A24-Lancaster Farming, Saturday, July 4, 1998
Farmers Should Be Prepared For Local Farm Tag Checks
(Continued from Page A 1)
some anecdotal stories of those
with fann tags getting pulled over
and cited, and charges subsequent
ly dropped, by the same depart
ment, and others in the Lancaster
area, where, because of the intensi
ty of agricultural production, farm
commodity hauling is relatively
high.
In general, of the several police
departments and agencies con
tacted to determine if there is a
common interpretation of the farm
tag law, and what enforcement
policies may be, the answer seems
to be: they all interpret the law as
written.
However, common sense dic
tates that there is a difference
between interpretation of a law as
published in black and white, and
what satisfies the judgement of an
officer in a cruiser who pulls overa
truck with farm tags.
The heart of the issue is this;
Among all enforcement agencies
charged with enforcing the same
set of laws, each agency, and to
some degree each officer, follows
a slightly different pattern or poli
cy (generally an unwritten set of
rules) in actually carrying out that
enforcement.
That is the crux of all enforce
ment issues the officer makes
the call. If he believes that there is
just reason to suspect a violation
and information is not made avail
able to indicate otherwise, he can
write the citation.
That should be no surprise,
since enforcement officers are
humans, and each is asked, at least
to some degree, to use their judge
ment to determine if a law has or
hasn't been broken.
Notwithstanding, the incident
this week demonstrated that there
is a need for some type of general
advisory to those who use farm
tags as to what to expect and what
to do to satisfy enforcement
efforts.
The incident this week involved
the interpretation by a local munic
ipal law enforcement officer (con
sidered to be expert in traffic law
according to a department peer) of
the farm truck law.
Basically, the officer had cited
the hay producer for illegally using
his farm tags for the business of
“brokering" hay.
The rig driver who was stopped
and questioned by the officer (for
an hour an a half, according to the
driver) was not the producer or the
owner of the vehicle. He was
instead the producer’s employee of
six years.
According to the producer, his
driver makes at least several trips
per week to Lancaster to deliver
hay.
Normally, the hay producer uses
a commercially licensed truck
trailer combination to deliver the
hay from some of the 20 farms he
rents, or from the one he owns.
However, during one week ear
lier this year, the commercial truck
broke down.
As a backup for just such an
emergency, and to use regularly
for hauling loads and equipment
between farms, the producer has
an older truck-trailer rig he owns
that is registered with farm plates.
On the third trip to Lancaster
using the farm plates to deliver a
load, the driver was pulled over by
a local municipal officer, and the
trouble began.
According to the driver, when
asked by the officer where the hay
came from, he told him. Since the
farm name wasn’t the same as the
driver’s boss, the officer asked him
if his boss owned the farm.
The driver said, “No."
It seems apparent, from the cita
tions issued, and some of the state
ments made during a portion of
hearing, that the officer suspected
that the producer was not a produc
er at all, but a middleman attempt
ing to evade having to purchase the
more expensive commercial tags
in order to ship commodities.
That is illegal.
The driver of the rig not an
expert on the farm tag law, but
knowing that his employer
wouldn’t send him out on a job
illegally didn’t know what
information the officer needed to
have his suspicions satisfied.
What he could have said,
according to courtroom second
sight, was that his employer oper
ated the farm and the load was his
boss’s hay.
In the use of a farm tag, travel is
restricted to: on-the-farm use;
between different farms operated
by the truck owner; from the farm
or farms under the operation to a
place of business for the sale or
purchase of commodities (such as
an auction), and ultimately, if the
farm truck is to be used for final
delivery from the place of sale, to
that place.
But ownership of farmland isn’t
required. The farmland just has to
be controlled, or “operated,” by the
person to whom the farm tag and
truck are registered.
Apparently the officer didn’t
pursue his questioning efforts far
enough to avoid the mistaken
assumption.
He didn't issue citations imme
diately. In the subsequent citations
and summons that were mailed,
however, he also didn’t provide
any instructions to give him a call
directly, if the facts weren’t
straight.
