[kawfey]

>he doesn't seem to realize intent is a thing

at 2m9s [0],

>theoretically, that type of pattern could randomly show up if you were just driving through mud. Is it the intent that makes it illegal? Is it the presence of it that makes it illegal? If you have a certain amount of mud on your license plate and that cop doesn't likeyou, could he use this law and be a dick and put you in jail the same way that he would if you were driving with an open bottle of Absolut and swerving in and out of your lane?

Not only does he acknowledge intent is a thing, I think this is more a commentary on the ambiguity of the bill, which states:

>A person may not alter the original appearance of a vehicle registration certificate, license plate, temporary license plate, mobile home sticker, or validation sticker issued for and assigned to a motor vehicle or mobile home, whether by mutilation, alteration, defacement, or change of color or in any other manner.

The lack of the word "knowingly" makes it ambiguous whether intent matters. A person who drives with a plate covered in mud, bugs, or bird shit could be theoretically be charged by this law not because of intent to obscure it, but because of the person neglected their duty to keep the plate clear of obstructions so it could be read by these LPR cameras that infringe his Fourth Amendment right.

I'm sure theres a lot of other legal context and case law but laws shouldn't be written with loopholes or ambiguity like that in the first place.

[0] https://youtu.be/qEllWdK4l_A?t=413 [1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/BillText/File...