and reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the cocaine. In this appeal, Sands argues that subsection 316.605(1), the statute with which he was charged, does not apply to temporary tags. Although we agree that subsection 316.605(1), does not apply to temporary tags, the investigatory stop can still be upheld if there was an objectively valid reason for it....
...ealed with an effective *632 date of March 4, 1996. Prior to the legislature specifically authorizing the placement of temporary tags on the interior of a car's rear window, drivers risked being stopped and being issued a citation for a violation of section 316.605, Florida Statutes. Section 316.605, entitled "Licensing of Vehicles," states in pertinent part, that every vehicle shall display a license plate: securely fastened to the vehicle outside the main body of the vehicle in such manner as to prevent the [plate or] plates fr...
...will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front. Between the March 4, 1996 repeal of the administrative rule and the enactment of the modification of section
320.131, effective October 1, 1997, one interpretation of section
316.605, was that a temporary tag had to be displayed in the same manner as a permanent license plate, to wit: illuminated at night, securely fastened in the spot for a permanent license plate, and visible from 100 feet....
...Sands also complains that the second stop was prolonged in order for the drug dog to arrive at the scene. The stop was made at approximately 3:13 a.m. The drug dog arrived on the scene approximately 15 minutes later. The officer testified that he was still writing the ticket for the section 316.605 violation when the dog arrived....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7773, 2009 WL 1706450
...After the stop, the officers smelled an odor of fresh marijuana coming from inside the vehicle. Thereafter, marijuana was found in Harris's pocket and cocaine was found in the glove box of the truck. Harris asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because he was improperly stopped for violating section 316.605, Florida Statutes (2006)....
...registration decal, and the alphanumeric designation shall be clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front. § 316.605(1) (emphasis added)....
...However, it would not include a trailer hitch that is properly attached to the truck's bumper. The dissent reads the "plainly visible" from 100 feet language as if such language was separate from "defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter." We believe that section 316.605(1), which is all one sentence and contains 196 words, is neither clear nor concise, and therefore, the doctrine of ejusdem generis is applicable....
...shall not be covered by any material that obstructs their visibility," the middle numbers of a license plate were not in "plain view" and stop of truck was lawful where license was obstructed by a ball hitch). We conclude that Harris's vehicle was improperly stopped pursuant to section 316.605....
...registration decal, and the alphanumeric designation shall be clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front. § 316.605(1) (emphasis added)....
...not to create an ambiguity in a clearly worded statute). Further, it is inappropriate to use the maxim ejusdem generis "if, as a result, the court fails to give meaning to all of the words used by the legislature." Id. at 1121. The interpretation of section 316.605 set forth in the majority opinion now before us for rehearing disregards the terms "clear" and "distinct" and the phrase "so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front." In my view, ther...
...ive of the legislature. The law favors a rational and sensible construction of statutes so as to avoid an unreasonable or absurd result." George v. State,
203 So.2d 173, 175-76 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967) (citations omitted). It would be unreasonable to read section
316.605(1) as meaning that a plate is visible if it cannot be read by an officer following safely in his or her patrol car....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 218411
...e was repealed as of March 4, 1996. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 15C-1.005 (April, 1996). . . . At that time, a reasonable reading of the law was that a temporary tag had to be displayed in the same manner as a regular license plate. See §§
316.221(2),
316.605(1), Fla....
...did not become effective until October 1, 1997. See Ch. 97-300, §§ 13, 54, at 5398, 5421, Laws of Fla. Id. at 652. Furthermore, even if the rear window display had been authorized at the time, the trial court failed to apply the visibility requirement of section 316.605, Florida Statutes (1997): "all letters, numerals, printing, writing, and other identification marks upon the plates [must be] clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that they wi...
