Commonwealth v. Miller
Massachusetts Appeals Court
March 2, 2011
78 Mass.App.Ct. 860
Search and Seizure, Motor vehicle, Operating under the influence, Registration, Administrative Law, Regulations
The defendant was arrested after he was stopped per a Registry of Motor Vehicle (RMV) regulation that prohibited any portion of a Massachusetts license plate from being blocked by a frame. The defendant was subsequently charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, failure to properly display registration plates, and a safety standard violation for a cracked windshield. The District Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence finding that the regulation upon which the trooper based his stop of the defendant exceeded the authority of the enabling statute. After a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court granted the Commonwealth’s motion for interlocutory appeal, the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Facts
On April 30, 2009, the state trooper observed the defendant’s vehicle, which had a black stripe across the bottom of the license plate that covered the words “Spirit of America.” After stopping the vehicle, the trooper noticed that the stripe across the license plate appeared to be a camera and that there was a crack in the windshield of the vehicle. The trooper cited the defendant for violating 540 Code Mass. Regs. § 2.23(3), which was enabled by G.L. c. 90 § 6.
Regulation 540, which the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) issued, permits the use of frames and coverings of the license plate as long as the frames or coverings do not obscure the words, symbols, or numbers.
The trial judge concluded that the regulation broadened the scope of the statute because the statute only prohibited any devices from covering the numbers of a license plate, while the regulation prohibits frames that cover numbers, words, and symbols on the license plate.
Validity of the Regulation and the Suppression of the Evidence
The Appeals Court concluded that the RMV could not issue a regulation that exceeded the scope of the enabling statute. The regulation in this case appeared to exceeded its scope. The Court noted that suppression of the evidence may not always be required because evidence obtained by the proper actions of police acting in reliance on a regulation or enactment of a branch of government that is later found invalid could still be used at trial.
However, the Appeals Court found it unnecessary to determine the validity of the regulation because the regulation was not applicable to this case. The regulation prohibited frames, not stripes, from covering portions of the license plate. Therefore, the trooper’s stop of the defendant was based on a mistake of law and not one of fact. Because the trooper did not have an actual basis to stop the defendant, the stop was improper and any evidence obtained from it had to be suppressed.
Order Affirmed
- Prepared by JM
