O.C.G.A.
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.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person who shall willfully mutilate, obliterate, deface, alter, change, or conceal any numeral, letter, character, county designation, or other marking of any license plate issued under the motor vehicle registration laws of this state; who shall knowingly operate a vehicle bearing a license plate on which any numeral, letter, character, county designation, or other marking has been willfully mutilated, obliterated, defaced, altered, changed, or concealed; or who shall knowingly operate a vehicle bearing a license plate issued for another vehicle and not properly transferred as provided by law shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
REGISTRATION/LICENSING OF MOTOR VEH.
History
Code 1933, § 68-9929, enacted by Ga. L. 1957, p. 626, § 1; Ga. L. 1985, p. 149, § 40; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 2; Ga. L. 1991, p. 1145, § 1; Ga. L. 1997, p. 419, § 2.
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 Traffic stop based on suspicion of license plate violation. - Trial court did not err in denying motions to supress filed by the two defendants because the officer: (1) had a reasonable and sufficient basis for initiating a traffic stop of the car the defendants were traveling in based on a belief that the license plate on the subject vehicle might have belonged on another car, and hence, was illegally
transferred; and (2) did not improperly prolong the stop once the defendants told conflicting stories of the defendants’ travels and one declined to grant the officer consent to search. Andrews v. State, 289 Ga. App. 679, 658 S.E.2d 126, 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 103 (2008), cert. denied, No. S08C0963, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 507 (Ga. June 2, 2008).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 257. 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, §§ 1, 5, 19, 26 et seq. C.J.S. 61A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 1636 et seq. ALR. Civil rights and liabilities as affected by
failure to comply with regulations as to registration of automobile or motorcycle, or licensing of operator, 54 A.L.R. 374. 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
16
cases, 1998–2018 · leading case:
Thompson v. State, 658 S.E.2d 122 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
Thompson v. State, 658 S.E.2d 122 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 8× “violation of OCGA § 40-2-6. 4 In Cunningham v. State, 5 we concluded that a police officer was authorized to stop a vehicle based upon a violation of OCGA § 40-2-6.”
State v. Dixson, 633 S.E.2d 636 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “We expressly held that "the potential violation of OCGA § 40-2-6 supported the stop of the vehicle.”
Cunningham v. State, 498 S.E.2d 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “That being a violation of law, OCGA § 40-2-6, the officer conducted a traffic stop.”
Humphreys v. State, 696 S.E.2d 400 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “We expressly held that “the potential violation of OCGA § 40-2-6 supported the stop of the vehicle.”
Hernandez-Lopez v. State, 738 S.E.2d 116 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “270, 274 (3) (a) ( 537 SE2d 723 ) (2000) (holding that stop was justified when officer testified that “he checked the vehicle’s license tag prior to stopping it and determined that the tag belonged to a pickup truck” because “the potential violation of OCGA § 40-2-6 supported…”
Self v. State, 537 S.E.2d 723 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Therefore, the potential violation of OCGA § 40-2-6 supported the stop of the vehicle.”
Bailey v. State, 641 S.E.2d 548 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “” 9 Bailey also argues that there was no basis for Trooper Kilgallen to stop him for the tag violation because, even though the frame around his license plate partially obscured the registration stickers, *368 this did not constitute a violation of OCGA § 40-2-6, Alteration of…”
Schweitzer v. State, 738 S.E.2d 669 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 40-2-6. See Taylor v. State, 228 Ga.”
Sawyer v. City of Atlanta, 571 S.E.2d 146 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Sawyer was found guilty of the offenses of operating a vehicle without a valid tag, a violation of OCGA § 40-2-8; no proof of insurance, a violation of OCGA § 40-6-10; and alteration of a Georgia license plate, a violation of OCGA § 40-2-6. On March 21, 2001, acting pro se,…”
Rodriguez v. State, 746 S.E.2d 366 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “270, 274 (3) ( 537 SE2d 723 ) (2000) (holding that a vehicle stop was justified when an officer testified that ‘he checked [a car’s] license tag prior to stopping it and determined that the tag belonged to a pickup truck” because “the potential violation of OCGA § 40-2-6…”
Garcia v. State, 667 S.E.2d 205 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “5 OCGA § 40-2-6. 6 (Citation and punctuation omitted.”
Dodds v. State, 653 S.E.2d 828 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “2 See OCGA § 40-2-6 (prohibiting operation of a motor vehicle with any license plate marking concealed).”
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.