(A) Every motor vehicle, trackless trolley, trailer, semitrailer, pole trailer, or vehicle which is being drawn at the end of a train of vehicles shall be equipped with at least one tail light mounted on the rear which, when lighted, shall emit a red light visible from a distance of five hundred feet to the rear, provided that in the case of a train of vehicles only the tail light on the rearmost vehicle need be visible from the distance specified.
Either a tail light or a separate light shall be so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate, when such registration plate is required, and render it legible from a distance of fifty feet to the rear. Any tail light, together with any separate light for illuminating the rear registration plate, shall be so wired as to be lighted whenever the headlights or auxiliary driving lights are lighted, except where separate lighting systems are provided for trailers for the purpose of illuminating such registration plate.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: State v. Curley, 2016-Ohio-7624, 73 N.E.3d 1050.
State v. Curley, 2016-Ohio-7624, 73 N.E.3d 1050. · cites it 10ד{¶ 21} At oral argument, Curley’s attorney also argued, for the first time, that 1) the statute did not require that the rear license plate be illuminated by the vehicle on which it was mounted (rather, that it was sufficient that it be legible when the headlights from another…”
State v. Lee, 2020-Ohio-4970. · cites it 5דLee’s car for a violation of R.C. 4513.05 (requiring a car’s rear license plate be illuminated).”
City of Wilmington v. Conner, 761 N.E.2d 663 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 2001). · cites it 6ד04 is identical to R.C. 4513.05, which provides: “Either a tail light or a separate light shall be so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate, when such registration plate is required, and render it legible from a distance of fifty…”
State v. Held, 766 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 2001). · cites it 6דThe trial court then conducted a public policy evaluation on the virtues of R.C. 4513.05, which requires that the rear license plate be illuminated.”
State v. Guysinger, 621 N.E.2d 726 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1993). “05 provides: “Every motor vehicle * * * shall be equipped with at least one taillight mounted on the rear which, when lighted, shall emit a red light visible from a distance of five hundred feet to the rear * * *.”
State v. Cummins, 2019-Ohio-1496. · cites it 2דCummins was also convicted of failing to operate a vehicle with its headlights illuminated from sunset to sunrise in violation of R.C. 4513.05(A). Cummins, however, does not appeal from that conviction.”
State v. Blair, 2013-Ohio-646. · cites it 3ד263(B)(1), and failure to illuminate the rear license plate, in violation of R.C. 4513.05. Blair entered a plea of not guilty to the charges.”
State v. Phillips, 2014-Ohio-5162. “See R.C. 4513.05. Appellant does not claim that his license plate light was functioning at the time of the stop, nor does the record contain any factual support for such a conclusion.”
State v. Demus, 948 N.E.2d 508 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2011). · cites it 3דEither a tail light or a separate light shall be so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate, when such registration plate is required, and render it legible from a distance of fifty feet to the rear.”
State v. Kay, 2022-Ohio-3538. · cites it 4דHe argues the weather the night in question was so inclement as to provide an exception to the fifty-foot visibility requirement set forth in R.C. 4513.05 therefore failing to provide reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop.”
State v. Merillat, 2025-Ohio-1100. · cites it 7ד11(A), a felony of the fifth degree, and a taillight illumination violation, in violation of R.C. 4513.05, a minor misdemeanor. {¶ 13} On October 18, 2022, but for the taillight illumination offense, the above charges were dismissed, and appellant was then indicted in the…”
State v. Kordich, 2017-Ohio-234. “See R.C. 4513.05(A). A broken taillight may create reasonable suspicion for a stop if it creates a potential hazard because, in those circumstances, the driver is operating the vehicle in an unsafe condition.”
State v. Lee, 2020-Ohio-4970. “Lee’s car for a violation of R.C. 4513.05 (requiring a car’s rear license plate be illuminated).”
State v. Cummins, 2019-Ohio-1496. “Cummins was also convicted of failing to operate a vehicle with its headlights illuminated from sunset to sunrise in violation of R.C. 4513.05(A). Cummins, however, does not appeal from that conviction.”
State v. Curley, 2016-Ohio-7624, 73 N.E.3d 1050. “{¶ 21} At oral argument, Curley’s attorney also argued, for the first time, that 1) the statute did not require that the rear license plate be illuminated by the vehicle on which it was mounted (rather, that it was sufficient that it be legible when the headlights from another…”
State v. Demus, 948 N.E.2d 508 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2011). “Either a tail light or a separate light shall be so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate, when such registration plate is required, and render it legible from a distance of fifty feet to the rear.”
State v. Kordich, 2017-Ohio-234. “See R.C. 4513.05(A). A broken taillight may create reasonable suspicion for a stop if it creates a potential hazard because, in those circumstances, the driver is operating the vehicle in an unsafe condition.”
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.