Court Opinion

ID: 9724145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:46:36.303774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:56.824696
License: Public Domain

FINE, J.
{concurring). I fully join in the majority opinion, but write separately to express what I believe is the nub of this case.
With exceptions not material here, § 341.04(1), STATS., prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle that is either unregistered or for which a registration application has not been filed. There are only four ways of showing compliance: 1) the display of metal registration plates issued by the Department of Transportation, see § 341.15, Stats.; 2) producing the certificate of registration, see § 341.11, Stats.; 3) producing proof that the application for registration has been filed, see §§ 341.04(1) & 341.08, STATS.; or 4) displaying temporary plates issued by the Department of Transportation, see § 341.09, Stats. As the majority points out, cards issued by the dealer (as opposed to temporary-operation plates issued by the Department of Transportation to dealers for sale to customers, see § 341.09(2m), Stats.) is not one of these ways. The reason is clear: such cards and their hand-made versions are easy to duplicate or counterfeit, and are undated. *335Significantly, the temporary plates issued under § 341.09 must ’’identify the vehicle for which and the person to whom it is issued," and have an expiration date. Section 341.09(1), STATS.
This was no random stop appropriately condemned by Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979). Rather, it was reasonable for the officers to stop Griffin's car to see if, in fact, he had taken the steps necessary to register his van; there was no way for them to ascertain that fact short of a stop because Griffin's van did not display either registration plates or state-issued temporary plates. To declare the officers' good police work here illegal would permit persons to drive unregistered vehicles with impunity.