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23737, 2015 WL 758283
...icensed in the name of the owner thereof in accordance with the laws of this state ... and shall ... display the license plate ... assigned to it by the state.... No license plates other than those furnished by the state shall be used.” Fla. Stat. § 316.605 (1) (alterations added)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 636978
..., the police officers did observe a traffic infraction, which justified the initial stop. Specifically, the police officers observed that a plastic blue cover had been placed over the car's license plate, making it difficult to read from a distance. Section 316.605(1) provides that all letters, numerals, printing, writing and other identification marks on the license plate be clear and distinct and that nothing shall be placed on the face of a Florida license plate unless permitted by law. Section 316.605(1) also requires that a license plate be visible from 100 feet away....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15812, 2014 WL 5039681
...1 “All that is required for a valid vehicle stop is a founded suspicion by the *530 officer that the driver of the car, or the vehicle itself, is in violation of a traffic ordinance or statute.” Davis v. State,
788 So.2d 308, 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Section
316.605(1), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: Every vehicle, at all times while driven, stopped, or parked upon any highways, roads, or streets of this state ......
...obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front. ... A violation of this subsection is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318. § 316.605(1), Fla....
...because matters external to the tag, such as trailer hitches, bicycle racks, handicap chairs, u-hauls, and the like were not “other obscuring matter”). Because we conclude that English’s vehicle was properly stopped pursuant to a violation of section 316.605(1), we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion....
...-clearly visible from the rear of the vehicle." §
320.131(4), Fla. Stat. (2000) (emphasis added). While the Legislature has required that permanent license plates must be "plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front,” §
316.605(1), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21517
...Any person who violates this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082 or s.
775.083. The officers were not present when the clear tinted plastic cover was placed over the license plate. We note that the officers could have instead charged Mr. Jenkins with violating section
316.605, Florida Statutes (2009), requiring display of license plates in a manner that all letters, numerals, printing, writing, and other identification marks upon the plates regarding the word “Florida,” the registration decal, and the...
...et from the rear.... *741 However, the arrest still would not have been lawful, even though Mr. Jenkins displayed the license plate — in the officers’ presence — in a manner that allegedly was not plainly visible and legible, because violating section 316.605 is not a misdemean- or or municipal or county ordinance, but a noncriminal traffic infraction. See § 316.605(1) (“A violation of this subsection is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.”)....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17204, 2011 WL 5109234
...the law will not establish probable cause for an arrest for a violation). *332 The State now argues, however, that the officer properly stopped Mr. Sow-erby’s car because he had a reasonable suspicion that the car was in violation of that part of section 316.605(1), Florida Statutes, saying that: [A]ll letters, numerals, printing, writing, and other identification marks upon the plates regarding the word “Florida,” the registration decal, and alphanumeric designation shall be clear and di...
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15907, 2015 WL 6449374
PER CURIAM. Anticipating our decision in Baker v. State,
164 So.3d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), the trial court denied appellant’s motion to suppress, reading “the plain language of section
316.605(1), Florida Statutes [], to mean that a license tag’s alphanumeric designation may not be obstructed by any matter.” Id....
...at 151, 155 (noting that “the statutory catchall phrase ‘other obscuring matter’ does not distinguish from obscuring matter ‘on’ the license tag versus external matter obscuring the tag”); see State v. English,
148 So.3d 529, 529-30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (holding that, under the plain reading of section
316.605(1), an officer had the authority to stop a vehicle where the license tag’s alphanumeric designation was obstructed by a hanging tag light and its attached wires), review granted, English v. State,
171 So.3d 115 (Fla.2015). But see Harris v. State,
11 So.3d 462, 463-64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (concluding that section
316.605(1) requires a “license plate [to] be free from obscuring matter, be it grease, grime, or some other material placed over the plate,” but that “Matters external to the tag, such as trailer hitches, bicycle racks, handicap chairs, u-hauls, and the like are not covered by the statute.”)....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued: Jun 9, 2022
...olation of Florida Statute §
843.02. 6
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be lia-
ble to the party injured in an action at law . . . for redress[.]
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
5 See Fla. Stat. §
316.605(1) (Licensing of vehicles).
6 Fla....
...olation.”
Id. at 327,
129 S. Ct. at 784. Here, it was lawful for Deputy Dunn
to stop the vehicle and detain its occupants for the violation of a
Florida Statute regulating the “licensing of vehicles.” Fla. Stat.
