State v. Cowan

ORS 803.550(1)(c) states in part that “[a] person commits the offense of illegal alteration or illegal display of a registration plate if the person knowingly … [o]perates any vehicle that is displaying a registration plate the is illegally altered … or illegally displayed[.]” ORS 803.550(2)(a) states in part that “[a] registration plate is illegally altered … if the plate has been altered, modified, covered or obscured in any manner including but not limited to … [a]ny change of the color, configuration, numbers, letters, or material of the plate.”

Appellant was convicted of criminal driving while revoked in violation of ORS 811.182 after he was stopped by a state trooper because the trooper was unable to read the old registration plate affixed to Appellant’s truck while in “complete daylight.” On appeal, Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress all evidence derived from the traffic stop, arguing that the trooper lacked probable cause because his registration plates were properly displayed as required by ORS 803.540. Appellant further argued that even if the trooper did have probable cause to stop him for displaying an illegally altered unreadable registration plate, the probable cause dissipated once the trooper approached his truck and was able to read the registration plate; which occurred before the trooper learned that he was driving on a revoked license. ORS 803.550(1)(c) states in part that “[a] person commits the offense of illegal alteration or illegal display of a registration plate if the person knowingly … [o]perates any vehicle that is displaying a registration plate the is illegally altered … or illegally displayed[.]” ORS 803.550(2)(a) states in part that “[a] registration plate is illegally altered … if the plate has been altered, modified, covered or obscured in any manner including but not limited to … [a]ny change of the color, configuration, numbers, letters, or material of the plate.” The Court reasoned that the text of the statute indicates a violation occurs even when a person only knowingly displays a registration plate that has been altered “in any manner,” whether or not it was a person who altered the plate. The Court further reasoned that Appellant offered no legislative history that contradicts its conclusion that the purpose of the statute was to place the “responsibility on the driver to ensure that the plate has not been altered ‘in any manner’ whether by a person or by natural causes.” Thus, the Court held that because the trooper was unable to read the worn-out plate after several attempts to do so at close range in broad daylight, there was sufficient probable cause for the trooper to stop Appellant for a violation of ORS 803.550, and the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress. Affirmed.