State v. Mendell

“[A] license plate is illegally altered for purposes of ORS 803.550 if it is altered, modified, covered or obscured in any manner, including but not limited to the placement of any material or covering over or in front of the plate that alters the appearance of the plate.”

Defendant appeals denial of motion to suppress. Defendant was pulled over at night when the sheriff’s deputy was unable to read the license plate due to the glare from the officer’s headlights and the clear plastic cover on the defendant’s license plate. The deputy was able to read the license plate after pulling the car over and turning off his headlights. The deputy subsequently charged Defendant with DUII. Defendant argues the deputy did not have probable cause to stop him, or that probable cause dissipated once the deputy was able to read the license plate. The Defendant contends the clear cover did not alter or obscure any portion of the numbers, letters, or registration stickers, nor render the plate unreadable, and that ORS 803.550 requires more than a temporary obscurement. “[A] license plate is illegally altered for purposes of ORS 803.550 if it is altered, modified, covered or obscured in any manner, including but not limited to the placement of any material or covering over or in front of the plate that alters the appearance of the plate.” The Court reasoned that ORS 803.550 is violated when a license plate is covered by any material that causes the letters and numbers to be obscured under normal driving conditions, even if it isn’t obscured under all driving conditions. The Court determined because the Defendant was driving under normal night time conditions, he violated ORS 803.550. The Court held the trial court did not err in determining the deputy had probable cause to stop the Defendant and its denial of the motion to suppress. Judge Jacquot concurred in the result reached, but wrote separately to address their concerns on ORS 803.550’s mental-state element and probable-cause requirement. Judge Jacquot highlights three issues with the caveat created in State v. Lipka, 314 Or App 154, 164 (2021): Lipka did not explain how a culpable mental state is not an essential element of an offense, the caveat is essentially dicta, and the case misused Boatright to support its statement of law. 

Affirmed.