§
316.605(1)....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
... registration decal, and the alphanumeric designation shall be clear and distinct and
free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that they
will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.” §
316.605(1), Fla....
...his confession and the search of his car following the stop. We disagree that the
stop was illegal, and reverse, because the undisputed evidence was that Pena’s tag
had a frame that obscured the word “Florida” at the top of this plate, violating the
clear language of section 316.605(1).
Factual Background and Procedural History
The facts, found by the trial court, are not in dispute:
The State presented testimony from Officer Carl Sanabria of the
Miami-Dade Police Department....
...s clear and distinct and
free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other
obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and
legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.
Id. at 957 (quoting § 316.605(1), Fla. Stat. (1995)). “In construing the statute,” the
appellate court said, “the trial court concluded that section 316.605(1) does not
require the county name be ‘plainly visible’ because it is not an essential
‘identification mark’ on the state’s license plate.” Id. The fifth district “agree[d]
that in using the term, ‘identification mark’ as applied to state license plates in
section 316.605(1), the legislature did not intend to include the name of the state
5
and county at the top and bottom of the plate that identify the name of the state or
county.” Id. (emphasis added).
While we are less sure than St. Jean about the legislature’s intent in 1995, it
doesn’t matter here because in 2005 the legislature made its intent clear when it
amended section 316.605(1) to define what it meant by “other identification
marks.” The 2005 amendment clarified that the “other identification marks” in
section 316.605(1) were those on the license plate “regarding the word ‘Florida,’
the registration decal, and the alphanumeric designation,” Ch....
...he
alphanumeric designation shall be clear and distinct and free from
defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that
they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the
rear or front.
§ 316.605(1), Fla. Stat. (2015) (emphasis added).1
1 The legislature, effective January 1, 2016, amended section 316.605(1) again to
remove “other identification marks upon the plates regarding the word ‘Florida’”
from the statute....
... Here, the suppression hearing evidence was undisputed that the word
“Florida” was obscured by the frame on Pena’s tag. The word “Florida” on Pena’s
tag was not clear and distinct and free from obscuring matter. In 2015, unlike the
1997 version of section 316.605(1) in St....
...on state license plates. See English v. State,
191 So. 3d 448, 449 (Fla. 2016) (“We
cause is evaluated from the viewpoint of a prudent cautious police officer on the
scene at the time of the arrest.” (quotation omitted)), so we only look to the 2015
version of section
316.605(1) for purposes of determining whether Detective
Sanabria’s stop of Pena’s car was lawful.
7
conclude that the plain language of section
316.605(1) is clear and unambiguous . .
. .”).
Because Pena’s tag frame obscured the word “Florida” at the top of the
plate, he violated the 2015 version of section
316.605(1) and Detective Sanabria
had probable cause to stop Pena’s car....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...possession of drug paraphernalia, grand theft of an automobile and grand theft.
Appellant seeks review of an order denying his dispositive motion to suppress. We
affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress, as we read the plain
language of section 316.605(1), Florida Statutes (2013), to mean that a license
tag’s alphanumeric designation may not be obstructed by any matter, including a
trailer hitch....
...rine.
While this appeal was pending, the Fifth District issued its opinion in State
v. English,
148 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). There, the court held that an
officer had the authority to conduct a traffic stop under the plain reading of section
316.605, Florida Statutes, where the alphanumeric designation was obstructed by
the license tag’s light and attached wires hanging down in front of it.
Analysis
An appellate court reviews a matter of statutory interpretation de novo.
Germany v. Darby,
157 So.3d 521, 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citing Raymond
James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Phillips,
126 So.3d 186, 190 (Fla.2013)). Section
316.605, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:
3
(1) Every vehicle, at all times while driven, stopped, or parked upon
any highways, roads, or streets of this state, shall be li...
...designation shall be clear and distinct and free from
defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring
matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at
all times 100 feet from the rear or front.
Id. (quoting § 316.605(1), Fla....
...in such manner . . . [that] the alphanumeric designation shall be
clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other
obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times
100 feet from the rear or front.” § 316.605(1), Fla....
...ar of the vehicle.”
