Last week we had a MTS in our court regarding an inoperative brake light. According to the Transportation Code all vehicles are required to have two working brake lamps on the rear of the vehicle. In our case one of the brake lamps was inoperative but the vehicle still had two operating brake lamps when you take the third lamp located on top of the vehicle's back window into account. Our judge ruled that two out of three was good enough according to the plain language of the statute. Has anyone dealt with this before and is there a way around our judge's interpretation?

First, Richard ran this by me and I think you are out of luck. Second, the only possible very vague and almost impossible to prove route comes through 547.004 in combination with 547.202 of the Transportation Code. To even give this a try you will need Federal and State equiptment standards for that vehicle and a tremendous amount of luck. I really think slapping your officer in the head and dropping the case may be the better part of research and valor.

There is a recent Waco case that you may be able to analogize. Joubert 129 SW3d 686 articulates that the real issue is the officer's "reasonable belief" that a traffic violation was being comitted. You may be able to argue that the officer's interpretation of the statute to require the lights on either side of the rear to be working was reasonable.

You could argue to the judge that according to the defense, the officer has to wait until 2 out of 3 lights are out before someone could be pulled over. That's just crazy.

Not to play devil's advocate, but I don't know that it is crazy. After all, I think the reason we require two working lights is to make sure we can tell the difference between a brake light and a turn signal, not simply some arbitrary need to have more than one brake light. With a center light and a left or right light, we can tell when a person is braking.

Perhaps there is separate law that requires a working turn signal? After all, assuming no right brake light, the guy would probably be unable to signal a right turn. I'd check this myself, but I'm too lazy.

Sorry, sir, but as a citizen in your jurisdiction, you may be seeing this sooner than you think since the Buda Pizza Hut delivery kid hit my car and drove off, despite THREE neighbors seeing him, and in the process, he knocked out my right lens covers, yet missed the light bulbs. Now his insurance is allegedly cancelled for non-payment, Pizza Hut is giving me the run-around, and I am being stalled in my efforts to fix my vehicle.

And now that you brag about your laziness, I am SURE some Rhodes Scholar in HCSO is going to ticket me for this very offense, the first time I dare drive at night.

As on officer, I interpreted the "shall be mounted on the rear of the vehicle" language to mean just that - that the stop lamps have to be on the very back. This is the only thing that makes any sense, especially in light of the fact that we're talking about brake lights here, and you certainly want any drivers behind you to be visibly warned as to the exact location of the very rear of your vehicle when you're stopping. A light on the back of the cab of a pickup or in the rear window of a car is NOT "on the rear" of the vehicle.

Also, at the time the legislation was originally drafted many years ago, the feds had not yet begun requiring the 3rd brake light on passenger cars and trucks so there was no reason for the language to consider or distinguish them.

All this says is you can have more than two, but you need at least that many ON THE REAR of the vehicle. Now, I don't know what kind of car you are dealing with, and if it's got the 3rd light in the rear spoiler or trunk lid on the very back then I agree that you are out of luck.

I had a case a couple of years ago where the officer's PC for the stop was a window tint violation. Defendant filed a Mot. to Suppress, because it turned out the vehicle was manufactured one year before the year model covered by the tint statute (1987?). I argued that the stop was good because the officer had a good faith / objectively reasonable / probable cause to believe there had been a violation. Def. ended up pleading guilty to the possession of CS (PG 1) more than 4 grams the officer found after the stop. Trial court said the burden was not to prove an actual offense had occurred, only that the officer's basis for the stop was reasonable. I made a point of arguing that there was no way to expect officers to be able to differentiate year of manufacture of every make and model of vehicle on the road on sight.

Good luck.

I think I may have your solution...

Transportation Code 547.322 requires that a vehicle have at least two taillamps. Part (c) reads as follows:

(c) Taillamps shall be mounted on the rear of the vehicle:
(1) at a height from 15 to 72 inches; and
(2) at the same level and spaced as widely apart as practicable if a vehicle is equipped with more than one lamp.

I suspect that the center light and the side light are neither at the same level nor spaced as widely apart as practicable, since the center light is usually higher and only halfway to the other side of the car.

Does that get us where we want to be, or am I missing something? (I am assuming that the stoplamps and the taillamps on this vehicle are the same lamps. If he has separate taillamps from his braking lights, then he may not be in violation).

*************

Note for Dave Glickler: the lights must also emit red, so if your cover is completely broken so that the light is emitting white, you are in violation. I'm sending troopers to wait at your house for you to come home to arrest you now. That's what you get for making me look it up.

No, taillamps and brake lamps are different. Although it is also no doubt true that the Leg. saw no need to distinguish the two, since this was originally drafted before we got separate tail lamps, brake lamps, and turn signals - the location of one does not mandate the location of the other as I see it.

I repeat, the thing to argue is that if the 3rd brake light is not on the REAR of the vehicle, then it doesn't satisfy the statutory requirement. As a fallback then the idea that the officer's basis for the stop was "objectively reasonable" may work. But I wouldn't concede that the law doesn't justify this stop unless that 3rd light is ALL the way to the rear of the car.

I could see your point if this was a pickup truck with the third light on the cab and a long bed... but I disagree when it comes to regular cars.

Suppose a telephone pole fell on a car and knocked out this third light. Would you not describe the pole as falling on the rear of the vehicle? I imagine it would be written up that way in the police accident report.

Wes,

Thanks for the tip. It was the excuse I needed to tell my wife I am going to Vegas for the weekend. I can't get the car fixed until Monday. Hopefully, she won't take comfort in the armed guards around the house!

Dave