TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:That reminds me of back in my ER days...

No, he did not handle it with common sense. I still had to pay a fine and get it fixed. I would have gotten it fixed first thing the next day anyway, and the fine wasn't that much money, but it's the principle of the thing. The guy was a jerk.

I had a similar thing happen except that my headlight dimmer switch burned out. My choice was to drive home with no headlights or highbeams. I got a fix it ticket and also a ticket for failure to dim my lights.

razrbak wrote:Very true Erik... and thank you for your service.
Eric

Thanks ..

Funny,, My Lampasas stop.. the second for license plate lights out on this car...are why I now keep a spare license plate light bulb in the car, next to the already on hand taillight and head light bulbs. I don't drive without both headlights working.. Have replaced more then on on the side of the road or near by parking lot. Same for a taillight if I notice it or another points it out. It's not about being safety Steve, or a nerd for the law... I drive in a manner which requires all the front light I can get, and stop in a manner which requires as much advance warning for others as possible to avoid being rear ended.

So Erik had two license plate lights, and only one was burnt out.
Seems to me the law only requires one in the first place, or doesn't specify number except that the plate must by illuminated.

Rex B wrote:So Erik had two license plate lights, and only one was burnt out.
Seems to me the law only requires one in the first place, or doesn't specify number except that the plate must by illuminated.

Erik (me) not sure about Eric (not me)
Has only one license plate light on my 2005 S197 Mustang. It is a single bulb mounted above the plate... And even when it works... it provide little light for the plate.

Rex B wrote:So Erik had two license plate lights, and only one was burnt out.
Seems to me the law only requires one in the first place, or doesn't specify number except that the plate must by illuminated.

Correct, I(Eric) had one of the two burnt out, the officer stated that the remaining lit bulb did not provide enough light to properly illuminate the plate.

razrbak wrote:

Rex B wrote:So Erik had two license plate lights, and only one was burnt out.
Seems to me the law only requires one in the first place, or doesn't specify number except that the plate must by illuminated.

Correct, I(Eric) had one of the two burnt out, the officer stated that the remaining lit bulb did not provide enough light to properly illuminate the plate.

Sounds like a pretextual stop to me. Reminds me when the local PDs were making stops on vehicles with a dealership's license plate bracket (that doesn't even obstruct the plate)

it was a fishing stop no other way to put it, if the plate had only one light then his saying it doesn't illuminate the plate well enough is nothing more than a pretext to stop you and see if you have been drinking. similar to the last time I got stopped.

A few observations:

1. At night it takes no effort at all to see whether a vehicle that has just passed in the opposite direction had its license plate illuminated or not through the side view mirror. I takes a little practice to get the focus, but once you do, it's easy. Try it.

2. The term "pretext stop" as used here seems to imply that it's improper law enforcement practice to use an actual minor violation as a reason to stop a vehicle an officer would like to examine more closely for potentially more serious offenses. It's not. The supreme court has held that as long as the violation the stop was made for actually existed at the time the stop is valid, and so is any lawful action taken in response to observations that come from that stop.

3. If a vehicle is equipped with 2 license plate lights, it's because both are needed to adequately illuminate the plate. Manufacturers don't spend a dime on regulatory compliance lighting that they don't have to.

4. There is nothing inherently illegal or unsafe about an officer making a U-turn on a 4 lane road if traffic conditions permit. They must have been OK because the OP does not mention any wrecks or near collisions as a result.

If all the emotion is taken out of it, this was a simple and lawful minor traffic violation stop.

This stop could easily have happened to me, and I have been stopped by officers for rear lighting violations. In one case a suitcase had shifted in the trunk and pulled the tail light plug out of its connector to the wiring harness. If he hadn't stopped me, it would have taken me weeks or months to find out about it.

In another case a trooper stopped me just after I got off an interstate to tell me all of my rear lights were out - a very bad thing while driving 70 MPH at night. The next day I found that road salt had worked its way into a crack in the tail light power wire and eaten through the conductor. That was another issue I could have driven with unknowingly for some time at significant risk.

