[A]ctually being able to read the letters and numbers’ on the temporary license placard being displayed from the rear of one’s vehicle.
State v. Dowdell
Eleventh District Appellate Court
Lake County, Ohio
December 8, 2025
Why is this case important?
State v. Dowdell clarifies that a traffic stop and continued detention are lawful when an officer has an objectively reasonable belief that a temporary license placard is not displayed “in plain view,” even if the placard turns out to be valid once the officer approaches the vehicle. Dowdell reinforces that probable cause to issue a citation does not require absolute certainty, only an objectively reasonable belief under the circumstances.
Traffic Stop – No Visible Rear License Plate
On October 15, 2024, Patrolman Dallas McCloud (an acting sergeant at the time) was on patrol in the City of Painesville. At approximately 12:56 a.m., he encountered a vehicle being driven without a visible rear license plate. Patrolman McCloud followed the vehicle for approximately 200 yards before conducting a traffic stop for the lack of a rear license plate. When Patrolman McCloud stopped the vehicle, he was one to one-half car lengths behind the vehicle. It was only when Patrolman McCloud shined his vehicle spotlight on the vehicle that he observed the outline of what appeared to be a temporary placard in the top left corner of the rear windshield. He was still unable to read the characters on the placard.
AI generated image.
License Plate was Visible at Two Feet
Patrolman McCloud could only read the characters when he was approximately two feet from the placard and standing near the rear tire. He had to look straight down into the windshield to read the placard. Patrolman McCloud admitted that the placard was flush with the windshield, was securely taped to the windshield, and had no physical obstructions.
Violation of Display of License Plate and Narcotics
Patrolman McCloud approached the driver and observed four additional occupants. He recognized a female and Mr. Benjamin Dowdell, who was seated in the rear middle seat. Knowing that the female and Mr. Dowdell were drug users, Patrolman McCloud requested a drug canine to conduct a search of the vehicle. Officers discovered narcotics on Mr. Dowdell’s person, resulting in his arrest. He was indicted on three counts of Possession of Drugs, all felonies of the fifth degree. The driver was issued a citation for Display of License Plates under Painesville Ordinance §336.09. Patrolman McCloud had Probable Cause to Issue a Citation to the Driver of the Vehicle in which Mr. Dowdell was a Passenger for Violating Painesville Cod.Ord. §336.09(a)(3)
Established Case Law – Display of License Plates – O.R.C. §4503.21
Patrolman McCloud initiated the traffic stop based on a violation of Painesville Cod.Ord. §336.09(a)(3) – substantially identical to O.R.C. §4503.21(A)(3) – which provides: “No person to whom a temporary motor vehicle license registration has been issued for the use of a motor vehicle under O.R.C. §4503.182, and no operator of that motor vehicle, shall fail to display the temporary motor vehicle license registration in plain view from the rear of the vehicle either in the rear window or on an external rear surface of the motor vehicle.” The trial court interpreted the words “plain view” to mean “‘actually being able to read the letters and numbers’ on the temporary license placard being displayed from the rear of one’s vehicle.” State v. Smith, 2022-Ohio-2383, ¶ 3 (12th Dist.). Mr. Dowdell maintains that neither the ordinance nor the statute requires that the temporary registration be legible from any particular distance. Because “McCloud could in fact read the numbers and letters on the temporary registration, without obstruction,” the fact “[t]hat he had to get out of his cruiser to do so is irrelevant to the statutory requirement.” Brief of Mr. Dowdell-Appellant at 12. “Therefore, as a matter of law, there was no violation of the ordinance.” Id.
Mr. Dowdell Argues Established Case Law is Inapplicable to Him
Mr. Dowdell acknowledges that the initial stop was valid: “Because [Patrolman McCloud] could not see a license plate and could not easily see the temporary registration from his cruiser, he had an objectively reasonable basis to conclude that the [vehicle] did not have a valid temporary tag” and “could initiate a stop.” Id. at 14. Further, “[H]e was permitted [under State v. Dunlap, 2024-Ohio-4821] to approach the driver to ask for identification and to explain the reason for the stop.” Id. However, Mr. Dowdell asserts, he could do no more than that. “Once he determined that temporary registration was valid, flush against the window, and unobstructed, … McCloud lacked the probable cause or reasonable suspicion necessary to keep the [vehicle] detained while he wrote a ticket and waited for the K9 to arrive.” Id.
Established Case Law – License Plate Plain View
We disagree that Patrolman McCloud lacked probable cause to issue a citation merely because the registration was visible at a distance of two feet and when he was looking “straight down.” Mr. Dowdell’s interpretation of “plain view” is far from being the settled law of this appellate district or of the state. In State v. Anderson, 2018-Ohio-2455 (11th Dist.), this court determined that the registration was not in plain view “[S]ince [the officer] could only see the license plate number after he approached the vehicle on foot following the stop.” Id. at ¶ 18. It could be argued that Anderson is distinguishable from the present case because the plate in Anderson was not flush or securely fastened to the rear window. Rather, it was “propped up in the front windshield, was ‘tilted back’ and ‘wasn’t straight up and down where it was visible.’” Id. at ¶ 17. Nevertheless, the fact that the issue of whether the ordinance was violated is debatable validates the propriety of issuing a citation.
