Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-9-404 (2026)
Lamp at end of train of vehicles - Penalty
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Every motor vehicle and every trailer or semitrailer that is being drawn at the end of a train of vehicles shall carry at the rear a lamp of a type that exhibits a yellow or red light plainly visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of five hundred feet (500') to the rear of the vehicle, and the light shall be so constructed and placed that the number plate carried on the rear of the vehicle shall under like conditions be so illuminated by a white light as to be read from a distance of fifty feet (50') to the rear of the vehicle.
- (b) This section shall not apply to a single motor vehicle as is required in § 55-9-402, but shall only apply to the last motor vehicle being drawn at the end of a train or group of motor vehicles.
- (c) A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
Acts 1931, ch. 82, § 15; 1937, ch. 245, § 5; 1941, ch. 121, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 2700.16 (Williams, § 2695); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 59-907; Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113; 2004, ch. 488, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: State v. England, 19 S.W.3d 762 (Tenn. 2000).
State v. England, 19 S.W.3d 762 (Tenn. 2000). “England, driving his pick-up truck without a light to illuminate the rear license plate, in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-9-404 (1998). The deputy activated his blue lights and stopped England's truck.”
State v. Brotherton, 323 S.W.3d 866 (Tenn. 2010). “The statute at issue in this case contains three requirements with regard to taillights that are relevant to this appeal. First, it requires that all motor vehicles be equipped “with two (2) red tail lamps and two (2) red stoplights on the rear of the *871 vehicle.”
United States v. McKissack, 76 F. Supp. 2d 836 (M.D. Tenn. 1999). “2 According to McKissack, Judge Norman found that “the officer had no just reason for the initial traffic stop” and that T.C.A. § 55-9-404 “would not apply to vehicles which were not being drawn at the end of a train of vehicles.”
State v. Hunt, 302 S.W.3d 859 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “The government in that case did not seek to justify the stop on the basis that section 55-9-402 implicitly required a tag light, but it argued instead that the explicit language of section 55-9-404 required such.”
United States v. James Alexander, 467 F. App'x 355 (6th Cir. 2012). “We note that it is possible that the Murfreesboro ordinance is invalid under state law.”
United States v. Martinez, 356 F. Supp. 2d 856 (M.D. Tenn. 2005). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-9-404(a). 5 .The Court notes that Tenn.”
State of Tennessee v. Edward Allen Carter (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “The only state statute to address tag lights is section 55-9-404, which provides that the vehicle or trailer “at the end of a train of vehicles” must be equipped with a tag light, and it specifically states that “[t]his section shall not apply to a single motor vehicle as is…”
State of Tennessee v. Andre JuJuan Lee Green (Tenn. 2024). “In England, a deputy sheriff initiated a traffic stop after witnessing the defendant driving without a light to illuminate his rear license plate, in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-9-404 (1998). England, 19 S.”
State of Tennessee v. Clifford Deleon Thomas (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “The defendant argued that: (1) a video recording of the stop traffic revealed that the defendant’s license tag was in fact properly illuminated, and (2) section 17-379(b) was void because it conflicted with a state law, Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-9-404, which required…”
State of Tennessee v. Eric A. Martin (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012). “2000) (approving this court’s holding that a violation of the license plate light law, Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-9-404, created a reasonable suspicion to warrant a traffic stop).”
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Ethen Doyle (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014). “This court concludes that the evidence does not preponderate against the finding by the trial court.”
State of Tennessee v. Orlando E. Bourrage (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “2000) (approving this court‘s holding that a violation of the license plate light law, Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-9-404, created a reasonable suspicion to warrant a traffic stop).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-9-404(a) — 3 cases
United States v. Martinez, 356 F. Supp. 2d 856 (M.D. Tenn. 2005). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-9-404(a). 5 .The Court notes that Tenn.”
State v. Hunt, 302 S.W.3d 859 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “The government in that case did not seek to justify the stop on the basis that section 55-9-402 implicitly required a tag light, but it argued instead that the explicit language of section 55-9-404 required such.”
State of Tennessee v. Edward Allen Carter (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “The only state statute to address tag lights is section 55-9-404, which provides that the vehicle or trailer “at the end of a train of vehicles” must be equipped with a tag light, and it specifically states that “[t]his section shall not apply to a single motor vehicle as is…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-9-404(b) — 2 cases
United States v. James Alexander, 467 F. App'x 355 (6th Cir. 2012). “We note that it is possible that the Murfreesboro ordinance is invalid under state law.”
State v. Hunt, 302 S.W.3d 859 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “The government in that case did not seek to justify the stop on the basis that section 55-9-402 implicitly required a tag light, but it argued instead that the explicit language of section 55-9-404 required such.”
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.