3.10Registration Plate Violations
“A registration plate shall at all times be securely fastened in a horizontal position to the vehicle for which the plate is issued so as to prevent the plate from swinging. The plate shall be attached at a height of not less than 12 inches from the ground, measured from the bottom of the plate, in a place and position that is clearly visible. The plate shall be maintained free from foreign materials that obscure or partially obscure the registration information and in a clearly legible condition. The attachment to the rear of a vehicle of a tow ball, bicycle rack, removable hitch, or any other device designed to carry an object on the rear of a vehicle, including the object being carried, does not violate this subsection.” MCL 257.225(2).
“A person who violates [MCL 257.225] is responsible for a civil infraction.” MCL 257.225(7).
The general rules for assessing a civil fine and costs apply to failure to change address violations. See Section 1.20 for a discussion of the general rules governing the assessment of a civil fine and costs.
Although the Michigan Supreme Court declared a violation of MCL 257.225(2) where the defendant’s registration plate was partially obstructed by a bumper-mounted towing ball, effective August 18, 2018, the statute was amended and effectively superseded this holding. See People v Dunbar, 449 Mich 60, 73 (2016); 2018 PA 147.
A traffic stop was justified “based on [the officer’s] reasonable suspicion that traffic laws were being violated[]” where the defendant’s temporary paper license plate “was not in a clearly visible position or in a clearly legible condition.” People v Simmons, 316 Mich App 322, 326-327 (2016). The officer testified that “he could not see a plate before pulling over the vehicle[, and h]e could not read the paper in the window when he approached the vehicle from 3 or 4 feet away, and its writing was very ‘dim.’” Id. at 327. Accordingly, the Court held that the officer “was justified in pulling over the vehicle for a violation of MCL 257.225(2)[.]” Simmons, 316 Mich App at 327 (rejecting the defendant’s contention “that the search and seizure became unreasonable when [the officer] asked [him] for his license, registration, and insurance, rather than taking five seconds to examine the paper plate affixed to the rear window of the vehicle and determine its validity[]”) (citations omitted). The officer’s “actions were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances of the stop[, and e]ven [if the officer had] taken the time to examine the paper plate more closely to determine whether it appeared to be a valid temporary registration plate, the plate would still have been in violation of MCL 257.225(2).” Simmons, 316 Mich App at 327.