Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 347.13 (2026)
Tail lamps and registration plate lamps
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
347.13(1)(1) No person may operate a motor vehicle, mobile home, or trailer or semitrailer upon a highway during hours of darkness or during a period of limited visibility unless the motor vehicle, mobile home, or trailer or semitrailer is equipped with at least one tail lamp mounted on the rear which, when lighted during hours of darkness, emits a red light plainly visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear. No tail lamp may have any type of decorative covering that restricts the amount of light emitted when the tail lamp is in use. No vehicle originally equipped at the time of manufacture and sale with 2 tail lamps may be operated upon a highway during hours of darkness or during a period of limited visibility unless both lamps are in good working order. This subsection does not apply to any type of decorative covering originally equipped on the vehicle at the time of manufacture and sale.
347.13(2)(2) Every tail lamp on a vehicle shall be located at a height of not more than 72 inches nor less than 20 inches.
347.13(3)(3) No person shall operate on a highway during hours of darkness any motor vehicle upon the rear of which a registration plate is required to be displayed unless such motor vehicle is equipped with a lamp so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate and render it clearly legible from a distance of 50 feet to the rear. Such lamp may be incorporated as part of a tail lamp or may be a separate lamp.
347.13(4)(4) Tail lamps and registration plate lamps shall be so wired as to be lighted whenever the headlamps or auxiliary driving lamps are lighted. In a tractor-semitrailer combination, 2 switches may be employed, one to activate semitrailer lamps and one to activate tractor lamps.
347.13 Cross-referenceCross-reference: See also ss. Trans 305.13, 305.16, 305.43, 305.45, and 305.55, Wis. adm. code.
347.13 AnnotationA tail lamp is functioning for its intended use and thus in good working order when during hours of darkness it emits a red warning light that is visible to another vehicle traveling 500 feet behind it. Sub.(1) does not requires all light bulbs in a tail lamp to be lit. Although s. 347.06 (3) and administrative rules require tail lamps to be kept in “proper working condition,” “proper” is not a synonym for “perfect.” Rather it is more akin to “good” or “suitable.” State v. Brown, 2014 WI 69, 355 Wis. 2d 668, 850 N.W.2d 66, 11-2907.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: State v. Antonio D. Brown, 2014 WI 69 (Wis. 2014).
State v. Antonio D. Brown, 2014 WI 69 (Wis. 2014). “It asserts that this requirement is found in Wis. Stat. § 347.13 (1) (2009-10),2 which prohibits the operation of a vehicle at night unless its tail lamps are in "good working order.”
State v. Richard E. Houghton, Jr., 2015 WI 79 (Wis. 2015). “The two were stopped by Milwaukee police officers William Feely and Michael Wawrzonek, who believed that an unlit bulb in the car's tail lamp violated Wis. Stat. § 347.13 (1). Id., ¶¶2, 7. The officers eventually conducted a search of the vehicle, which revealed a firearm under…”
State v. Simpson, 519 N.W.2d 662 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “(use of multi-beam headlamps), and § 347.13, STATS. (tail lamps and registration plate lamps).”
State v. Brown, 2013 WI App 17 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “Specifically, Brown asserted that even if one of the vehicle's tail lights had been defective, it did not amount to a traffic violation under Wis. Stat. § 347.13 (1) (2009-10), 3 because that statute only requires that two tail lamps be "in good working order," and not that all…”
Strick v. Cicchirillo, 683 S.E.2d 575 (W. Va. 2009). “” Wis. Stat. § 347.13 (2005). Based on our determination that the Division and the circuit court correctly concluded that Appellant was operating his vehicle in violation of West Virginia Code §§ 17C-15-l(a) and 17C-15-5(c), the traffic stop initiated by Officer Rider was lawful.”
Terrence Buchanan v. Keith Kelly, 592 F. App'x 503 (7th Cir. 2014). “Kelly knew that an unilluminated plate violates Wisconsin law, see Wis. Stat. § 347.13 (3), so he began following Buchanan.”
Werner Transp. Co. v. Barts, 205 N.W.2d 394 (Wis. 1973). “Sec. 347.13, Stats., requires that vehicles operating on the highway during the hours of darkness must be equipped with at least one red taillight which is visible for at least 500 feet to the rear.”
State v. Joshua John Hansen (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “8 ¶18 Hansen argues that a proper construction of pertinent statutes establishes that a blue light on the rear of a vehicle is not categorically prohibited on all vehicles operating on public roads.”
Megna v. Musial (E.D. Wis. 2025). “, Captain Musial initiated a stop on the vehicle in which Megna was a passenger for allegedly violating Wis. Stat. §347.13 (3), driving at night without a lamplight illuminating the rear registration plate.”
Kiggins v. MacKyol, 161 N.W.2d 261 (Wis. 1968). “” As to the above question 2 (c) in the special verdict inquiring as to whether driver Mackyol was negligent “in failing to have his lights burning,” the instruction given was a reading of sec. 347.13, Stats., to the effect that taillights must emit a red light plainly visible…”
State v. Frederick S. Smith (Wis. 2018). “§ 347.13 (describing the required performance of taillights); Wis.”
State v. End, 927 N.W.2d 933 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 347.13(3). More particular to his driving, End turned the corner at Grand Avenue too sharply, striking and going over the curb.”
— Wis. Stat. § 347.13(1) — 2 cases
State v. Antonio D. Brown, 2014 WI 69 (Wis. 2014). “It asserts that this requirement is found in Wis. Stat. § 347.13 (1) (2009-10),2 which prohibits the operation of a vehicle at night unless its tail lamps are in "good working order.”
State v. Brown, 2013 WI App 17 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “Specifically, Brown asserted that even if one of the vehicle's tail lights had been defective, it did not amount to a traffic violation under Wis. Stat. § 347.13 (1) (2009-10), 3 because that statute only requires that two tail lamps be "in good working order," and not that all…”
— Wis. Stat. § 347.13(3) — 4 cases
State v. Joshua John Hansen (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “8 ¶18 Hansen argues that a proper construction of pertinent statutes establishes that a blue light on the rear of a vehicle is not categorically prohibited on all vehicles operating on public roads.”
State v. End, 927 N.W.2d 933 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 347.13(3). More particular to his driving, End turned the corner at Grand Avenue too sharply, striking and going over the curb.”
Megna v. Musial (E.D. Wis. 2025). “, Captain Musial initiated a stop on the vehicle in which Megna was a passenger for allegedly violating Wis. Stat. §347.13 (3), driving at night without a lamplight illuminating the rear registration plate.”
Megna v. Musial (E.D. Wis. 2025).
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.