Can a Virginia driver be ticketed under § 46.2-716(B) for a clear plastic license plate cover, or does the statute reach only colored covers?

Plain-English summary

A Virginia state senator asked the Attorney General whether a clear plastic license plate cover could trigger a citation under Va. Code § 46.2-716(B), or whether only colored covers were illegal. The senator's constituent had been ticketed for a clear cover, and law enforcement had told him that any cover that obstructed an officer's ability to read the plate (for example, by reflecting spotlight glare) was citable, despite the statute's reference to "colored" plastic.

The AG concluded that yes, the statute can reach clear covers. Section 46.2-716(B) names "colored glass, colored plastic, bracket, holder, mounting, frame, or other type of covering," and the catch-all "other type of covering" combined with the "in any way alters or obscures" language was broad enough to capture transparent covers when they actually obstructed the plate. The opinion stressed that the inquiry is fact-specific: it is not the color of the cover that matters, but whether a credible witness can establish that the cover obscured the plate at the moment of the stop.

The AG cited a 2005 federal district court decision where a traffic stop was upheld based on an officer's testimony that he could not read a bent license plate. Whether glare, dirt, the curve of a clear cover, or any other factor caused the obstruction did not matter to the legal analysis; what mattered was whether the officer credibly could not read the plate.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2013. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Does the statute name "clear" covers specifically?
No. It names "colored glass, colored plastic" and certain mounting hardware, but then sweeps in "other type of covering." The AG read the catch-all to include clear covers.

Does the cover itself have to be the sole cause of the obstruction?
The AG opinion said no. Even if the inability to read the plate resulted from "the covering in combination with other factors, such as light reflecting off of the covering," the statute could apply.

Is the question of guilt automatic if there is any cover on the plate?
The opinion explicitly said no. Whether a particular cover violates the statute "is a determination of fact beyond the scope of this opinion." The Commonwealth must prove obstruction in the specific case.

What did the 2005 federal case the AG cited hold?
In that case, the officer testified that the plate was bent and he could not read it. The court upheld the stop because the officer's credible testimony established that the plate was obscured, regardless of cause. The AG used it as the analytical model: officer testimony that the plate could not be read can establish a § 46.2-716 violation.

Are clear covers per se illegal?
Under this opinion, no. They are illegal only when they actually obscure the plate. A clear cover that does not interfere with readability would not, by itself, support a citation under this reading.

Background and statutory framework

Section 46.2-716 sets the rules for displaying license plates. Subsection (B) is the obstruction provision. The Attorney General quoted the statute as it stood at the time:

No colored glass, colored plastic, bracket, holder, mounting, frame, or other type of covering shall be placed, mounted, or installed on, around, or over any license plate if such glass, plastic, bracket, holder, mounting, frame, or other type of covering in any way alters or obscures (i) the alpha-numeric information, (ii) the color of the license plate, (iii) the name or abbreviated name of the state wherein the vehicle is registered, or (iv) any character or characters, decal, stamp, or other device, indicating the month or year in which the vehicle's registration expires.

The Attorney General applied standard tools of statutory construction. Where statutory language is unambiguous, courts give effect to it; they read penal statutes strictly against the Commonwealth but will not adopt "unreasonably restrictive" interpretations that ignore the obvious legislative purpose. The purpose of § 46.2-716(B) was to keep license plates readable at all times, so the AG concluded the General Assembly meant to prohibit any cover that obstructed the plate in any way, regardless of whether the cover was colored.

Citations

• Va. Code § 2.2-505 (Attorney General advisory opinions)
• Va. Code § 46.2-716(B) (license plate coverings)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2013/12-083_Barker.pdf

Original opinion text

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General

January 17, 2013

900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
FAX 804-786-1991
Virginia Relay Services
800-828-1120
7-1-1

The Honorable George L. Barker
Member, Senate of Virginia
Post Office Box 10527
Alexandria, Virginia 22310

Dear Senator Barker:

I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia.

Issue Presented

You ask whether § 46.2-716(B) of the Code of Virginia can be read to prohibit clear license plate coverings, in addition to colored ones, that obstruct a police officer's ability to read a license plate or whether the prohibition is limited to only colored coverings.

