summitdog
Motorcycle Lawyer
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2003
- Location
- San Jose
- Moto(s)
- GSXR 50, GSXR 400, CBR 400, VFR 400, GS 750, Honda XL600V (Transalp), KTM 950 Super Enduro
- Name
- Scotty
In a case of first impression (meaning that no court had ever decided the issue), an appellate court in San Diego ruled that having one's license plate upside-down DOES violate Vehicle Code 5201.
The court wrote in relelvant sections:
The statute imposes three requirements -- that the plate be securely fastened to prevent swinging, that it be clearly visible, and that it be clearly legible. In denying Duncan's motion to suppress, the trial court ruled that an upside down license plate is not clearly legible. We agree.
The words "clearly legible" are unambiguous. "Clearly" means "without
equivocation; decidedly[.]" (Random House Unabridged Dict. (2d ed. 1993) p. 384.) "Clearly suggests without doubt or obscurity[.]" (Ibid.) The term has also been defined as "free from obscurity . . . unmistakable . . . unhampered by restriction or limitation." (People v. White (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1026, quoting Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dict. (1987) p. 247.) "Legible" is defined as "capable of being read or deciphered, esp. with ease . . . easily readable." (Random House Unabridged Dict. (2d 7 ed. 1993) p. 1099.) It is evident that the Legislature, in using the phrase "clearly legible," intended for the information on a license plate to be read with ease and without doubt or
mistake. Therefore, we conclude it would be a violation of the statute to mount the license plate upside down, which would make the plate more difficult or confusing to read. As the trial court noted, "There are people who can read things upside down, but you have to look at it for quite a while." The court properly found that Duncan's license plate violated section 5201.
This is clearly what is known as a "verdict driven decision". That is to say, the justices knew the outcome they wanted but just had to find a way to get there. The driver was found to have meth in the car. They justification the court gave: A 1993 EDITION OF RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY!!!
Clearly the justices have never heard of the OED.
Keep in mind that this judgment is not binding on courts in other jurisdictions but they can certainly use the judgment to "give them direction."
Scotty
ps
full text can be found at:http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D050458.PDF
The court wrote in relelvant sections:
The statute imposes three requirements -- that the plate be securely fastened to prevent swinging, that it be clearly visible, and that it be clearly legible. In denying Duncan's motion to suppress, the trial court ruled that an upside down license plate is not clearly legible. We agree.
The words "clearly legible" are unambiguous. "Clearly" means "without
equivocation; decidedly[.]" (Random House Unabridged Dict. (2d ed. 1993) p. 384.) "Clearly suggests without doubt or obscurity[.]" (Ibid.) The term has also been defined as "free from obscurity . . . unmistakable . . . unhampered by restriction or limitation." (People v. White (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1026, quoting Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dict. (1987) p. 247.) "Legible" is defined as "capable of being read or deciphered, esp. with ease . . . easily readable." (Random House Unabridged Dict. (2d 7 ed. 1993) p. 1099.) It is evident that the Legislature, in using the phrase "clearly legible," intended for the information on a license plate to be read with ease and without doubt or
mistake. Therefore, we conclude it would be a violation of the statute to mount the license plate upside down, which would make the plate more difficult or confusing to read. As the trial court noted, "There are people who can read things upside down, but you have to look at it for quite a while." The court properly found that Duncan's license plate violated section 5201.
This is clearly what is known as a "verdict driven decision". That is to say, the justices knew the outcome they wanted but just had to find a way to get there. The driver was found to have meth in the car. They justification the court gave: A 1993 EDITION OF RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY!!!
Clearly the justices have never heard of the OED.

Keep in mind that this judgment is not binding on courts in other jurisdictions but they can certainly use the judgment to "give them direction."
Scotty
ps
full text can be found at:http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D050458.PDF
Last edited:

