Parks v. StateParks v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Burke
[T1] Appellant, Bradley Allen Parks, was charged with a third offense for possession of a controlled substance, a felony under
ISSUE
¶2] Mr. Parks presents the following issue:
Did the district court err in its interpretation of W.S. § 81-2-205 and its application to a search pursuant to a traffic stop andtherefore err in the denial of Appellant‘s motion to suppress evidence?
The State phrases the issue as follows:
Did the district court err in finding that Officer Ransom had probable cause to stop Appellant‘s vehicle for an timproper display of a license plate underWyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-2-2057
FACTS
¶8] On the afternoon of January 26, 2008, Officer Derek Ransom of the Mills Police Department was on traffic enforcement patrol on West Yellowstone Highway in Mills During his patrol, Officer Ransom observed an older model Chevrolet pickup driven by Mr. Parks. A trailer hitch ball was mounted in a predrilled hole in the truck‘s factory bumper so that the license plate was partially obstructed. Due to the obstruction, Officer Ransom was unable to read the lHeense plate. Officer Ransom followed the truck for a distance and activated his overhead lights just as, or shortly before, Mr. Parks approached his residence.
[T4] Mr. Parks exited the truck and Officer Ransom directed him to get back inside the vehicle for safety reasons. Officer Ransom, now standing by his own car door and close to the truck‘s rear license plate, called in the plate number to his dispatcher. He then approached the driver‘s side door of the truck and informed Mr. Parks that he had been stopped for an obscured license plate and that he needed to remove the trailer ball when he had his first chance to do so. As he was talking to Mr. Parks, Officer Ransom smelled the odor of burnt marijuana coming from inside the truck. After questioning by Officer Ransom, Mr. Parks surrendered a bag of marijuana and a pipe. Mr. Parks was eventually cited and released. After discovering that Mr. Parks had two prior drug possession convictions, the State dismissed the citation and charged Mr. Parks with a third offense for possession of a controlled substance, a felony under
¶5] Mr. Parks filed a motion to suppress, alleging that the officer‘s stop of his vehicle violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion. Mr. Parks subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge of possession of a controlled substance, and this appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶6] The applicable standard of review has been stated as follows:
When we review a district court‘s decision to deny motions to suppress, we defer to the district court‘s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroncous. Fertig v. State, 2006 WY 148, ¶ 8, 146 P.3d 492, 495 (Wyo.2006); O‘Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83, ¶ 18, 117 P.3d 401, 407 (Wyo.2005). “The evidence is viewed in a light favorable to the district court‘s determination, because that court had the opportunity to hear the evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses.” Hicks v. State, 2008 WY 83, ¶ 13, 187 P.3d 877, 880 (Wyo.2008). The issue of law-whether a search was unreasonable and in violation of constitutional rights-is reviewed de novo. Fertig, ¶ 8, 146 P.3d at 495; McChesney v. State, 988 P.2d 1071, 1074 (Wyo.1999).
Lovato v. State, 2010 WY 38, ¶ 11, 228 P.3d 55, 57-58 (Wyo.2010).
DISCUSSION
[¥7] The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.
¶8] Mr. Parks was stopped for a violation of
(a) License plates for vehicles shall be:
(i) Conspicuously displayed and securely fastened to be plainly visible:
[[Image here]]
(i) Secured to prevent swinging;
(Mii) Attached in a horizontal position no less than twelve (12) inches from the ground;
(iv) Maintained free from foreign materials and in a condition to be clearly legible.