[A]s long as it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that the ordinance was violated, probable cause existed to issue a citation.
The law does not require a confirmed violation of a statute or ordinance in order for probable cause to exist for issuing a citation. Rather, as long as it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that the ordinance was violated, probable cause existed to issue a citation and, therefore, to detain the driver and occupants of the vehicle while it was being issued. The Supreme Court of Ohio explained the matter thus: The trial court correctly concluded that the fact that appellee could not be convicted of failure to obey a traffic-control device is not determinative of whether the officer acted reasonably in stopping and citing him for that offense. Probable cause does not require the officer to correctly predict that a conviction will result. We agree with the sentiment expressed in a federal case involving an officer who had stopped a vehicle based on the mistaken belief that the windows were tinted darker than the law permitted. The court observed that the officer “was not taking the bar exam. The issue is not how well [the officer] understood California’s window tinting laws, but whether he had objective, probable cause to believe that these windows were, in fact, in violation.” United States v. Wallace (C.A.9, 2000), 213 F.3d 1216, 1220. Bowling Green v. Godwin, 2006-Ohio-3563, ¶ 15.
Was Patrolman McCloud Reasonable?
Mr. Dowdell further argues that Patrolman McCloud’s belief that the ordinance was violated under the circumstances was not reasonable in light of the plain and unambiguous language of the ordinance. See State v. Ware, 2019-Ohio-3885, ¶ 42 (4th Dist.) (“if a statute is unambiguous in the scope of its application, it is not objectively reasonable for an officer to charge an individual with a violation of that statute within the context of the Fourth Amendment”).
Established Case Law – Display of License Plate
As noted above, there is appellate authority contrary to Mr. Dowdell’s interpretation. In another Eleventh District case, State v. Walker, 2012-Ohio-3303 (11th Dist.), a violation of O.R.C. §4503.021(A) was found in circumstances similar to this case. In Walker, the officer did not initially observe a license plate on the appellant’s vehicle. After following the vehicle, the officer could discern “something in appellant’s rear window, but he could not tell if it was a license plate.” After stopping and approaching the vehicle, the officer “was only able to read the numbers on the tag when he was standing next to the rear door on the driver’s side, standing over and looking down at the tag.” Id. at ¶ 31. Based on these circumstances, this court held that the officer was justified in detaining the appellant to issue a citation. Id. There is similar authority from other appellate districts. See Smith, 2022-Ohio-2383, at ¶ 3 (12th Dist.) (“the definition of ‘plain view’ as used in that statute contemplates ‘actually being able to read the letters and numbers’ on the temporary license placard being displayed from the rear of one’s vehicle”); State v. Colton, 2005-Ohio-4494, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.) (“this was still a violation of R.C. 4503.21(A) because the angle of the tag and the glare from the window prevented the tag from being visible from behind”).
Analysis and Conclusion
Mr. Dowdell criticizes these decisions for considering the purported legislative intent behind the statute rather than adhering to what is purported to be its plain meaning. It is a question we need not resolve. Nor was it a question that Patrolman McCloud needed to resolve before deciding to issue the driver of the vehicle a citation on October 15, 2024. Whether legally correct or not, McCloud’s decision to issue a citation for the violation of the Painesville ordinance was not unreasonable under the circumstances of the stop or the prevailing law of this district.
The assignment of error is without merit.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Dowdell, 2025 – Ohio – 5474.
State v. Dowdell, 2025 – Ohio – 5474 was issued on December 8, 2025 by the Eleventh District Appellate Court and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake, Portage and Trumbull.
Lessons Learned
- What is Plain View? On July 11, 2022 in State v. Smith, 2022 – Ohio – 2383, the Twelfth District Appellate Court explained plain view as applied to Display of License Plates – O.R.C. §4503.21: “[A]ctually being able to read the letters and numbers’ on the temporary license placard being displayed from the rear of one’s vehicle.” In this case Patrolman McCloud was not able to read the temporary tag from his cruiser and that was a violation of both the Painesville City Code and the Ohio Revised Code.
- Extending a Traffic Stop for a Canine Sniff? Law enforcement may not extend a traffic stop for a canine free air sniff and that was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) when it held “Because addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate that purpose. Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are – or reasonably should have been completed … An officer, in other words, may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop. But … he may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual.”. Hence the “Rodriguez Moment” is the moment at which the purpose of the stop has been completed. In this case Patrolman McCloud was investigating the Display of License plate violation when he requested the canine. Later, narcotics were discovered on Mr. Dowdell person and he was charged, convicted and now the conviction was upheld. There is very limited information on how narcotics were discovered on Mr. Dowdell’s person. However, Patrolman McCloud did not violate Mr. Dowdell’s Rodriguez
- Pre-Sent Arms! Patrolman Dallas McCloud and the Lake County Prosecutor’s Office should be highly commended for their arrest, conviction and appeal defense of Mr. Dowdell. Well done!
Does your agency train on Traffic Stops?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!