Court Opinion

ID: 9626607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:19:12.341228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:30.921440
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment of the Court and join Judge Cochran’s concurring opinion. This is, as Judge Cochran notes, an uncommonly bad law. Because license plates frequently contribute to the investigation and resolution of crime, there is a legitimate basis for regulation of them, but not every regulation can be justified. The law requires that license plates be kept clean enough to read1 and must be illuminated at night2 because police rely on them to help establish the identity of the owner and to trace a car when its driver eludes detention. The legislature may properly bar the use of license-plate frames because that would ensure that the number and the issuing jurisdiction, not to mention the “doo-dads,” would then be fully visible. A law requiring that the license-plate number and the name of the issuing jurisdiction be unobstructed would be sufficient for the purpose of law enforcement. Being able to view “another original design feature of the plate” neither assists in identifying the vehicle nor advances the interest of the state in being able to do so. It could be argued that *390regulation of the display of a license plate based on that portion of the statute cannot be justified, and a stop only on the basis that the peace officer was unable to read the state motto might be on shaky ground.
In this case, the plate number was clearly visible, but half of “Texas” was obscured. The name of the issuing jurisdiction is critical to appropriate police needs and mandating a clear view of it is easily justified. On the facts of this case, I concur.

. Tex Transp. Code § 502.409(a)(5), (6).

. Tex Transp. Code § 547.322(f), (g).