Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

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
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ankeny (2020) orctapp · cites it 6× “” 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) orctapp · cites it 23× “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. Blueback (2018) orctapp · cites it 26× “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. Davis (2010) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 803.540 requires vehicles to display registration plates, in part, as confirmation that the vehicles are registered.”
State v. Farley (1989) or · cites it 2× “ORS 803.540. All concede that the stop was lawful.”
State v. Dawson (2016) orctapp · cites it 2× “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. Cowan (2024) orctapp · cites it 5× “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…”
State v. Farley (1988) orctapp · cites it 4× “ORS 803.540. While talking with defendant, the officer saw a valid temporary vehicle permit posted on defendant's windshield; that permit allowed defendant to operate the car without license plates.”
State v. Nguyen (2008) orctapp · cites it 22× “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.”
Higgins v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Branch (2000) orctapp “535, ORS 803.540. 1 The license plates serve to identify the vehicles as registered vehicles.”
State v. Mendonca (1995) orctapp “ORS 803.540. After the stop, the officer asked defendant to present to him a valid driver’s license.”
State v. Hicks (1988) orctapp “…href="#fn1_ref"> 1 Former ORS 481.255 is now ORS 803.540. Former ORS 487.405(1) (b) is now ORS 811.375(1)(b). 2 Former ORS 484.353(2)(b) is no”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 803.540(1) — 5 cases
State v. Ankeny (2020) orctapp “” 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) orctapp “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) ord
State v. Nguyen (2008) orctapp “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) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 803.540(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Hughes (2021) orctapp “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) orctapp “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) orctapp “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) orctapp “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) orctapp “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) or “ORS 803.540. All concede that the stop was lawful.”
State v. Ankeny (2020) orctapp “” 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) orctapp “ORS 803.540. While talking with defendant, the officer saw a valid temporary vehicle permit posted on defendant's windshield; that permit allowed defendant to operate the car without license plates.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 803.540(l)(b) — 5 cases
State v. Dawson (2016) orctapp “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) orctapp “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) orctapp
State v. Morgado (1998) orctapp
State v. Stark (2012) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 803.540(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Nguyen (2008) orctapp “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) orctapp
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.