People v. White, E029989.
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | McKinster |
| Citation | 93 Cal.App.4th 1022,113 Cal.Rptr.2d 584 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Paul Mortimer WHITE, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. E029989.,E029989. |
| Decision Date | 15 November 2001 |
v.
Paul Mortimer WHITE, Defendant and Respondent.
[93 Cal.App.4th 1023]
John Roth, Public Defender and Michael Kennedy, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant and Respondent.
Dennis Stout, District Attorney, Mark Vos, Lead Deputy District Attorney and Lyvia Liu, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
McKINSTER, J.
The issue in this case is whether a license plate that is partially obscured by a
trailer hitch ball violates Vehicle Code section 5201,
which in pertinent part requires that license plates be mounted so as to be "clearly visible," and thus establishes a constitutional basis for a law enforcement officer to stop the vehicle. The issue arises in the context of a suppression motion that the trial court granted based on the trial court's view that the stop was unlawful. Because all evidence against defendant was suppressed, the trial court also dismissed the various misdemeanor charges that had been filed against him.1 The Appellate Division of San Bernardino Superior Court (hereafter, Superior Court) held that the stop was lawful, and reversed the trial judge. On our own motion, in accordance with rule 62(a) and (b) of the California Rules of Court, we ordered transfer of this case from the Superior Court. We conclude that the stop was lawful and, therefore, we will reverse the trial court.
On October 12, 2000, San Bernardino County Sheriffs Deputy Brandon Wiebeld stopped defendant's pickup truck after noticing that a trailer hitch or tow ball on the truck's rear bumper blocked the deputy's view of the middle numeral of the rear license plate. Deputy Wiebald testified that he believed the tow ball's position violated Vehicle Code section 5201 which requires that license plates be clearly visible. On cross-examination, defendant had Deputy Wiebald identify two photographs that depicted the rear view of defendant's truck. In one photo, taken from directly behind the vehicle, the trailer hitch ball obscures the lower half of the middle numeral on the rear license plate. Nevertheless, the trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress and in doing so stated, "I have had similar cases like this before and I know that the appellate ... department of the court here in San Bernardino County has ruled that in situations such as this, the two [sic ] bar [presumably "tow" bar] isn't an obstruction as defined by ... 5201 of the Vehicle Code. They seem to feel that the section deals with a situation in which there's dirt or grit or grime or material on the license plate that completely obliterates it, and that a two bar—a tow ball is normally positioned in such a way that one could look around and see it and it is not within the clear definition of that section, and I have gone through motions like this before in the past, and based upon that, I'm going to grant the motion [to suppress]."
Contrary to the trial judge's understanding of the appellate division's view regarding trailer hitch balls, the Superior Court appellate division...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. $45,000.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 13–1073.
...statutory language indicated the legislature intended “the view of the license plate be entirely unobstructed.” People v. White, 93 Cal.App.4th 1022, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 584, 586 (2001) (emphasis added). The court determined the legislature, by using the unambiguous phrase “clearly visible,” “m......
-
People v. Lamont, No. G032369.
...to determine whether the challenged seizure meets constitutional standards of reasonableness.'" (People v. White (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1025, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 584.) "Pursuant to article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, a trial court may exclude evidence under Pen......
-
U.S. v. Cardenas-Alatorre, No. 06-2101.
...438 F.3d 1043, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006); United States v. Ledesma, 447 F.3d 1307, 1313 (10th Cir.2006). See also People v. White, 93 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1025-26, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 584 (2001) (noting "that the Legislature meant a license plate must not be obstructed in any manner and must be e......
-
People v. Gaytan, No. 4–12–0217.
...obscured by a trailer hitch” violates section 3–413(b), because the plate is not “clearly visible.” The State cites People v. White, 93 Cal.App.4th 1022, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 584 (2001), and [372 Ill.Dec. 481] [992 N.E.2d 20]Parks v. State, 2011 WY 19, 247 P.3d 857 (Wyo.2011), for the propositio......
-
United States v. $45,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 13–1073.
...statutory language indicated the legislature intended “the view of the license plate be entirely unobstructed.” People v. White, 93 Cal.App.4th 1022, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 584, 586 (2001) (emphasis added). The court determined the legislature, by using the unambiguous phrase “clearly visible,” “m......
-
People v. Lamont, G032369.
...independently to determine whether the challenged seizure meets constitutional standards of reasonableness.'" (People v. White (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1025, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 584.) "Pursuant to article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, a trial court may exclude evidence under......
-
U.S. v. Cardenas-Alatorre, 06-2101.
...438 F.3d 1043, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006); United States v. Ledesma, 447 F.3d 1307, 1313 (10th Cir.2006). See also People v. White, 93 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1025-26, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 584 (2001) (noting "that the Legislature meant a license plate must not be obstructed in any manner and must be entire......
-
People v. Gaytan, 4–12–0217.
...obscured by a trailer hitch” violates section 3–413(b), because the plate is not “clearly visible.” The State cites People v. White, 93 Cal.App.4th 1022, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 584 (2001), and [372 Ill.Dec. 481] [992 N.E.2d 20]Parks v. State, 2011 WY 19, 247 P.3d 857 (Wyo.2011), for the propositio......