§
320.131(4), Fla. Stat. (2000) (emphasis added). While the
Legislature has required that permanent license plates must be
“plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or
front,” §
316.605(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...t and affirmed the
suppression order. The court noted the prevalence of license plate rims or
frames that obscured the county name. In doing so, it made another
observation.
It appears to us that essential to a correct interpretation of
section 316.605 is the phrase, “visible and legible at all times
100 feet from the rear or front.” Plainly, any writing contained
on a Florida tag produced and sold by the state that is not
“visible and legible” at all times...
...and all letters, numerals, printing, writing, the registration
decal, and the alphanumeric designation shall be clear and
distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and
other obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible
and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.
§ 316.605(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 219, 2016 WL 2755988, 2016 Fla. LEXIS 1005
...cision of another district court of appeal, Harris v. State,
11 So.3d 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), on a question of law. Specifically, the district courts reached conflicting decisions on what constitutes an obstruction to a license plate in violation of section
316.605(1), Florida Statutes (2013), and whether the statute creates a distinction between obscuring matter that is on or is external to the license plate. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We conclude that the plain language of section
316.605(1) is clear and unambiguous, and requires that a license plate be plainly visible and legible at....
...all times without regard to whether the obscuring matter is on or external to the plate. Accordingly, we approve the Fifth District’s decision in English and disapprove the Second District’s decision in Harris . FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arose from a traffic stop conducted pursuant to a violation of section 316.605(1), Florida" Statutes, which in relevant part, provides as follows: Every vehicle, at all times while driven, stopped, or parked upon any highways, roads, or streets of this state shall, ..: display the license plate ......
...valid. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, concluding that English did not violate the statute and there was no basis for the traffic stop. On appeal, the Fifth District reversed the trial court’s order and held that a plain reading of section 316.605(1) .requires the alphanumeric designation ,on the license plate to be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear....
...cond District’s decision in Harris,
11 So.3d 462 . English contends that the Fifth District should have followed the reasoning set forth in Harris to conclude that a hanging tag light did not constitute the type of obscuring matter contemplated by section
316.605(1) because the tag light was external to the license plate, not on it. ANALYSIS Standard of Review The conflict in the present case involves the interpretation of section
316.605(1), Florida Statutes, which is a purely legal matter subject to de novo review....
...Wflien the statutory language is unclear or ambiguous, this Court applies rules of statutory construction to discern legislative intent. See Polite,
973 So.2d at 1111 . . Licensing of Vehicles Statute ■ The present conflict turns on whether a hanging tag light obscures a license plate in violation of section
316.605(1)....
...icense plate such that they Were unable to read the letters 'from thirty to fifty feet behind the vehicle. Harris,
11 So.3d at 463 . On appeal, the Second District reversed the trial court, holding that obstruction by a trailer hitch did'not violate section
316.605(1)....
...ter that was on or external to the license plate; but declared that under the 'plain language of the' statute, English was not in compliance with the statute when his license plate was obscured by a hanging tag light. We agree. The plain language of section 316.605(1) provides that “the alphanumeric designation shall be clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, ■ grease,-and other obscuring matter, so that they Will be plainly visible and legible at ah times 100 feet from the rear or front.” While canons of statutory construction may be appropriately applied to determine legislative intent when a statute is. unclear, we conclude that the language of section 316.605(1) is clear and unambiguous....
...every clause in it, and to accord-meaning arid harmony to all of its parts.' Likewise, statutory phrases-are not to be read- in isolation, but rather. within the context of the entire section.”) (internal-citations omitted). The plain language of section 316.605(1) requires that a license plate be “clear and distinct” and “free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter”'; it does not suggest that matter external to the license plate may constitute a permissible obstruction under the statute. Therefore, we hold that section 316.605(1) does not distinguish betweén obscuring matter that is on or external to the license plate. Accordingly, we conclude that a tag light, hanging down in front of a license plate, obscuring its alphanumeric designation, constitutes a violation- of section 316.605(1)....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Fowler,
Judge.
