“Ehh...they serve a purpose for sure. Ties the vehicle to someone...and to a specific vehicle and its vin number, thus showing whether the tag or the car is stolen.”
And if the plate is automatically run and comes back as not matching the vehicle? Which was the case in this instance.
Wouldn’t the stop then be justified? That was my entire point in this debate, the plate came back as not matching.
Agreed. But why was the tag run in the first place? I don’t run plates unless I am going to stop it for some other reason. I would have to have SOMETHING amiss about the vehicle to just run the tag. Common sense should be the rule here. If the vehicle is older, kinda ratty...it wouldn’t be unusual to have it painted a different color. A newer vehicle usually isn’t painted a totally different color, but it is possible. My point? I would look closer at it, maybe find another reason to stop the car. My 2cents
Your interpretation of the situation says that a paint color mismatch (the models being the same between registration and vehicle) is probable cause for investigating a possible stolen plate. The court determined that a color mismatch, where the vehicle make and model match is NOT probable cause.
The issue is this: What causes are more common for a registration/vehicle color mismatch (without make/model differences)?
1. Stolen plate
2. Clerical error
3. Painting the car
These 3 are off the top of my head. There was a poster above who cited that the factory named his car’s color “green”, the state registered it as “green”, and yet it mostly looks silver.
The court stated specifically that the color/registration mismatch, by itself, is insufficient to make a stop. That is because there are too many ways for the registration to be wrong, or for the color to have been modified, neither of which are infractions on part of the owner/driver.
If the make/model and color are wrong - then that is probable cause. More than one item incorrect, including the basic information that forms the substance of the registration.
Needless to say, I disagree with your point of view. You are essentially asserting the exact opposite of the finding, and doing so in an area that is rife with legal reasons for a mismatch.