Cars Accessories

Verdict: I'm not guilty

28.01.10

This morning, I headed to sector court to fight the ticket. It was only a $60 fair, and going to court was an inconvenience, but I was convinced that the ticket was a misconstrue.

I waited my turn as dozens of other alleged movement offenders came before the judge, mostly to plead regretful or guilty with an explanation. (Note to the dude who was clocked universal 109: I’m thinking there’s no truly good explanation for that one.) When my turn came, I pleaded not blameworthy and then waited until the end of the docket for my trial.

The officer told the justice that my car had a dark, tinted plate cover on it and that he had stopped me and written a citation. I countered that the cover was free. I told the judge that the intent of the statute seemed to be to proscribe covers that would prevent someone from reading the plate, but that the officer had utterly had no problem reading mine, and those that would interfere with something like a red elucidation camera. Mine doesn’t, as evidenced by the EZ-Unfashionable violation notice I brought to show the judge. If EZ-Obsolete could read the plate well enough to send us a notice, unswervingly a red light camera could, too. I explained why we had bought the cover; it wasn’t to becloud our plate, but to thwart thieves. We’d bought it in Pennsylvania, not here in Maryland, where the trade of such items is banned. Finally, I mentioned that in the years since we’ve lived in Maryland, no one who’s serviced our car has ever brought up the permit plate cover law.

Source: Daily Record (subscription)