Response

It is my opinion that the plain language of § 46.2-716(B) is broad enough to prohibit the placing of a clear plastic covering over a license plate, if the covering in any way obscures information contained on the license plate, but that whether any particular covering would bring rise to a violation of the provision is a determination of fact beyond the scope of this opinion.

Background

You relate a situation in which a constituent of yours was ticketed for having a clear plastic cover over his license plate. You note that your discussions with law enforcement officers indicate that, "while the code only states that 'colored' coverings are considered illegal," any covering that obstructs an officer's ability to read the license plate due to reflection from their spotlight allows for a citation under § 46.2-716.

Applicable Law and Discussion

Section 46.2-716 sets forth the requirements for displaying license plates on automobiles operated in the Commonwealth. The statute also expressly provides that

No colored glass, colored plastic, bracket, holder, mounting, frame, or other type of covering shall be placed, mounted, or installed on, around, or over any license plate if such glass, plastic, bracket, holder, mounting, frame, or other type of covering in any way alters or obscures (i) the alpha-numeric information, (ii) the color of the license plate, (iii) the name or abbreviated name of the state wherein the vehicle is registered, or (iv) any character or characters, decal, stamp, or other device, indicating the month or year in which the vehicle's registration expires. No insignia, emblems, or trailer hitches or couplings shall be mounted in such a way as to hide or obscure any portion of the license plate or render any portion of the license plate illegible.

When the language of a statute is unambiguous, that language is binding and it is impermissible to assign a construction that amounts to concluding "that the General Assembly did not mean what it actually has stated." Further, "[t]he purpose for which a statute is enacted is of primary importance in its interpretation or construction," and unless it will lead to an absurd result, "a statute should be read to give reasonable effect to the words used and to promote the ability of the enactment to remedy the mischief at which it is directed." Although penal statutes are strictly construed against the Commonwealth and in favor of the liberty of citizens, a criminal defendant is not entitled to benefit from an "unreasonably restrictive interpretation" of a statute. Courts will not "construe a penal statute in a manner that requires [them] to disregard the clear and obvious meaning of the statute."

The purpose of § 46.2-716(B) is to ensure that vehicles traveling in the Commonwealth bear license plates whose information is visible at all times. Under the plain language of the statute, any "type of covering" placed over a license plate, even a clear plastic one, is prohibited if it "in any way" obscures the view of the information on the license plate. Although the statute specifies certain types of coverings, including "colored plastic" ones, the provision also prohibits any "other type of covering" that "in any way" obscures the information on a license plate. This construction is consistent with the obvious purpose of the statute as expressed by its plain language. Thus, the critical inquiry is not the characteristic of the license plate cover itself, but whether it, in fact, obscured law enforcement's view of the license plate at the time of the traffic stop. Such determination, however, must be made on a case-by-case basis. Thus, it is my opinion that even clear plastic license plate covers can violate the statute if credible evidence exists to establish that the cover "in any way alters or obscures" the license plate.

This conclusion is supported by a 2005 federal district court decision. In ruling on the validity of a traffic stop, the court concluded a violation of § 46.2-716 could be established by the police officer's credible testimony that he could not see the information on the defendant's license plate at the time of the traffic stop. In this case, the police officer who stopped the vehicle in question testified that he had been unable to read the vehicle's license plate because it was bent. The court upheld the legitimacy of the stop under § 46.2-716 based on this evidence presented, namely that the officer could not read the license plate based on its condition.

Thus, it is my opinion that § 46.2-716(B) prohibits any kind of covering over a license plate if it, in any way, obscures the license plate, even if the inability to read the license plate results from the covering in combination with other factors, such as light reflecting off of the covering. It is further my opinion that the question of whether an individual has violated § 46.2-716(B) is dependent upon the facts of each case as established by the evidence.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion that the plain language of § 46.2-716(B) is broad enough to prohibit the placing of a clear plastic covering over a license plate, provided it in any way obscures information contained on the license plate, but that whether any particular covering would bring rise to a violation of the provision is a determination of fact beyond the scope of this opinion.

With kindest regards, I am

Very truly yours,

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General