I’ve tried to find a website or a book with the actual laws on license plates and placement in the State of Texas, but failed… I’ve NEVER had a front license plate, and almost nobody in my apartment complex does either. I was once told by a cop friend that you don’t have to have one on the fron as long as you have one in the back.
BUT - Out of nowhere this old fart cop pulls me over and treats me like a fucking drunk driver because I don’t have a front license plate. WTF? He gave me a “verbal warning.” Verbal warning my ass: He made up the law and didn’t want me to know.
Now, am I right or wrong? Anybody know any references I could check?
I had to hunt, but I found something on this. (It’s a PDF, so you won’t be able to read it without a reader.) It’s linked from this website as “New to Texas”.
Go to page 2, top left:
“Two license plates, one at the front and one at the rear, must be displayed on all passenger cars…”
I don’t live in Texas now, but I grew up there and my family still does. So far as I can recall, we always had to have two plates. I’ve heard some people complain that were only issued one plate - is this what happened to you?
I’ve never been to Texas, but I can’t believe that you’ve tried very hard. In California, I’ve been able to find a copy of the vehicle code at the DMV, in libraries and in bookstores. Or else I just call the DMV (like neuroman did.)
In California also, two license plates are required, one in front and one in back.
if you ever get one plate stolen then you are required to remove the back plate as well (after you report the plate stolen to police) having only one plate can actually put your car under suspecion of being stolen (at least in Texas) i am 99% sure of number 2, but need to check with my supervisor on that.
§ 502.404. Operation of Vehicle Without License Plate or Registration Insignia
(a) A person commits an offense if the person operates on a public highway during a registration period a passenger car or commercial motor vehicle that does not display two license plates, at the front and rear of the vehicle, that have been:
(1) assigned by the department for the period; or
(2) validated by a registration insignia issued by the department that establishes that the vehicle is registered for the period.
As for why the cop gave you a hard time, Texas has a particular set of wackos, variously called “sovereign citizens,” or freemen, who believe that the gummint has no right to require you to licence your car. Some of them just spout off, but there are concerns that some of them may be violent.
Timothy McVeigh, for example, would tell people that you don’t need to license your car. I recently read a news account of an old geezer who’s charged with shooting a Texas highway patrol man dead when the officer pulled him over for not having plates on his car.
So, it may be that cops have started treating the lack of plates as an indicator of potential trouble when they pull you over.
I’ve probably gotten new license plates for 10 to 15 vehicles since I’ve been in Texas. They always came in pairs. The second one isn’t to hang on your bedroom door.
Think about it. If I’m a bad guy with a red mustang (posibly stolen) and you happen to have a red mustang, I can take your front plate and put it on the back of my car. If I took both your plates you would be pulled over real quick and the advantage is lost. It is very difficult to spot missing front plates unless you are pulled over for something else, so the plates don’t end up reported missing for a good while.
How does the cop know for sure whether the plate belongs on your car or you are the bad guy and stole the plate off of a simular car?
JimB, thats simple…
Of all the times I’ve ever been pulled over, I’ve NEVER been asked for my registration. Why? Because the cop calls in my plate number before he even hits his blue lights and therefore he knows who the car is registered to and he knows it it has been reported stolen…etc. When he sees my liscense he knows the car is registered to me. I hope this answers what you were asking.
Cisco, in Texas you aren’t required to even carry your registration in your car. So if you borrow my car and are pulled over, they know it belongs to me, but they don’t know what you are doing in it. If you are the owner and the driver, then there isn’t much reason to worry. However, there is still a legitimate reason to require that both the plates that were issued are on the same car.
What I was getting at was, that if I put a license plate from a non-stolen car on a stolen car then even if they run the license check, it doesn’t come back as a stolen car and therefore, all I have to do is say I borrowed the car from a buddy and I drive away.
If I steal both plates, then the plates will be reported as stolen very quickly and a routine check will get me sent to jail. So, cars with single plates are definately suspicious beside being illegal.
When I lived in Bellaire, a small city surrounded by Houston, I was on a jury in traffic court for someone charged with having only one license plate.
Enforcement of the law is very selective. The Bellaire police are very strict with non-residents. I lived there over 5 years, just had one license plate, and was never bothered.
Widely ignored laws like this are pernicous. What they do is defeat the idea of the cops having to have cause to pull somebody over. Since everybody is technically breaking the law, they have “cause” on anybody they select.
WHY does Texas wind up sending out only one plate to a lot of people, if the law states that you are supposed to have two? That sounds really flaky. Of course, I’ve dealt with motor vehicles departments in four states, now, and they all had oddities - CA is legendarily horrid, CO had some of the stupidest procedures I’ve ever seen, PA and MT were a tad better, merely annoying instead of infuriating.
Anyone know, offhand, why some states require a front and rear plate and some only a rear plate? I would imagine that at least part of the reasoning behind having two is to be able to check registration/stolen-status/etc from in front of or behind the car or to be able to compare/match front and rear plates to check for theft. If this is the case, why not make it mandatory for every state to require front and rear plates?
I believe the argument would be that a rear plate suffices, since nobody backs away from the scene of a crime, and in circumstances involving stationary cars you can walk around and look at the back. Therefore, it saves the state the expense of manufacturing twice as many plates.
Not a completely valid argument of course, and in such states, every time there’s a hit-and-run where witnesses got a clear view of the front end of the car, but no chance to see the back, there is obviously pressure to issue a front plate.
On the other hand, it provides all sorts of promotional opportunity for organizations wishing to fill your empty front plate holder.
It isn’t uniformly mandated because, like a lot of things, it’s within the individual state’s regulatory scope. The Feds could pull the “we’ll withhold highway funds if you don’t” game, I suppose, but they probably don’t feel it’s a big enough issue to warrant it.
>I recently read a news account of an old geezer who’s charged with shooting a Texas highway patrol man dead when the officer pulled him over for not having plates on his car.
Sounds fair. I guess that guy won’t be inconveniencing any more motorists!