Or. Rev. Stat. § 803.540
Failure to display plates; exceptions; penalty
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
803.540 Failure to display plates; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure to display registration plates if the person operates, on the highways of this state, any vehicle or camper that has been assigned registration plates by this state and the registration plates assigned to the vehicle or camper are displayed in a manner that violates any of the following:
(a) The plate must be displayed on the rear of the vehicle, if only one plate is required.
(b) Plates must be displayed on the front and rear of the vehicle if two plates are required.
(c) The plates must be in plain view and so as to be read easily by the public.
(d) The plate must not be any plate that does not entitle the holder thereof to operate the vehicle upon the highways.
(2) A person is not in violation of this section if the person is operating a vehicle or camper under and in accordance with the requirements for any of the following:
(a) A temporary application permit issued under ORS 803.615.
(b) An agent temporary registration permit issued under ORS 803.625.
(c) Provisions established under ORS 826.007, 826.009 or 826.011 for the display of registration plates or other evidence of registration on vehicles that are proportionally registered under ORS 826.009 or 826.011.
(3) The offense described in this section, failure to display registration plates, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §261; 1985 c.668 §13; 1989 c.43 §28; 1995 c.383 §6]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: State v. Ankeny
State v. Cowan (2024)
“The state argued that Carnahan had probable cause for violations of both ORS 803.540 and ORS 803.550 (concerning “illegal alteration or illegal display of a registra- tion plate”), based on the evidence that the registration on defendant’s truck was illegally altered so as to be…”
Alvarez v. University of Oregon (2022)
“Plaintiff was cited for failure to display registration plates in violation of ORS 803.540; failure to carry a license or to present a license to a police officer in violation of ORS 807.”
State v. Hughes (2021)
“On appeal, defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after defendant drove with a single dealer plate displayed on the rear of his car and an officer stopped him for failure to properly display registration plates, ORS…”
State v. Ankeny (2020)
“” In part to confirm that vehicles are properly regis- tered, ORS 803.540 requires vehicles to display registration plates and to do so “in plain view and so as to be read easily by the public.”
Alvarez v. University of Oregon (2020)
“5 Because Officer Sitts witnessed a violation of ORS 803.540, he was lawfully permitted to stop plaintiff’s vehicle, the initial traffic stop did not violate plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, and this claim must be dismissed.”
State v. Sarmento (2019)
“The car did not have a front license plate, a traffic violation under ORS 803.540. State v. Blueback , <extracted-citation case-ids="12568865" index="2" url="https://cite.”
State v. Blueback (2018)
“1 He assigns error to *386 the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered after an officer pulled him over for failing to display a front license plate on his pickup truck, which the officer considered a violation of ORS 803.540. Defendant argues that the…”
State v. Dawson (2016)
“Defendant was initially stopped because the sport utility vehicle (SUV) that he drove had no front license plate, a violation of ORS 803.540(1)(b). When the officer asked defendant if he knew that the SUV did not have a front license plate, defendant responded, “No, I didn’t.”
Long v. Gill (2013)
“175), and Expired Tags (ORS 803.540(1)). Deputy Gill had the truck towed and impounded pursuant to ORS 811.”
State v. Stark (2012)
“Nguyen">196 P3d 40 (2008) (explaining, in the context of ORS 803.540(l)(b) that, “if the legislature had intended to allow drivers to choose among different ‘fronts’ of their vehicles in the positioning of registration plates, it would not have chosen the definite article ‘the.”
State v. Davis (2010)
“ORS 803.540 requires vehicles to display registration plates, in part, as confirmation that the vehicles are registered.”
State v. Nguyen (2008)
“3 That the legislature contemplated those various scenarios is confirmed by its use of the inclusive term “any” in ORS 803.540. A driver may violate that provision by failing to comply with “any” of the four listed *292 requirements, either singly or in combination.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 803.540(1) — 5 cases
State v. Ankeny (2020)
“” In part to confirm that vehicles are properly regis- tered, ORS 803.540 requires vehicles to display registration plates and to do so “in plain view and so as to be read easily by the public.”
State v. Hughes (2021)
“On appeal, defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after defendant drove with a single dealer plate displayed on the rear of his car and an officer stopped him for failure to properly display registration plates, ORS…”
Long v. Gill (2013)
“175), and Expired Tags (ORS 803.540(1)). Deputy Gill had the truck towed and impounded pursuant to ORS 811.”
State v. Nguyen (2008)
“3 That the legislature contemplated those various scenarios is confirmed by its use of the inclusive term “any” in ORS 803.540. A driver may violate that provision by failing to comply with “any” of the four listed *292 requirements, either singly or in combination.”
Alvarez v. University of Oregon (2020)
“5 Because Officer Sitts witnessed a violation of ORS 803.540, he was lawfully permitted to stop plaintiff’s vehicle, the initial traffic stop did not violate plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, and this claim must be dismissed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 803.540(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Hughes (2021)
“On appeal, defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after defendant drove with a single dealer plate displayed on the rear of his car and an officer stopped him for failure to properly display registration plates, ORS…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 803.540(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Dawson (2016)
“Defendant was initially stopped because the sport utility vehicle (SUV) that he drove had no front license plate, a violation of ORS 803.540(1)(b). When the officer asked defendant if he knew that the SUV did not have a front license plate, defendant responded, “No, I didn’t.”
State v. Blueback (2018)
“1 He assigns error to *386 the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered after an officer pulled him over for failing to display a front license plate on his pickup truck, which the officer considered a violation of ORS 803.540. Defendant argues that the…”
State v. Hughes (2021)
“On appeal, defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after defendant drove with a single dealer plate displayed on the rear of his car and an officer stopped him for failure to properly display registration plates, ORS…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 803.540(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. Blueback (2018)
“1 He assigns error to *386 the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered after an officer pulled him over for failing to display a front license plate on his pickup truck, which the officer considered a violation of ORS 803.540. Defendant argues that the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 803.540(2)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Farley (1989)
State v. Ankeny (2020)
“” In part to confirm that vehicles are properly regis- tered, ORS 803.540 requires vehicles to display registration plates and to do so “in plain view and so as to be read easily by the public.”
State v. Farley (1988)
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 803.540(l)(b) — 5 cases
State v. Dawson (2016)
“Defendant was initially stopped because the sport utility vehicle (SUV) that he drove had no front license plate, a violation of ORS 803.540(1)(b). When the officer asked defendant if he knew that the SUV did not have a front license plate, defendant responded, “No, I didn’t.”
State v. Nguyen (2008)
“3 That the legislature contemplated those various scenarios is confirmed by its use of the inclusive term “any” in ORS 803.540. A driver may violate that provision by failing to comply with “any” of the four listed *292 requirements, either singly or in combination.”
State v. Jeffers (1994)
State v. Morgado (1998)
State v. Stark (2012)
“Nguyen">196 P3d 40 (2008) (explaining, in the context of ORS 803.540(l)(b) that, “if the legislature had intended to allow drivers to choose among different ‘fronts’ of their vehicles in the positioning of registration plates, it would not have chosen the definite article ‘the.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 803.540(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Nguyen (2008)
“3 That the legislature contemplated those various scenarios is confirmed by its use of the inclusive term “any” in ORS 803.540. A driver may violate that provision by failing to comply with “any” of the four listed *292 requirements, either singly or in combination.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 803.540(l)(d) — 1 case
State v. Kambra (1988)
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.