I can't find anything at all valid to moan about in the OP's description of his incident. Both officer and motorist acted courteously and professionally. The officer did what he is being paid to do, and he used his discretion to simply advise a motorist he believed to be a responsible person to correct a minor violation instead of issuing a citation. That's the way things are supposed to work.

If the officer was looking for something more, he did so at the invitation of the motorist who had in fact not maintained his lighting devices in compliance with requirements everybody knows about.

Excaliber wrote:A few observations:

1. At night it takes no effort at all to see whether a vehicle that has just passed in the opposite direction had its license plate illuminated or not through the side view mirror. I takes a little practice to get the focus, but once you do, it's easy. Try it.

2. The term "pretext stop" as used here seems to imply that it's improper law enforcement practice to use an actual minor violation as a reason to stop a vehicle an officer would like to examine more closely for potentially more serious offenses. It's not. The supreme court has held that as long as the violation the stop was made for actually existed at the time the stop is valid, and so is any lawful action taken in response to observations that come from that stop.

3. If a vehicle is equipped with 2 license plate lights, it's because both are needed to adequately illuminate the plate. Manufacturers don't spend a dime on regulatory compliance lighting that they don't have to.

4. There is nothing inherently illegal or unsafe about an officer making a U-turn on a 4 lane road if traffic conditions permit. They must have been OK because the OP does not mention any wrecks or near collisions as a result.

If all the emotion is taken out of it, this was a simple and lawful minor traffic violation stop.

This stop could easily have happened to me, and I have been stopped by officers for rear lighting violations. In one case a suitcase had shifted in the trunk and pulled the tail light plug out of its connector to the wiring harness. If he hadn't stopped me, it would have taken me weeks or months to find out about it.

In another case a trooper stopped me just after I got off an interstate to tell me all of my rear lights were out - a very bad thing while driving 70 MPH at night. The next day I found that road salt had worked its way into a crack in the tail light power wire and eaten through the conductor. That was another issue I could have driven with unknowingly for some time at significant risk.

I can't find anything at all valid to moan about in the OP's description of his incident. Both officer and motorist acted courteously and professionally. The officer did what he is being paid to do, and he used his discretion to simply advise a motorist he believed to be a responsible person to correct a minor violation instead of issuing a citation. That's the way things are supposed to work.

If the officer was looking for something more, he did so at the invitation of the motorist who had in fact not maintained his lighting devices in compliance with requirements everybody knows about.

Excaliber wrote:...
1. At night it takes no effort at all to see whether a vehicle that has just passed in the opposite direction had its license plate illuminated or not through the side view mirror. I takes a little practice to get the focus, but once you do, it's easy...

I'll vouch for this.

When I was 16, a full 35 plus years ago, I was driving by a bar in the town I lived in.

A guy I am sure just came out of the bar, made a Uturn and side swiped an oncoming car behind me.

He took off.

I saw the whole thing in my side mirror and caught the plate as he hi tailed outta there.

Have you ever had one of those things that only happens once and for whatever reason sears itself into your gray matter?

Maybe it was because my brain was still young and impressionable.

Now it's old and.... well anyway...

I still remember the lisence plate number YS705.

I don't think I could repeat that now.

Excaliber wrote:2. The term "pretext stop" as used here seems to imply that it's improper law enforcement practice to use an actual minor violation as a reason to stop a vehicle an officer would like to examine more closely for potentially more serious offenses. It's not. The supreme court has held that as long as the violation the stop was made for actually existed at the time the stop is valid, and so is any lawful action taken in response to observations that come from that stop.

Those so-called "pretext stops" have caught a lot of felons. Tim McVeigh comes to mind.

...the terms "Pretext stop" and "hunch" never appear in police reports...but they work together real well on the street...and have prevented more crime than the Brady bunch~~~I'm for using the first to follow the second ANYTIME...

razrbak wrote:So I pull off into an Autozone lot, dome light on, window down, hands 10 & 2.

Maybe he figured since you were already in the parking lot you would just get it fixed.