Can a vehicle be stopped and driver ticketed for defective equipment in Texas when third stop lamp inoperable In Texas, I believe S 547.323. governs stoplamps in a vehicle. Subsection a states in part "... a motor vehicle ... shall be equipped with at least two stoplamps." Is it not legal (can a driver be ticketed) to allow the third, high mounted stop lamp to become inoperative? Similarly, if the third high mounted stop lamp still works and one of the other stop lamps are not working? Thirdly, what if on some older model Thunderbirds from the 1980s, the brake lamp consists of one large wrap-around red plastic encased solid assembly with about 6 distint and seperate bulbs inside of it, and one of those goes out? Just curious. At various times in my life in Texas I've been stopped for each of those instances and either ticketed or given a warning. I don't think this is duplicate with this question because it involves tail lamps in Oregon.
Yes because Texas adopted the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 571.108; TX Inspection Procedure Chapter 4, 04.20.28 Passenger cars manufactured 1986 – Newer: 3 stop lamps required Light trucks/SUVs under 80” wide, manufactured 1994 – Newer: 3 stop lamps required per DPS Further Backed by Caselaw https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1644657.html
If we go by Indian case law (as we should), you have to find a way. The relevant case is K.P. Adbul Gafoor v. New India Assurance Ltd, where appellant drove on a motor cycle on a learner's permit without a licensed driver positioned correctly, in violation of Rule 3 of the Rules, and smacked someone. The bulk of the case is about the insurance and liability consequences of violating the rule: the main point here is that the court deemed this to violate the rules.
License plates in Texas are governed by the Texas TRANSPORTATION CODE, TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, SUBTITLE A. CERTIFICATES OF TITLE AND REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES, CHAPTER 504 LICENSE PLATES Texas code section 504.901. TRANSFER AND REMOVAL OF LICENSE PLATES (subsections (b) and (c)) provide that (b) On the sale or transfer of a motor vehicle to a person who does not hold a general distinguishing number issued under Chapter 503, [i.e. not a dealer] the seller may remove each license plate issued for the motor vehicle. The license plates may be transferred to another vehicle titled in the seller's name if the seller obtains: (1) the department's approval of an application to transfer the license plates; and (2) a new registration insignia for the motor vehicle. (c) A license plate removed from a motor vehicle that is not transferred to another motor vehicle must be disposed of in a manner specified by the department. It seems that the seller is not required to remove the plates when selling the vehicle Section 504.010 ISSUANCE AND PLACEMENT OF LICENSE PLATE. provides that: (a) On payment of the prescribed fee, an applicant for motor vehicle registration shall be issued a license plate or set of plates This seems to tie the plates to the registration, which means to the person registering them as well as to a particular vehicle. Section 504.943. OPERATION OF VEHICLE WITHOUT LICENSE PLATE provides that: (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person commits an offense if the person operates on a public highway, during a registration period, a motor vehicle that does not display two license plates that: (1) have been assigned by the department for the period; and (2) comply with department rules regarding the placement of license plates. Section. 504.944. OPERATION OF VEHICLE WITH WRONG LICENSE PLATE.provides that: A person commits an offense if the person operates, or as the owner permits another to operate, on a public highway a motor vehicle that has attached to it a number plate or registration insignia issued for a different vehicle. An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200. It would seem that under 504.943 or 504.944 (and the related 504.945) the person who bought is committing a misdemeanor every time that the person drives it on public roads or streets. The seller could inform the buyer of this and request the buyer to get new plates, or report the buyer to the police as having improper plates, which would allow them to stop the buyer for having improper plates. Use of certified mail would preserve a record of the notification of the buyer. Note that notification is in no way required before reporting to the police, but might induce the buyer to get new plates on his or her own. Secretly removing the buyer's license plate would probably not be theft, as it seems that the plates actually remain the property of the state, but would at the least involve trespass. It seems unwise at best.
