Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 61. MOTOR VEHICLES · CHAPTER 9. VEHICLE EQUIPMENT · Part 2. Lighting Equipment
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 61-9-204 (2026)

Taillamps -- Definition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 61
  3. CHAPTER 9
  4. Part 2
  5. 61-9-204 Taillamps -- definition

TITLE 61. MOTOR VEHICLES

CHAPTER 9. VEHICLE EQUIPMENT

Part 2. Lighting Equipment

Taillamps -- Definition

61-9-204. Taillamps -- definition. (1) A motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, and pole trailer and any other vehicle that is being drawn at the end of a combination of vehicles must be equipped with at least one properly functioning taillamp mounted on the rear that emits a red light plainly visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear, except that in the case of a combination of vehicles, only the taillamp on the rearmost vehicle need actually be seen from the distance specified. The vehicles mentioned in this subsection, other than a motorcycle, quadricycle, motor-driven cycle, or truck tractor, registered in this state and manufactured or assembled after January 1, 1956, must be equipped with at least two properly functioning taillamps, with at least one mounted on each side of the rear of the vehicle, that emit a red light plainly visible from a distance of 1,000 feet to the rear of the vehicle.

(2) A taillamp upon a vehicle must be located at a height of not more than 72 inches or less than 15 inches.

(3) Either a taillamp or a separate lamp must illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate and render it clearly legible from a distance of 50 feet to the rear. A taillamp or taillamps, together with a separate lamp for illuminating the rear registration plate, must be lighted whenever the headlamps are lighted.

(4) Taillamps are not required on a motorcycle that is registered under 61-3-411 as a collector's item, but the motorcycle may not be operated on a highway or street from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise or when persons and vehicles are not clearly discernible at a distance of 500 feet unless it is equipped with the required taillamps.

(5) A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway with taillamps that are covered by a lens or a plastic cover or with a tinted or colored material, substance, system, or component placed on or in front of rear lamps, taillamps, license plate lamps, or rear lamp combinations that obscures the taillamps or diminishes the distance of visibility required by this section.

(6) A custom vehicle or street rod may use a blue dot taillight as a stop lamp, a rear signal lamp, or a rear reflector. As used in this subsection, "blue dot taillight" means a red lamp installed in the rear of a motor vehicle containing a blue or purple insert that is not more than 1 inch in diameter.

History: En. Sec. 115, Ch. 263, L. 1955; R.C.M. 1947, 32-21-118; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 42, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 345, L. 1983; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 58, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 431, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 458, L. 2005; amd. Sec. 25, Ch. 413, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 46, Ch. 47, L. 2025.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1981–2018 · leading case: State v. Kaufman, 2002 MT 294 (Mont. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kaufman, 2002 MT 294 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 16× “A malfunction in the lighting system would justify stopping the vehicle for a violation of §§ 61-9-204 and 206, MCA. When Toth signaled the Appellants to pull over and discovered that the taillamps and stop lamps of the Appellants’ car actually functioned properly, the court…”
State v. K. Massey, 2016 MT 316 (Mont. 2016). · cites it 12× “” Section 61-9-204(1), MCA. Thus, there are two ways the statute may be violated: by covering the tail lights in a manner that (1) obscures the tail lamps, or (2) diminishes the tail lamps such that they are not “plainly visible” at 1,000 feet.”
State v. S. Hoover, 2017 MT 236 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 4× “¶27 In Kaufman, after observing a vehicle with unequal tail light brightness at night on Interstate 90, a sheriff’s deputy stopped the vehicle on suspicion of violation of 17 § 61-9-204(1), MCA (requirement for two properly functioning tail lights).”
Gunnels v. Hoyt, 633 P.2d 1187 (Mont. 1981). · cites it 6× “1947, now section 61-9-204, MCA, as the jury instructed, provides in pertinent part: “Every motor vehicle .”
State v. Logan, 2002 MT 206 (Mont. 2002). “BACKGROUND ¶3 On the evening of November 8, 1998, Billings, Montana, police officer Jason Sery made a traffic stop of a white Camaro for failure to have the rear license plate illuminated-a misdemeanor under §§ 61-9-204(3) and 61-9-511, MCA. Sery recognized the driver of the…”
State v. M. Bennick, 2018 MT 47N (Mont. 2018). · cites it 7× “¶8 Section 61-9-204(3), MCA, requires vehicles to have a light that renders the license plate clearly legible from a distance of fifty feet.”
State v. Kaufman, 2002 MT 294 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 8× “A malfunction in the lighting system would justify stopping the vehicle for a violation of §§ 61-9-204 and 206, MCA. When Toth signaled the Appellants to pull over and discovered that the taillamps and stop lamps of the Appellants’ car actually functioned properly, the court…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 61-9-204(1): 4 cases
State v. Kaufman, 2002 MT 294 (Mont. 2002). “A malfunction in the lighting system would justify stopping the vehicle for a violation of §§ 61-9-204 and 206, MCA. When Toth signaled the Appellants to pull over and discovered that the taillamps and stop lamps of the Appellants’ car actually functioned properly, the court…”
State v. S. Hoover, 2017 MT 236 (Mont. 2017). “¶27 In Kaufman, after observing a vehicle with unequal tail light brightness at night on Interstate 90, a sheriff’s deputy stopped the vehicle on suspicion of violation of 17 § 61-9-204(1), MCA (requirement for two properly functioning tail lights).”
State v. K. Massey, 2016 MT 316 (Mont. 2016). “” Section 61-9-204(1), MCA. Thus, there are two ways the statute may be violated: by covering the tail lights in a manner that (1) obscures the tail lamps, or (2) diminishes the tail lamps such that they are not “plainly visible” at 1,000 feet.”
State v. Kaufman, 2002 MT 294 (Mont. 2002). “A malfunction in the lighting system would justify stopping the vehicle for a violation of §§ 61-9-204 and 206, MCA. When Toth signaled the Appellants to pull over and discovered that the taillamps and stop lamps of the Appellants’ car actually functioned properly, the court…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 61-9-204(3): 2 cases
State v. Logan, 2002 MT 206 (Mont. 2002). “BACKGROUND ¶3 On the evening of November 8, 1998, Billings, Montana, police officer Jason Sery made a traffic stop of a white Camaro for failure to have the rear license plate illuminated-a misdemeanor under §§ 61-9-204(3) and 61-9-511, MCA. Sery recognized the driver of the…”
State v. M. Bennick, 2018 MT 47N (Mont. 2018). “¶8 Section 61-9-204(3), MCA, requires vehicles to have a light that renders the license plate clearly legible from a distance of fifty feet.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 61-9-204(5): 2 cases
State v. K. Massey, 2016 MT 316 (Mont. 2016). “” Section 61-9-204(1), MCA. Thus, there are two ways the statute may be violated: by covering the tail lights in a manner that (1) obscures the tail lamps, or (2) diminishes the tail lamps such that they are not “plainly visible” at 1,000 feet.”
State v. M. Bennick, 2018 MT 47N (Mont. 2018). “¶8 Section 61-9-204(3), MCA, requires vehicles to have a light that renders the license plate clearly legible from a distance of fifty feet.”
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.