O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 40-2-41 (2019)

Display of license plates

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Unless otherwise permitted under this chapter, every vehicle required to be registered under this chapter, which is in use upon the highways, shall at all times display the license plate issued to the owner for such vehicle, and the plate shall be fastened to the rear of the vehicle in a position so as not to swing and shall be at all times plainly visible. No person shall display on the rear of a motor vehicle any temporary or permanent plate or tag not issued by the State of Georgia which is intended to resemble a license plate which is issued by the State of Georgia. The commissioner is authorized to adopt rules and regulations so as to permit the display of a license plate on the front of certain vehicles. It shall be the duty of the operator of any vehicle to keep the license plate legible at all times. No license plate shall be covered with any material unless the material is colorless and transparent. No apparatus that obstructs or hinders the clear display and legibility of a license plate shall be attached to the rear of any motor vehicle required to be registered in the state. Any person who violates any provision of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

History

Ga. L. 1927, p. 226, § 8; Code 1933, § 68215; Ga. L. 1977, p. 596, § 1; Code 1981, § 40-2-38; Ga. L. 1982, p. 1584, §§ 3, 6; Code 1981, § 40-2-41, as redesignated by Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 2; Ga. L. 1991, p. 779, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 6, § 40; Ga. L. 1997, p. 419, § 10; Ga. L. 2000, p. 523, § 3. Administrative rules and regulations. Display of Tags, Official Compilation of

the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Rules of Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division, Rule 560-10-10-.01 et seq.

Annotations

Law reviews. For article commenting on the 1997 amendment of this Code section, see 14 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 215 (1997).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1910,

§ 1770(28) are included in the annotations for this Code section. Constitutionality. - Former Code

MOTOR VEHICLES & TRAFFIC

1910, § 1770 was not open to attack on the ground that the statute was not one of the subjects included in the Governor’s proclamation convening the legislature in extraordinary session. Lee v. State, 163 Ga. 239, 135 S.E. 912, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 53 (1926) (decided under former Code 1910, § 1770 (28)). License plate covering. - There was clear evidence of a violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-2-41 since the defendant’s license plate was heavily obscured by a smoky covering. Knight v. State, 234 Ga. App. 359, 506 S.E.2d 245, 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 1191 (1998), cert. denied, No. S99C0067, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 66 (Ga. Jan. 15, 1999). Trial court erred in granting the suppression motions filed by both the first and second defendant, who occupied the vehicle stopped, as a violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-2-41 provided a sufficient reason for the traffic stop; moreover, the trial court erred in ruling that some portions of O.C.G.A. § 40-2-41 did not apply to the out-of-state license plate on the subject vehicle and by ruling that even though the word “Carolina” on the license plate was not legible, and hence, there was no violation of the statute because the police officer testified about an inability to

recognize the tag as a South Carolina license plate. State v. Davis, 283 Ga. App. 200, 641 S.E.2d 205, 2007 Ga. App. LEXIS 11 (2007), cert. denied, No. S07C0707, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 322 (Ga. Apr. 24, 2007), cert. denied, No. S07C0706, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 323 (Ga. Apr. 24, 2007). Stop of vehicle justified by obscured plate. - Although the defendant’s car had license plates from South Carolina, a state trooper was still justified in making a stop of the defendant’s car because the visibility and display portions of O.C.G.A. § 40-2-41 were applicable to all vehicles, and the defendant’s license plate had a bracket around the plate that blocked the view of the registration expiration date. Wilson v. State, 306 Ga. App. 286, 702 S.E.2d 2, 2010 Ga. App. LEXIS 853 (2010). Obstruction of one number on the defendant’s license plate by the ball of a trailer hitch violated O.C.G.A. § 40-2-41 as the officer testified that the officer was unable to read the entire license plate and the video from the officer’s car showed the hitch concealing at least one number. Worlds v. State, 328 Ga. App. 827, 762 S.E.2d 829, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 581 (2014).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL For an update of crimes and offenses for which the Georgia Crime Information Center is authorized to

collect and file identifying data, see 1991 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 91-35.

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 283, 284, 285. ALR. Validity and construction of statute

making it a criminal offense to “tamper” with motor vehicle or contents, or to obscure registration plates, 57 A.L.R.3d 606.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: State v. Aguirre, 494 S.E.2d 576 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Aguirre, 494 S.E.2d 576 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 20× “Although there was some testimony by the deputy suggesting that a clear plastic cover over the tag partially obscured it, the evidence as a whole would support a finding that the plastic cover had no adverse effect on the legibility of the tag.”
State v. Davis, 641 S.E.2d 205 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “Evidence at the suppression hearing showed that the officer had a valid basis to stop the vehicle driven by Smith because the officer observed that the vehicle’s South Carolina license plate was partially obscured by a license plate cover, and that the word “Carolina” was not…”
Wilson v. State, 702 S.E.2d 2 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “At about mile marker 117 or 118, Malone pulled Wilson over based on the alleged violation of OCGA § 40-2-41. Under OCGA § 40-2-41, the license tag for “every vehicle required to be registered under this chapter” shall be plainly visible.”
Nelson v. State, 544 S.E.2d 189 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “” 2 The officer testified that he stopped Nelson for violating *456 OCGA § 40-2-41 which provides in pertinent part that [i]t shall be the duty of the operator of any vehicle to keep the license plate legible at all times.”
Gonzales v. State, 564 S.E.2d 552 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “Sheriff’s Deputy Chad Payne stopped Hernandez because her Georgia license plate was partially obscured, in violation of OCGA § 40-2-41. 1 Payne asked Hernandez for her driver’s license and proof of insurance and then asked Gonzales for identification.”
State v. Dixson, 633 S.E.2d 636 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 40-2-41. In Self v. State, 245 Ga.”
State v. Long, 689 S.E.2d 369 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “The police officer initiated a traffic stop of the Toyota based on OCGA § 40-2-41, which provides that “[n]o apparatus that obstructs or hinders the clear display and legibility of a license plate shall be attached to the rear of any motor vehicle required to be registered in…”
State v. Williams, 590 S.E.2d 151 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “1 It is undisputed that Officer Spriggs made a valid traffic stop *202 based on his observation that the vehicle had an improperly displayed tag in violation of OCGA § 40-2-41. Under Terry , an officer’s actions taken during a valid traffic stop must be reasonably related in…”
Thompson v. State, 569 S.E.2d 884 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “24 OCGA § 40-2-41 requires that any vehicle being driven upon the highway display a license plate, and that the plate “shall be fastened to the rear of the vehicle” and “shall be at all times plainly visible.”
Worlds v. the State, 762 S.E.2d 829 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 10× “We granted Teresa Worlds’ interlocutory application in this case to determine whether a trailer hitch ball installed on the bumper of a vehicle in front of the rear license plate “obstructs or hinders the clear display and legibility of a license plate” within the meaning of…”
United States v. Kenny Eugene Smart, 393 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2005). “Ga.Code Ann. § 40-2-41. Officer Nicolino proceeded to the Explorer and asked the defendant for identification, whereupon he recognized the name of the defendant as that of a suspect in a recent shooting.”
Edwards v. State, 464 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Because the initial stop was based on a violation of OCGA § 40-2-41, as well as a need to determine whether the driver was under the influence, the stop was valid.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
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.