The producer said he thought
that calling the officer's superiors
and providing the information to
them would straighten out the
mess. It didn’t He said that he tried
for six weeks to contact the officer,
and that he was told that the officer
couldn’t be reached in that time.
The hay producer called the
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau for
advice, and was provided with
copies of the law and PennDOT
guidelines on interpreting the law
for enforcement.
He called the Department of
Transportation, which local offic
ers use as a reference resource on
the enforcement of traffic laws. He
said he attempted to contact the
official there to whom he was
referred, though calls were never
returned.
He faxed copies of the law and
explanations why he was not in
violation of the law. There was no
acknowledgement of reciept or
returned calls.
So the case went forward.
In the meantime, he was upset.
Not only was he faced with ridicul
ous charges, but also erroneously
calculated fines totalling more
than $4,000.
Even after receiving assurances
from personal friends employed in
law enforcement, that in their
opinion the charges would be
dropped, that he was in com
pliance, and that the local officer
may be somewhat overenthusiastic
in handing out citations, the pro
ducer said be felt no mental relief.
He would have to give up a day
of production and travel four hours
one way (a total of at least 10 hours
when court time and return travel
are included) in order to attend a
hearing where he would have
charges dismissed.
Not only would that cost him in
production and income, but his
hired man would have to attend.
That represented unecessarily
wasted salary and travel expenses
for an employee.
He said that over the weeks and
months, as he tried to understand
the motivation of the officer, why
the charges were not dropped even
after he tried to get through to the
officer’s superiors, he began to
view the entire situation as an inci
dent of undue harassment, and
began to develop his own suspi
cions about the motivations of the
officer and his superiors.
That began to feed additional
worry, he said.
The concern was what more
would it cost him in lost business if
he had to use his fann tags again to
complete a long distance haul.
The incident isn’t completely
over, but is expected to be con
cluded soon.
However, it doesn’t end there.
Of further concern was the fact
that a Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation cnjployee attended
the hearing this week, the same
one the producer said he attempted
to contact and send information.
The employee was at the heating
acting as an expert on behalf of the
law enforement officer.
That PennDOT representative
called the producer a “fool”
because he couldn’t provide the
com! with anything more than a
cancelled check to the owner of the
cropland he rents.
The PennDOT official also told
the district justice that handshake
leasing agreements were not the
normal business practice a sur
prise to the producer, especially
since he used such an agreement
last year to rent state prison land.
In the farming community, such
business practices arc considered
to be common, despite the Pen
nDOT official’s statement to the
district justice.
It is true that some financial and
legal experts and consultants have
been advising farmers not to con
tinue conducting business agree-
PennDOT Provides Interpretations
Of Farm Vehicle Laws
HARRISBURG (Dauphin
Co.) Since Sept. 15, 1994, the
Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation has had revised
guidelines established for use by
law enforcement and judicial offi
cials to help them interpret the
state laws covering the use of farm
vehicle plates.
While not addressing recent
comments made by a PennDOT
representative to enforcement and
judicial officials that went beyond
the guidelines listed here, those
who use farm plates on their vehi
cles should be aware not only of
the law, but how it is being
interpreted.
In addition to the following
interpretations by PennDOT of the
state Vehicle Code Title 75, Sec
tion 1344, which applies to the
operation of farm vehicles (bold
face words were added for empha
sis), there is also a toll-free tele
phone number farmers can use to
attempt to reach PennDOT, if there
are questions regarding the uses of
the plates. The number is
800-932-4600.
Use Of Farm Vehicle Plates
(revised)
This is issued by the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation for the
purpose of interpreting the provisions
of Section 1344 (a) of the Vehicle
ments without specific, detailed
documentation, but there is much
evidence that the farming com
munity still relies on respect of
another’s word and expressed
intent, not his fine print
The PennDOT official pre
sented an opinion that the farmer
should have all his leases in writ
ing, and that proof of that should
be easily available at all times in
the truck.
The PennDOT official also
talked about investigating the far
mer’s tax records, and checking
with the Department of Revenue to
see if an audit would better deter
mine if the farm in question is or is
not being leased by the producer.
