Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate on single-license-plate option highlights public-safety, retail and revenue trade-offs
Summary
Representative Murphy proposed allowing a single rear plate for a fee; supporters argued it helps owners of high-end vehicles and could raise revenue, while law enforcement, petroleum retailers and chiefs of police opposed the change citing public-safety and investigative concerns. The committee held the hearing and took no vote.
Representative Murphy introduced House Bill 1392, which would authorize vehicle owners to opt out of a front license plate by paying a fee; the sponsor’s draft sets the fee at $125 (the sponsor said this was intended as a yearly fee) and raises the penalty for failing to display required plates from $20 to $200 to create a compliance incentive.
Murphy said the option would primarily appeal to owners of higher-end vehicles and estimated the Department of Transportation could receive substantial recurring revenue if the opt-in fee is annual. Murphy and supporters said DOT could flag qualifying vehicles in law-enforcement systems so officers would immediately know when a passing vehicle is legally authorized to run without a front plate.
Several witnesses testified in opposition. Mike Rood, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Marketers, said convenience-store and retail surveillance often depend on a front plate to identify vehicles involved in drive-offs and other retail crime; he and business representatives warned that removing a front plate requirement would reduce a key tool for identifying offenders. Jeff Solmsatz, testifying from law enforcement experience, described a recent hit-and-run that was solved because a camera captured the front plate at the exit angle; he said many rural camera angles capture the front plate, not the rear.
The Chiefs of Police Association and the Highway Patrol provided opposition or neutral testimony and highlighted operational concerns, including instances when officers note a front plate is missing while initiating a stop and must then decide whether to continue the interaction. The Highway Patrol supplied counts of warnings and citations issued under the existing front-plate statute to demonstrate the law’s current enforcement footprint.
Murphy acknowledged options raised by committee members — including issuing a distinguishable or special plate for paid participants to allow identification by approaching officers — and said the Department of Transportation could implement electronic markers in dispatch/records to indicate when a front plate is not required for a particular vehicle.
Ending: The committee closed the hearing without taking immediate action. Law-enforcement groups urged rejecting the opt-out, while the sponsor said the policy could be implemented so officers would know a no-front-plate vehicle was legal; no committee vote was taken at this hearing.
