2012 Ohio 1496
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Fredo was stopped by a trooper for an allegedly improper display of a permanent license plate in the rear window of his truck.
- The stop occurred after the trooper activated his take-down lights and observed the rear window plate.
- Ohio law, R.C. 4503.21(A), generally requires permanent plates to be displayed on the exterior front and rear of the vehicle, not in the rear window.
- Fredo challenged the stop, arguing the rear-window placement complied with the statute and that Chatton limited such detentions.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding the display violated R.C. 4503.21(A) and supported the stop.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that permanent plates must be on the exterior, and rear-window placement violated the statute, giving probable cause for the stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does rear-window placement of a permanent license plate violate R.C. 4503.21(A)? | Fredo: rear plate placement complied with statute; Chatton controls, limiting further detention. | State: rear-window placement violates statute; creates probable cause for stop. | Yes; rear-window placement violates statute; stop was supported by probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chatton, 11 Ohio St.3d 59 (1984) (temporary tag visibility limits detention when properly observed)
- State v. Phillips, 155 Ohio App.3d 149 (2003) (license plate on dashboard does not satisfy exterior-display requirement; probable cause for citation)
- Lakewood v. Shelton, 8th Dist. No. 95746 (2011) (license plates must be visible to law enforcement; placement issues affect stop legality)