State v. Tuma, 79 A.3d 883

On Nov. 13, 2011, officer observed Tuma driving with the front license plate tilted so the passenger-side edge was about one to two inches lower than the driver side.
Officer stopped the vehicle solely because he believed the plate was not "horizontal" in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 511.
After the stop the officer suspected DUI, administered field sobriety tests, and arrested Tuma; charges included DUI-2 and later amended to include DUI-3 and a refusal count.
Tuma moved to suppress evidence from the stop, arguing the plate was still "horizontal" and thus the stop lacked reasonable suspicion; the trial court granted suppression.
The State appealed the suppression order; the Supreme Court reviewed the purely legal question de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a plate one to two inches off on one side violates § 511's "horizontal" requirement such that an officer had reasonable suspicion to stop	The State: any measurable difference in level makes the plate non-"horizontal," justifying a stop	Tuma: a small tilt (one–two inches) is still "horizontal"; statute ambiguous and must be construed for defendant	The Court: "horizontal" means readable; a plate is non-horizontal when its angle makes it difficult for a person of normal vision to read; here the plate was legible, so the stop was unjustified

Martin v. State, 819 A.2d 742 (Vt. 2003) (discusses vehicle identification as purpose of license plates)
State v. Rice, 483 A.2d 248 (Vt. 1984) (courts avoid statutory constructions yielding absurd results)
State v. Lussier, 757 A.2d 1017 (Vt. 2000) (stop unjustified where State offered no proof plate numerals were not adequately illuminated)
State v. Hyland, 769 N.W.2d 781 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009) (plate hung at a steep angle not "fully upright" under that state’s statute)
Whirlpool Corp. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 423 F. Supp. 2d 730 (W.D. Mich. 2004) (dictionary definitions of "horizontal" do not conclusively resolve degree-based disputes)