Originally Posted by andy
I figured that there is some wording in regards to that. Now after reading, and playing devils advocate. *IF* and only *IF* those sprays are special in a way that they get extremely reflective with a flash, and ONLY with a flash there is no mentioning in the law. While it talks about angular visibility and all the stuff about being visible in daylight, if you have a coating on the license plate that changes reflectivity with a flash, it would not be covered by that paragraph. Or do I see that wrong?
Devil's Advocate. . . I love it!
I read it differently than you, Andy. I'm no lawyer, and don't claim to be, but my interpretation, based on my training and experience, is that the law does not need to include every possible circumstance of violation. Specifically, (a)(7)(A) and (a)(7)(B) discuss angular visibility and distortion/readability, and do not restrict the interference to daylight, angle, or flash/no flash conditions. The general theory is the reasonable and prudent person test
. Would a reasonable and prudent person believe that a "photo blocker" was intended to aid one in getting away with a violation?
Yes, I know that we all have our own ideas about reasonable and prudent person and what we think he or she should
IMO, the alleged
apparent intentional interference to angular visibility and/or readability by the cameras would seem to be prima facie evidence of the elements of the offense.
Here's what I see as the really bad part for motorists who are caught. . . Citations can only be written for Class C Misdemeanors. If an officer is going to file a charge for the alleged Class B Misdemeanor, that means a trip to jail instead of a ticket.