Portland Front Plate Tickets

The ordinance says: "R. That is required by law to display two registration plates if a plate is not displayed on the front and the rear of the vehicle."

I'm not an attorney, but my guess is "front" is where they would get you, given that your plate was behind the position of the engine (which would make an interesting counter argument for V8 FCars). Or Front = first third, Middle = middle third, and so on.

 

Odd that on my ticket it said... "No plate on front bumper, no plate in window." Gotta love the consistency.

 

Talking to a representative of the state of Washington recently, I mentioned the meter patrol issuing tickets for this "infraction". She was surprised they would be able to do this. The way she put it, "only law enforcement has the ability to write a citation for a vehicle not having proper tags" (in WA). Might want to challenge the state of Oregon on this. Where does it show they have the authority to issue anything beyond parking citations?

 

mirrors, bumpers, lights along with tons of other saftey infractions. Guess they know how to find the peolpe that will pay. (SCUMBAGS)

 

Oops. You can't take the tags off of matresses?

 

If this is the case, seems like the city ordinance would apply, in regards to not having to be mounted on the actual front bumper.

 

I see that HB 2186 has been gut and stuffed and is as bad as ever. This will cost Oregonians millions.

 

Just wondering about this situation a bit, and thinking about some of the questions others have presented here, has piked my interest somewhat. If I remember my old history classes and contemporary world problems courses back in the ancient days that most of you are not old enough to remember, we were taught there is a hierarchy of the superiority of laws passed by various governmental bodies. The US federal laws superseded individual state laws, just the same as the state laws had priority over the county passed laws. Any government body can not pass an enforcable law that is less restrictive than the laws that govern it. For example, the City cannot pass a law that negates a law passed by the county, and so forth.
Now, if I am not mistaken in the ways of the world in this day and age, it is still permissable for a lower form of goverment to pass and enforce laws and ordinances which are more stringent than a higher form of government has set minimum standards for. In other words, any government body seems to have the power to be more stringent than it's bigger brother, as long as it is not in direct conflict with the intent of it's bigger brother. If there is no conflict, then the lower form of government has the right to enforce that which resides whithin it's jurisdiction.
I'm no expert, I'm not an attorney, I'm just a little guy trying to make some sense out of this present day and age. So, in my naivety, I can't find or see a legal leg to stand on to circumvent the requirement for a front plate, or to deny the legal authority of the municipal government to require it. UNLESS the city/municipal codes are in direct conflict with county/state/federal laws.
It does not look good for your argument, I wish I could help, but it seems that this is going to be a done deal in favor of the city!

 

Well, I guess next time I see you I owe you $5.00.....

 

I'm glad you are fighting it Don and sincerely hope you win. Too many people are just letting government roll them over and very few are fighting. I have always said "A democracy becomes a beuracracy when the people become complacent." People have become too complacent. Glad you are not.

Best wishes.

 

The case is the last word: completely dispositive of the issue, it's recent and, as it has not been taken up by the Supreme Court, it's the law of the land throughout the state. No wiggle room.