TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

dlh wrote:

EEllis wrote:Montes v.State, No. 08-13-00060-CR (Tex.App.-El Paso 2015)

The issue was whether the Statute that speaks to working tail lights was satisfied if the mandatory two were working or if it covered the additional lights that were present in this case. The Defendant’s vehicle had four tail lights, two more than are required, and one of them was out. Court held that the transportation code section applies to “all” light on vehicle and therefore the single light not working did constitute a traffic violation.

and more specificly

Starrin v. State, 2005 WL 3343875 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).

Stop was based on observation that one of the three brake lights on the defendant's vehicle was out. Defendant argued on appeal that Texas law requires only two functioning brake lights. The Court finds that federal standard requires three brake lights for cars of a certain width and takes judicial notice of the fact that the car in question fits those dimensions and holds the stop was lawful.

The two cases you cite are unpublished opinions and have no precedential value. See T.R.A.P. 47.7

dlh

So the fact that someone has been found guilty of exactly what's be stated as not an offense has no value? It may not be controlling precedence but certainly means it's a valid stop.

And just to throw a little more on

TX Transportation code: Sec. 547.101. RULES AND STANDARDS IN GENERAL. (a) The department may adopt rules necessary to administer this chapter.

(b) The department may adopt standards for vehicle equipment to:

(1) protect the public from unreasonable risk of death or injury; and

(2) enforce safety standards of the United States as permitted under the federal motor vehicle act.


Code of Federal Regulations:
Additional Lamp(s) Required on All Passenger Cars, and on Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles (MPV), Trucks, and Buses, Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width and With a GVWR of 10,000 Lbs or Less

High mounted stop lamp 1 Red, or 2 red where exceptions apply. See Section 6.1.1.2 On the rear including glazing, with the lamp center on the vertical centerline as viewed from the rear Not less than 34 inches except for passenger cars. See Section 6.1.4.1 Steady burning.
Must only be activated upon application of the service brakes or may be activated by a device designed to retard the motion of the vehicle.

dlh wrote:

EEllis wrote:Montes v.State, No. 08-13-00060-CR (Tex.App.-El Paso 2015)

The issue was whether the Statute that speaks to working tail lights was satisfied if the mandatory two were working or if it covered the additional lights that were present in this case. The Defendant’s vehicle had four tail lights, two more than are required, and one of them was out. Court held that the transportation code section applies to “all” light on vehicle and therefore the single light not working did constitute a traffic violation.

and more specificly

Starrin v. State, 2005 WL 3343875 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).

Stop was based on observation that one of the three brake lights on the defendant's vehicle was out. Defendant argued on appeal that Texas law requires only two functioning brake lights. The Court finds that federal standard requires three brake lights for cars of a certain width and takes judicial notice of the fact that the car in question fits those dimensions and holds the stop was lawful.

The two cases you cite are unpublished opinions and have no precedential value. See T.R.A.P. 47.7

dlh

So the fact that someone has been found guilty of exactly what's be stated as not an offense has no value? It may not be controlling precedence but certainly means it's a valid stop.

FastCarry wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:If they're not wanted, and the car isn't stolen, let em' know a light isn't working, and let em' go.

That would be a definition of a fishing stop, and unlawful. You can't be pulled over randomly or without having committed an offense.

If a 3rd light out is probable cause, I screwed. Mine is out on a bmw and I not among the type who can pay for a visit to a German garage.

And correct, it is not an item of inspection.

I guess you screwed

Montes v.State, No. 08-13-00060-CR (Tex.App.-El Paso 2015)

The issue was whether the Statute that speaks to working tail lights was satisfied if the mandatory two were working or if it covered the additional lights that were present in this case. The Defendant’s vehicle had four tail lights, two more than are required, and one of them was out. Court held that the transportation code section applies to “all” light on vehicle and therefore the single light not working did constitute a traffic violation.

and more specificly

Starrin v. State, 2005 WL 3343875 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).

Stop was based on observation that one of the three brake lights on the defendant's vehicle was out. Defendant argued on appeal that Texas law requires only two functioning brake lights. The Court finds that federal standard requires three brake lights for cars of a certain width and takes judicial notice of the fact that the car in question fits those dimensions and holds the stop was lawful.