A. A motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer and pole trailer and any other vehicle that is being drawn at the end of a train of vehicles shall be equipped with at least one tail lamp mounted on the rear. When lighted as required by this article, each tail lamp shall emit a red light plainly visible from a distance of five hundred feet to the rear, except that in the case of a train of vehicles, only the tail lamp on the rearmost vehicle need actually be seen from the distance specified.
B. A tail lamp on a vehicle shall be located at a height of not more than seventy-two inches nor less than fifteen inches to be measured as provided in section 28-923, subsection B.
C. Either a tail lamp or a separate lamp shall be constructed and placed in a manner that illuminates with a white light the rear license plate and renders it clearly legible from a distance of fifty feet to the rear. A tail lamp or tail lamps together with any separate lamp for illuminating the rear license plate shall be wired to provide that the tail lamp or lamps are lighted whenever the head lamps or auxiliary driving lamps are lighted.
Notes of Decisions
State of Arizona v. Kyle Andrew Stoll, 370 P.3d 1130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 7× “The court found Stoll’s license plate lamp was functioning properly, and that it rendered the license plate visible from the rear of the vehicle as required by § 28-925(0. The court further found “[t]here was no evidence that the light created any public safety or community…”
State of Arizona v. Guillermo C. Becerra, 291 P.3d 994 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “” He argues a broken tail lamp does not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify an investigatory stop because the relevant statute regulating vehicle safety, A.R.S. § 28-925, requires only that one tail lamp function properly.”
State v. Womack, 847 P.2d 609 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “The officer then used his lights and siren and pursued the defendant. As soon as the officer activated his lights and siren, defendant's continued attempt to elude the officer constituted unlawful flight from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle, a class 5 felony pursuant to A.”
State v. Taylor, 408 P.2d 418 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965).
· cites it 2× “Within the auto he observed Darby, 18 years of age, and another young man not involved in this action.”
State v. Witzig (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 5× “§ 28-1594, police may stop and detain a 3 STATE v. WITZIG Decision of the Court person when reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected traffic violation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-925(A) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Guillermo C. Becerra, 291 P.3d 994 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“” He argues a broken tail lamp does not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify an investigatory stop because the relevant statute regulating vehicle safety, A.R.S. § 28-925, requires only that one tail lamp function properly.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-925(C) — 3 cases
State of Arizona v. Kyle Andrew Stoll, 370 P.3d 1130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“The court found Stoll’s license plate lamp was functioning properly, and that it rendered the license plate visible from the rear of the vehicle as required by § 28-925(0. The court further found “[t]here was no evidence that the light created any public safety or community…”
State v. Witzig (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“§ 28-1594, police may stop and detain a 3 STATE v. WITZIG Decision of the Court person when reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected traffic violation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.