¶9] A video of the traffic stop taken from Officer Ransom‘s patrol vehicle was also presented at the hearing. The district court was unable to determine from the video whether the trailer ball obscured Mr. Parks’ license plate. It found that “[the video quality is not sufficient to allow any definitive determination other than the numbers are not visible.” However, the district court found that “there‘s nothing to indicate to this Court that what [Officer Ransom] believed was an obscured number or plate is-is untrue.” The court noted that Officer Ransom could be heard on the video informing Mr. Parks that “[the reason I stopped you is because of your obscured plate in the back. The ball hitch there obscures the numbers, and I can‘t read it. You need to remove that when you get the first chanee okay?” Although the video of the traffic stop indicated that Mr. Parks also could have been stopped because he failed to use a turn signal and because his brake lights were inoperative, Officer Ransom stated that he did not recall noticing these violations. Due in part to Officer Ransom‘s honesty regarding the unobserved violations, and the fact that Officer Ransom‘s actions during the stop were consistent with his testimony, the court found. that “Officer Ransom‘s testimony was very credible.” The district court held that “there was probable cause to initiate [the] stop based upon the credible and uncontradicted testimony of Officer Ransom.”
¶10] Mr. Parks concedes that the évi-dence was sufficient to support the district court‘s factual determination that the license plate was obstructed. He contends, however, that a trailer hitch ball that partially blocks a license plate is not a violation of
[T11] In interpreting the license plate display statute, we apply our usual rules of statutory construction:
Statutory interpretation is a question of law. Our paramount consideration is the legislature‘s intent as reflected in the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute. Initially, we determine whether the statute is clear or ambiguous.
A statute is clear and unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able to agree on its meaning with consistency and predictability. - Conversely, a statute is ambiguous if it is found to. be vague or uncertain and subject to varying interpretations. If we determine that a statute is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to the plain language of the statute.
Sorensen v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 WY 101, ¶ 13, 234 P.3d 1233, 1237 (Wyo.2010).
¶T12] We find that the pertinent language of
fT13] Our holding is also consistent with our recent decision in Lovato, 228 P.3d 55. In that case, the appellant‘s license plate was obscured by a translucent plastic cover. The police officer stopped the appellant because he was unable to read the appellant‘s license plate number until he was very close behind his vehicle. The district court found that the cover violated the statute, providing justification for the stop. Id., 122, 228 P.3d at 60. On appeal, we found that “it is conceivable that in some angles of sunlight, the combination of glare and tinting could make the license plate harder to read.” Id., % 21, 228 P.3d at 60. We upheld the district court‘s decision that the stop was justified, despite the fact that the plate may have been visible from certain angles or positions. Id., 122, 228 P.3d at 60.
¶14] In support of his argument, Mr. Parks relies on Harris v. State, 11 So.3d 462 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2d Dist.2009), a Florida case in which the court found that a trailer hitch ball which partially blocked a license plate did not violate Florida‘s license plate display statute. However, that case is distinguishable. The relevant portion of
[A]ll letters, numerals, printing, writing, and other identification marks upon the plates regarding the word “Florida,” the registration decal, and the alphanumeric designation shall be clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.
Harris, 11 So.3d at 463 (emphasis omitted). The court found that the “plainly visible” language of the statute was not a stand-alone requirement but, rather, applied to “license plates [that were] obstructed by defacement, mutilation, grease, or ‘other obscuring matter)” Id. To interpret the statute as it applied to trailer hitches, the court used the doctrine of ejusdem generis. That doctrine provides that where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of things, the general words will be construed as applying only to things of the same general class as those enumerated. Id. The court then determined that “[mlatters external to the tag, such as trailer hitches, bicycle racks, handicap chairs, u-hauls, and the like are not covered by the statute” because they are not in the same class as the obscuring matter identified in the statute. Id. at 463-64. Wyoming‘s license plate display statute, however, is significantly different from the Florida statute. Under
[T15] In addition, the court in Harris noted that it was in the minority of jurisdictions finding that a trailer hitch ball which obstructs a license plate is not a traffic violation. Indeed, a number of jurisdictions have considered this issue and nearly all have determined that a trailer hitch that partially obstructs a license plate is a traffic violation. See, eg., Rubio-Sanchez, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21230, at “23, 2006 WL 1007252, at *5 (“A Heense plate is not clearly visible and
¶16] Affirmed.