Why F.S. 320.061 Is Unconstitutional
A plain-language explanation of the constitutional defect in Florida's tag alteration statute and why we're challenging it as unconstitutional.
The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that criminal statutes define prohibited conduct with sufficient clarity that ordinary people can understand what is forbidden. This is the “void-for-vagueness” doctrine.
A statute is unconstitutionally vague when it either (1) fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that their conduct is criminal, or (2) encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by failing to establish minimal guidelines.
“When identical statutory text produces opposite legal conclusions depending on geography, the constitutional problem is not policy — it is clarity. The Due Process Clause requires that criminal statutes define liability with measurable standards. Section 320.061 does not.”
— From Ticket Toro's Constitutional Challenge
What F.S. 320.061 Gets Wrong
Florida Statute 320.061 makes it unlawful to “alter” or “mutilate” a license plate tag or registration. But it does not define what constitutes “alteration” with any measurable specificity.
Does a standard dealer frame that partially covers the word “Sunshine” constitute alteration? What about a frame that covers “State” but not the registration characters? The statute is silent, and law enforcement agencies across Florida have reached opposite conclusions.
No Definition of “Alteration”
The statute does not specify what level of obstruction constitutes a criminal offense. Is covering decorative text the same as covering the registration number? The law doesn't say.
No Objective Standard
Without measurable criteria, enforcement becomes a matter of individual officer interpretation. The same frame can be lawful or criminal depending on who pulls you over.
Real-World Consequences
The Demarquize Dawson Arrest — Davie, FL (December 2025)
In December 2025, Davie police arrested and jailed Demarquize Dawson because a decorative license plate frame partially covered the letter “S” in “Sunshine State.”
The department later acknowledged that the arrest was “invalid” and publicly admitted that the statute's “wording was vague, unclear and appeared to be open for misinterpretation.”
A law enforcement agency itself acknowledged the statute is too vague to enforce consistently. That admission is the constitutional defect made manifest.
County-by-County Inconsistency
The same statutory text. The same conduct. Opposite legal conclusions.
This represents a sample of known enforcement positions. Our legal challenge documents additional inconsistencies across all 67 Florida counties.
What We're Asking the Court
Our constitutional challenge argues that F.S. 320.061 should be struck down as unconstitutionally vague. In plain terms:
Declare F.S. 320.061 Unconstitutionally Vague
The statute fails to provide measurable standards for what constitutes criminal “alteration,” violating the Due Process Clause.
Stop Inconsistent Enforcement
Counties should not be able to enforce the statute under contradictory interpretations that make identical conduct lawful in one jurisdiction and criminal in another.
Establish Objective Standards
Because this affects all 67 counties and millions of Florida drivers, the law needs to be rewritten with clear, measurable criteria for what constitutes a violation.
How You Can Act
Fight Your Ticket
Got a tag alteration citation? Upload it for a free analysis. 97% success rate.
Free Ticket ScanExplore the Data
See 800+ mapped citations across 52+ agencies on our interactive enforcement map.
View MapThe Challenge
See an overview of Ticket Toro's constitutional challenge to F.S. 320.061.
View DetailsGot a Tag Alteration Ticket?
Don't pay it. Upload a photo of your citation for a free 60-second analysis. Our attorneys are actively challenging this law.