Case Title: BRADLEY ALLEN PARKS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-10-0136

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2011-02-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
BRADLEY ALLEN PARKS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2011 WY 19Case Number: No. S-10-0136Decided: 02/09/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2010

 
 
BRADLEY ALLEN 
PARKS,

Appellant 
(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,

Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Natrona County

The 
Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge

 
Representing 
Appellant:

Diane M. Lozano, 
State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, 
Senior Assistant Appellant Counsel.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce A. Salzburg, 
Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael 
Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Senior Assistant 
Attorney General.

 
 
Before KITE, C.J., 
and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

[¶1]        
Appellant, 
Bradley Allen Parks, was charged with a third offense for possession of a 
controlled substance, a felony under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(i).  He entered a conditional guilty plea and 
reserved the right to appeal the district court's decision denying his motion to 
suppress.  We affirm the district 
court's denial of the suppression motion.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 

[¶2]      
Mr. Parks presents 
the following issue:

 
 
Did the district 
court err in its interpretation of W.S. § 31-2-205 and its application to a 
search pursuant to a traffic stop and therefore err in the denial of Appellant's 
motion to suppress evidence?

 
 
The State phrases the 
issue as follows:

 
 
Did the district 
court err in finding that Officer Ransom had probable cause to stop Appellant's 
vehicle for an improper display of a license plate under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
31-2-205?

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶3]        
On the afternoon of 
January 26, 2008, Officer Derek Ransom of the Mills Police Department was on 
traffic enforcement patrol on West Yellowstone Highway in Mills.  During his patrol, Officer Ransom 
observed an older model Chevrolet pickup driven by Mr. Parks.  A trailer hitch ball was mounted in a 
predrilled hole in the truck's factory bumper so that the license plate was 
partially obstructed.  Due to the 
obstruction, Officer Ransom was unable to read the license plate.  Officer Ransom followed the truck for a 
distance and activated his overhead lights just as, or shortly before, Mr. Parks 
approached his residence.  

 
 

[¶4]        
Mr. Parks exited the 
truck and Officer Ransom directed him to get back inside the vehicle for safety 
reasons.  Officer Ransom, now 
standing by his own car door and close to the truck's rear license plate, called 
in the plate number to his dispatcher.  He then approached the driver's side door 
of the truck and informed Mr. Parks that he had been stopped for an obscured 
license plate and that he needed to remove the trailer ball when he had his 
first chance to do so.  As he was 
talking to Mr. Parks, Officer Ransom smelled the odor of burnt marijuana coming 
from inside the truck.  After 
questioning by Officer Ransom, Mr. Parks surrendered a bag of marijuana and a 
pipe.  Mr. Parks was eventually 
cited and released.  After 
discovering that Mr. Parks had two prior drug possession convictions, the State 
dismissed the citation and charged Mr. Parks with a third offense for possession 
of a controlled substance, a felony under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
35-7-1031(c)(i).

 
 

[¶5]        
Mr. Parks filed a 
motion to suppress, alleging that the officer's stop of his vehicle violated 
Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.  After a hearing, the district court 
denied the motion.  Mr. Parks 
subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge of possession of a 
controlled substance, and this appeal followed.

 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 

[¶6]        
The applicable 
standard of review has been stated as follows:

 
 
When we review a 
district court's decision to deny motions to suppress, we defer to the district 
court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Fertig v. State, 2006 WY 148, ¶ 8, 146 P.3d 492, 495 (Wyo. 2006); O'Boyle v. 
State, 2005 WY 83, ¶ 18, 117 P.3d 401, 407 (Wyo. 2005). "The evidence is 
viewed in a light favorable to the district court's determination, because that 
court had the opportunity to hear the evidence and assess the credibility of the 
witnesses." Hicks v. State, 2008 WY 
83, ¶ 13, 187 P.3d 877, 880 (Wyo. 2008). The issue of law -- whether a search 
was unreasonable and in violation of constitutional rights -- is reviewed de novo.  Fertig, ¶ 8, 146 P.3d  at 495; McChesney v. State, 988 P.2d 1071, 1074 
(Wyo. 1999). 

Lovato 
v. State, 
2010 WY 38, ¶ 11, 228 P.3d 55, 57-58 (Wyo. 2010).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶7]        
The Fourth Amendment 
protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.  U.S. Const. amend. IV.  A routine traffic stop constitutes a 
seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment "even though the purpose of 
the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief."  Damato v. State, 2003 WY 13, ¶ 9, 64 P.3d 700, 704 (Wyo. 2003).  The 
decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable 
cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.  
Fertig, ¶ 27, 146 P.3d  at 501; see also Whren v. United 
States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 135 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1996).  