Robertson & Hunter, LLP, and Dustin S. Hunter, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 316.605(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8527, 2000 WL 904907
...tion 316. 605(1), Florida Statutes (1997), failure to display a tag, section
320.0605 for not having the registration on his person, and section
320.02, which requires an owner of a motor vehicle to have the vehicle registered in the state. Sections
316.605(1) and
320.0605(1) are noncriminal traffic offenses; section
320.02 is *1007 a misdemeanor....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8494, 1997 WL 413812
...scretion. 4 Accordingly, since the instant record supports the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant had been subjected to an illegal stop, we affirm the suppression order. AFFIRM. PETERSON, J., concurs. HARRIS, J., dissents, with opinion. . Section 316.605, Florida Statutes (1995), provides in pertinent part that license plates be displayed in such a manner that “all letters, numerals, printing, writing, and other identification marks upon the plates clear and distinct and free from d...
...5th DCA 1992), the case cited by the dissent, is clearly distinguishable because, in Bass , the trial court made a specific finding that it believed the officer’s testimony that he could not read the tag on the car driven by the defendant. . In our view, section 316.605 does not set forth a reasonable standard to justify a traffic stop because a particular officer’s inability to read a license tag or plate at a distance of 100 feet is hardly an objective standard....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued: Jun 9, 2022
...olation of Florida Statute §
843.02. 6
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be lia-
ble to the party injured in an action at law . . . for redress[.]
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
5 See Fla. Stat. §
316.605(1) (Licensing of vehicles).
6 Fla....
...olation.”
Id. at 327,
129 S. Ct. at 784. Here, it was lawful for Deputy Dunn
to stop the vehicle and detain its occupants for the violation of a
Florida Statute regulating the “licensing of vehicles.” Fla. Stat.
§
316.605(1)....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...’s license plate must be displayed in the
rear of the vehicle such that “all letters, numerals, printing, writing, the registration
decal, and the alphanumeric designation shall be . . . plainly visible and legible at all
times.” Fla. Stat. § 316.605(1). Thus, even if Officer Sullivan was mistaken that
§ 32-6-51 applied, Braddy was still in violation of § 40-12-262 by obstructing the
view of his Florida license plate in violation of § 316.605(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8808, 1997 WL 428513
...set forth that the officer stopped the defendant’s car because he had “observed the tag on the vehicle was obscured by. a[sic] ornament around the perimeter of the tag making the county name not visible.” This was asserted to be a violation of section 316.605, Florida Statutes (1995)....
...A subsequent search of the trunk of the vehicle uncovered a quantity of cocaine. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the cocaine, arguing that the stop of his vehicle was illegal because it is not a traffic violation to obscure the name of the county on a tag. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. *957 Section 316.605(1), Florida Statutes (1995), provides, in relevant part, that every vehicle on the state roadways shall at all times display the license plate assigned to it by the state:....
...tes clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front. In construing the statute, the trial court concluded that section 316.605(1) does not require the county name be “plainly visible” because it is not an essential “identification mark” on the state’s license plate....
...1 Also, section
320.06(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), allows any county, upon majority vote of the county commissioners, to elect to have the county name removed from the license plates sold in that county. The state has cited no authority for the proposition that obscuring the county name in such a fashion violates section
316.605. The state relies only on the language of the statute. We agree that in using the term, “identification mark” as applied to state license plates in section
316.605(1), the legislature did not intend to include the name of the state and county at the top and bottom of the plate that identify the name of the state or county. Although the language of section
316.605 is broad, the overall statutory scheme suggests that the “identification marks” that must be visible and legible are those that “identify” the “registration.” See §
320.06(l)(b), (3)(a) (1995)....
...to declare it a traffic infraction. We make one additional observation about this statute that was not raised by the parties, in the likely event this issue comes up in another district. It appears to us that essential to a correct interpretation of section 316.605 is the phrase, “visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.” 2 Plainly, any writing contained on a Florida tag produced and sold by the state that is not “visible and legible” at 100 feet could not be an “identification mark” as referred to in this statute....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
License plate frames and whether they violate section
316.605(1), Florida Statutes (2017), are challenged