Damaging someone else's property is not protected free speech in the US. Nor is using someone else's property without permission and against the owner's wishes. Scenario 3 would surely be vandalism or &quot;Malicious Mischief&quot; or some similar offense, even if the paint can be fairly easily removed. The same would be petty surely true of scenario 2, as it would take at least some effort to remove the sticker, and it could be a safety hazard until it is removed (obstructed vision). Scenario 1 would probably not be even a minor crime, unless perhaps the person trespassed to attach the string. But the person has no right to insist that the car's owner not remove the sign. I am assuming that the car is owned by someone else, and the the person placing the sign, sticker or paint acted without permission from the owner or any authorized person.
Under Florida law (316.0083), an officer can view the infraction and issue a notification of infraction &quot;to the registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation&quot;. Thereupon, the owner has the right to remedies under §318.14, which include arguing that the owner did not commit the infraction. The camera evidence may sufficiently prove that an infraction was committed, but not necessarily that the vehicle owner committed the infraction. This is a civil matter, so the official who disposes of the appeal must determine whether it is more likely than not that the owner committed the infraction. That effectively means that in the face of evidence that the owner committed an infraction, some evidence is needed to show that the owner did not commit the infraction. Thus proof that he was not driving (I suppose witnesses to his whereabouts in Timbuktu on the day in question) would suffice, and there is no requirement that the owner prove someone else did the deed.
Such laws or rules most likely would be on a state-by-state basis. As an example, a rule in Minnesota (and the next part which can be accessed with the arrow in the upper right of the web page) requires that &quot;all electrical equipment, including material, fittings, devices, apparatus, fixtures, appliances, and utilization equipment, used as part of, or in connection with, an electrical installation shall be listed and labeled by a testing laboratory.&quot; This rule only forbids use of unlisted cheater plugs, not sale. I have not found a law or rule that forbids selling them. Searching the usual places online, I see it is possible to find 3 prong to 2 prong adapters that are UL listed. I will add that essentially the same skills are needed to figure out whether a cheater plug is more or less safe to use in a certain receptacle as would be needed to replace the two-prong receptacle with a three-prong one, and a properly installed three-prong receptacle is going to be safer.
2201.4 Upon a roadway so designated for one-way traffic, a vehicle shall be driven only in the direction designated at all or such times as shall be indicated by official traffic control devices. I'm failing to see the "... except when pulling over for the police" subclause. Equally there is no "... unless you think you should" subclause. If you choose to have a hearing the evidence will show unambiguously that you drove the wrong way in a one way street and you will testify as to your reasons for doing so. For you to avoid the violation you would need to convince the examiner that a) you are telling the truth and b) that your mindset is in any way relevant. Unless the officer clearly directed you to pull into that spot, the decision to do so appears to be yours. I'd pay the fine if it was me.
So why are Amish people not required to register their &quot;vehicle,&quot; and to have a driver's license when driving on public roads? The Texas registration requirement in Texas is at Sec. 502.040. REGISTRATION REQUIRED; GENERAL RULE: a) Not more than 30 days after purchasing a vehicle or becoming a resident of this state, the owner of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall apply for the registration of the vehicle for: (1) each registration year in which the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway; and (2) if the vehicle is unregistered for a registration year that has begun and that applies to the vehicle and if the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway, the remaining portion of that registration year. (emphasis added) Now, you might argue that this requires owners of motor vehicles also to register their non-motorized vehicles, but I doubt that this is the prevailing interpretation. Regardless, an Amish person who does not own a motor vehicle is certainly not required by this subsection to register horse-drawn vehicles. Similarly, the requirement to hold a driver's license is at Sec. 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED: A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter. (emphasis added) Similarly, this requirement does not apply to the operation of a horse-drawn vehicle. In other words, one statement in your question is incorrect: A driver's license is required for all persons &quot;driving&quot; a vehicle. In fact, a driver's license is generally required to drive a motor vehicle (and even there, exceptions exist).