 
 

[¶8]        
Mr. Parks was stopped 
for a violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-2-205.  That statute provides as 
follows:

 
 

(a) License plates for 
vehicles shall be:  

(i) Conspicuously displayed and 
securely fastened to be plainly 
visible:

            

            
. . .

(ii) Secured to prevent swinging;  

            
(iii) Attached in a 
horizontal position no less than twelve (12) inches from the ground;      

(iv) Maintained free from foreign 
materials and in a condition to be clearly legible.         

 
 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
31-2-205 (LexisNexis 2009) (emphasis added).  At the district court's hearing on the 
motion to suppress, Officer Ransom testified that he could not see all of the 
numbers on Mr. Parks' license plate while following Mr. Parks' vehicle.  Officer Ransom stated that he typically 
calls in a license plate to the police dispatcher before activating his overhead 
lights to stop the suspect vehicle.  In this instance, however, he was unable 
to follow his normal procedure because he could not read the license plate.  He called in the license plate number 
after stopping Mr. Parks and exiting his patrol vehicle to read the plate. 

 
 

[¶9]        
A video of the 
traffic stop taken from Officer Ransom's patrol vehicle was also presented at 
the hearing.  The district court was 
unable to determine from the video whether the trailer ball obscured Mr. Parks' 
license plate.  It found that "[t]he 
video quality is not sufficient to allow any definitive determination other than 
the numbers are not visible."  
However, the district court found that "there's nothing to indicate to 
this Court that what [Officer Ransom] believed was an obscured number or plate 
is  is untrue."  The court noted 
that Officer Ransom could be heard on the video informing Mr. Parks that 
"[t]he reason I stopped you is because of your obscured plate in the back.  The ball hitch there obscures the 
numbers, and I can't read it.  You 
need to remove that when you get the first chance okay?"  Although the video of the traffic stop 
indicated that Mr. Parks also could have been stopped because he failed to use a 
turn signal and because his brake lights were inoperative, Officer Ransom stated 
that he did not recall noticing these violations.  Due in part to Officer Ransom's honesty 
regarding the unobserved violations, and the fact that Officer Ransom's actions 
during the stop were consistent with his testimony, the court found that 
"Officer Ransom's testimony was very credible."  The district court held that "there was 
probable cause to initiate [the] stop based upon the credible and uncontradicted 
testimony of Officer Ransom."

 
 

[¶10]     
Mr. 
Parks concedes that the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's 
factual determination that the license plate was obstructed.  He contends, however, that a trailer hitch 
ball that partially blocks a license plate is not a violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 31-2-205.  He notes that the 
statute does not require license plates to be visible from a police vehicle, or 
from a specific angle or distance.  Mr. Parks argues that his license plate 
was "clearly legible" and "plainly visible," as evidenced by the fact that 
Officer Ransom was ultimately able to read the license plate number and call it 
in to the dispatcher.

 
 

[¶11]     
In interpreting the 
license plate display statute, we apply our usual rules of statutory 
construction:

 
 
Statutory 
interpretation is a question of law.  
Our paramount consideration is the legislature's intent as reflected in 
the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute.  Initially, we determine whether the 
statute is clear or ambiguous.

 
 
A statute is clear 
and unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able to agree 
on its meaning with consistency and predictability.  Conversely, a statute is ambiguous if it 
is found to be vague or uncertain and subject to varying interpretations.  If we determine that a statute is clear 
and unambiguous, we give effect to the plain language of the statute. 

 
 

Sorensen 
v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 
2010 WY 101, ¶ 13, 234 P.3d 1233, 1237 (Wyo. 2010).

 
 

[¶12]     
We find that the 
pertinent language of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-2-205 is unambiguous.  "Visible" means "capable of being seen," 
"perceptible by vision," "easily seen," "conspicuous."  Webster's Third New International 
Dictionary 2557 (3d ed. 2002).  "Plainly" means "with clarity of 
perception or comprehension," "clearly," "in unmistakable terms."  Id. at 1729.  "Legible" means "capable of being read 
or deciphered," "distinct to the eye," "plain."  Id. at 1291.  The requirements that a license plate be 
"plainly visible" and "clearly legible" indicate that a license plate must not 
be obstructed in any manner.  This 
interpretation is in accord with the purpose of the statute.  License plates need to be easily read in 
order to facilitate law enforcement and ordinary citizens in reporting and 
investigating hit-and-run accidents, traffic violations, gas-pump drive offs, 
and other criminal activity.  See 
United States v. 
Rubio-Sanchez, 2006 U.S. 
Dist. LEXIS 21230, 2006 WL 1007252 (D. Kan. Apr. 17, 2006) ("Law enforcement 
[officers] frequently must determine from tag numbers whether a vehicle is 
stolen; whether it is properly registered; or whether its occupant is suspected 
of a crime, is the subject of a warrant, or is thought to be armed.") (quoting 
State v. Hayes, 8 Kan. App. 2d 531, 533, 660 P.2d 1387, 1389 
(1983)).  The plain language and the 
purpose of the statute indicate that a trailer ball mounted in a place that 
causes it to partially obstruct a license plate from view is a violation of Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 31-2-205.  

