Originally Posted by Spidey (Post 8540102)

how does that have anything to do with the amendment of the obstructed plate law? Also, I guess cops should not be allowed to drive above the speed limit, drive a vehicle with lights and sirens, and not carry a gun as well.. since the general public aren't allowed.... the government is the one that gave police certain privileges in order for them to do their jobs efficiently.. You can cry the "no fair" chant all you want, but at the end of the day those privileges were granted to keep people like YOU safe.

So you think an obstructed licence plate doesn't pose a problem? A vehicle being used to commit crimes has its plate covered/partially covered.... No ID can be made because a couple digits aren't visible.. Oh well... too bad so sad right? If only there was a law that made obstructed plates illegal, maybe cop would have pulled the car over before the crime was committed to do a check on the driver and the validity of the car's insurance... The val tag and plate are meant to be seen. Do you think it makes sense to allow drivers to drive around with a vehicle where the expiration date of the plate is unknown/ cannot be verified? If there wasn't a law to regulate it, people wouldn't bother putting the val tag/plates on their cars.. You may think everyone has common sense and is a good samaritan like yourself, but news flash, shit heads are amongst us all. There are laws for the most ridiculous things because people on their own are more or less...... for example, strata bylaws for buildings.. they are a pain in the ass, but it only takes one moron living in your building to ruin everything for everyone else.

Now as for the OP.. please post a pic of what you got dinged for. I would be very very VERY surprised if you got a ticket for a regular licence plate frame that had a cutout for the val tag to be seen.

Originally Posted by BoostedBB6 (Post 8540161)

Quite the selective reading skills you have there. Having a surrounding of a plate, one that does not cover, obstruct or impede the visibility of the plate SHOULD not be illegal as the purpose of this law is to insure that the plate is fully visible.
My arguments are already posed, if you don't wish to read the complete thread and what was posted then don't post.

Originally Posted by Spidey (Post 8540354)

I read your posts. But I have yet to see a picture of OP's plate on a picture of one "similar" to his. If the plate does not cover the val tag or any of the numbers, I am in agreement with you. I would never ticket or even give a warning to someone with a frame that allows you to see the tag and plate numbers. If OP got a ticket for that, that really would suck. But I have a feeling he had one that blocked the val tag. And for the officer to say he could have gotten more than one charge, I have a feeling there was more to the story, and he probably got the lesser of multiple possible charges.

Originally Posted by SumAznGuy (Post 8540379)

OP said the officer told him he was gonna give him 2 tickets for plate obstruction. One for the front and one for the rear because both plates had the same clear plastic plate cover so the val tag isn't the issue.
The issue in this case, is an officer who didn't exercise proper judgement and used discretion in handling this case. Well, he did because he didn't issue 2 tickets for plate obstruction.

Yesterday, in Richmond, a girl was driver her car with a tinted cover over her plates and an RCMP officer was driving behind her and didn't pull her over. Lucky for her, unlucky for OP I guess.

Originally Posted by steveo1115 (Post 8540443)

Page 2 post #27 is an example of the exact plate cover op had. It's in a spoiler probably why you missed it.