State v. Natalie S. Lozano, 2024AP1540-CR & 2024AP1541-CR, 4/9/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another appeal hinging on the requirement that a license plate be “legible,” COA affirms based on its deference to the circuit court’s factual findings.
Lozano appeals an order denying her motion to suppress and renews her arguments that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop. (¶1). At the suppression hearing, the officer testified that he stopped Lozano because her license plate was illegible in two respects: (1) two of the digits had been rubbed down to the bare metal and (2) a bracket around the license plate obscured the fact that the vehicle was registered as a truck. (¶2). Under the totality of the circumstances, the court concluded the officer had reasonable suspicion to seize Lozano for a violation of § 341.14(2). (¶3).
The problem for Lozano is that the court found the officer to be credible, and Lozano does not challenge that credibility finding on appeal. (¶9). Moreover, evidence in the record supports the court’s factual finding that the plate was, in fact, illegible. (Id.).
Lozano counters, however, by asserting that she did not technically violate the traffic code. (¶12). COA rejects that argument under the plain text of the statute, which reads:
Registration plates shall be attached firmly and rigidly in a horizontal position and conspicuous place. The plates shall at all times be maintained in a legible condition and shall be so displayed that they can be readily and distinctly seen and read. Any peace officer may require the operator of any vehicle on which plates are not properly displayed to display such plates as required by this section.
Here, Lozano violated the statute because, based on the officer’s uncontradicted testimony, her plate could not be “readily and distinctly seen and read.” (¶15). Accordingly, COA affirms.