 
 

[¶13]     
Our 
holding is also consistent with our recent decision in Lovato, 228 P.3d 55.  In that case, the appellant's 
license plate was obscured by a translucent plastic cover.   The police officer stopped the 
appellant because he was unable to read the appellant's license plate number 
until he was very close behind his vehicle.  The district court found that the cover 
violated the statute, providing justification for the stop.  Id., ¶ 22, 228 P.3d  at 60.  On appeal, we found that "it is 
conceivable that in some angles of sunlight, the combination of glare and 
tinting could make the license plate harder to read."  Id., ¶ 21, 228 P.3d  at 60.  We upheld the district court's decision 
that the stop was justified, despite the fact that the plate may have been 
visible from certain angles or positions.  
Id., ¶ 22, 228 P.3d  at 60.  

 
 

[¶14]     
In support of his 
argument, Mr. Parks relies on Harris v. State, 11 So. 3d 462 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 
2009), a Florida case in which the court found that a trailer hitch ball which 
partially blocked a license plate did not violate Florida's license plate 
display statute.  However, that case 
is distinguishable.  The 
relevant portion of Fla. Stat. § 316.605(1) reads as follows: 

 
 
[A]ll letters, 
numerals, printing, writing, and other identification marks upon the plates 
regarding the word "Florida," 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. 

 
 

Harris, 11 So. 3d  at 463 
(emphasis omitted).  The court found 
that the "plainly visible" language of the statute was not a stand-alone 
requirement but, rather, applied to "license plates [that were] obstructed by 
defacement, mutilation, grease, or other obscuring matter.'"  Id.  To interpret the statute as it applied 
to trailer hitches, the court used the doctrine of ejusdem generis.  That doctrine provides that where 
general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of things, the 
general words will be construed as applying only to things of the same general 
class as those enumerated.  Id.  The court then determined that 
"[m]atters external to the tag, such as trailer hitches, bicycle racks, handicap 
chairs, u-hauls, and the like are not covered by the statute" because they are 
not in the same class as the obscuring matter identified in the statute.  Id. at 463-64.  Wyoming's license plate display statute, 
however, is significantly different from the Florida statute.  Under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-2-205(a)(i), 
the requirement that a license plate be "plainly visible" is not connected to 
any class of "obscuring matter," and the doctrine of ejusdem generis is not 
applicable.

 
 

[¶15]     
In addition, the 
court in Harris noted that it was in 
the minority of jurisdictions finding that a trailer hitch ball which obstructs 
a license plate is not a traffic violation.  Indeed, a number of jurisdictions have 
considered this issue and nearly all have determined that a trailer hitch that 
partially obstructs a license plate is a traffic violation.  See, e.g., Rubio-Sanchez, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21230, at *23, 2006 
WL 1007252, at *5 ("A license plate is not clearly visible and legible if 
obscured by a ball hitch."); United States v. Unrau, 2003 U.S. 
Dist. LEXIS 12307, at *8, 2003 WL 21667166, at *3 (D. Kan. Jun. 16, 2003) ("A 
tag is not positioned to be plainly visible when it is behind a ball hitch that 
blocks an officer from reading the entire plate while following at a reasonably 
safe distance."); People v. White, 
113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 584, 586 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2001) ("In using the phrase clearly visible' . 
. . it is apparent that the Legislature meant a license plate must not be 
obstructed in any manner and must be entirely readable."); State v. 
Hill, 2001 NMCA 94, 131 N.M. 195, 203, 34 P.3d 139, 147 (N.M. App. 2001) 
(license plate is not clearly legible when a trailer hitch obstructs part of the 
plate from some viewing angles); State v. Smail, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 
4599, at *7, 2000 WL 1468543, at *2 (Ohio Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2000) (the middle 
numbers of a license plate are not in "plain view" if obstructed by a ball hitch 
even though readable from the side of the vehicle); State v. McCue, 119 Wn. App. 1039, 2003 WL 22847338, at *3 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003) (a license plate is 
not plainly seen and readable if partially obscured by a trailer hitch and only 
fully visible at certain angles).  
We agree with the majority of jurisdictions that have considered this 
issue and determined that a trailer ball positioned so as to partially obstruct 
a license plate constitutes a violation of the respective license plate display 
statute.  The traffic stop in this 
case was justified based on an observed violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
31-2-205.

 
 

[¶16]     
Affirmed.