In the meantime, John Bell, leg
al counsel with the Pennsylvania
Farm Bureau, said that sentiment
expressed by the PennDOT rep
resentative, if in fact accurate, con
cerned him, because it smacks of
assumed guilt and forcing some
one to prove their innocence
instead of it being assumed, which
is supposedly the higher law.
“This flies in the face of what is
the law with respect to evidence
and burdens of proof,” Bell said. “I
feel very strongly about that
statement”
”... If a farmer is using a vehicle
in a manner consistent with the
interpretations (of PennDOT) he
should not be burdened with hav
ing to prove that he is in fact
authorized to operate the vehicle.
“It is the burden of the prosecu
tion, not the farmer, to prove
whether his truck is being operated
illegally.”
The PFB does provide its mem
bers with a brochure outlining the
farm tag laws and restrictions.
For example, some local enfor
cement agents may be under a mis
taken belief that thfcrc is some dis
tance restriction on a farm truck.
(There actually arc travel dis
tance restrictions-of a 150-mile
radius of the farm, based on the
driver’s license limitations and
weight of vehicle. However, with a
commercial driver’s license appl-
Code relative to the oepration of vehi
cles registered under farm vehicle
registrations. It is the intent of this
document that the interpretations
expressed herein be applied by the
Department (PennDOT) and by law
enforcement and judicial officials, pur
suant to determinations of uses of
farm registered vehicles that are per
mitted and prohibited under Section
1344 (a).
A In order for a registered farm vehi
cle to be lawfully operated under Sec
tion 1344 (a), one of the following con
ditions must exist;
1. The vehicle registrant must own the
farm from which the farm registered
vehicle wilf be operated; or
2. The vehicle registrant must operate
the farm from which the farm regis
tered vehicle will be operated.
B. A registered farm vehicle shall be
authorized to be operated;
1. Within any farm owned or operated
by the vehicle registrant;
2. On highways between parts of one
farm owned or operated by the vehicle
registrant;
3. On highways between any of two or
more farms owned or operated by the
vehicle registrant;
4. On highways between any farm
owned or occupied by the vehicle regi
strant and a place of business, pro-
icable to the weight of a rig with
farm tags, there is no distance
restriction.)
While the producer in this case
could have paid the fine and con
tinued his operation, knowing that
his commercial rig was coming
back into service soon enough, he
said the more he thought about it,
the more it angered him.
He said a recent television prog
ram reminded him of his duty as a
citizen of the United States, that
the constitution is to be upheld
against all enemies, foreign and
domestic. Hie constitution guaran
tees that all are to be assumed to be
innocent until proven guilty.
However, as a pragmatic matter,
it seems that it may well serve
those who operate and lease farm
land, as most do today, and who
use farm tags on vehicles, to secure
and keep with them at all times
some evidence that a load of hay
came from rented ground under
control of the producer who holds
the farm tag.
Also, it seems equally pragma
tic to keep a copy of the law in the
vehicle, and to make sure that an
inquiring officer is provided all the
facts of ownership and operational
control of truck and commodity
that should satisfy the conditions
of the law.
According to PcnnDOT's com
munity relations coordinator Ann
Patterson, she couldn’t comment
on statements made by the agen
cy’s representative in court.
Patterson also would not com
ment on whether the gist of the
statements made by the agency
representative actually repre
sented agency policy, or whether it
is common practice for PennDOT
agents to attend local hearings in
support of law enforcement
agents.
However, Patterson did provide
what she said was a complete copy
of PcnnDOTs adivsory interpreta
tions of the allowable uses of a
vehicle with farm plates. (Sec side
bar story, PennbOT Provides
Interpretations.)
vided that the operation of the vehicle
is for the purpose of buying or selling
agricultural commodities or supplies.
A registered farm vehicle may also
be operated on highways between a
place of business at which the com
modity is sold by the vehicle registrant,
an employee of the vehicle registrant,
or an auctioneer, and the place of
delivery, if delivery is made using the
same vehicle of the registrant which
transported the commodities to the
place of business.
5. On highways between any farm
owned or operated by the vehicle regi
strant and any of the following
locations;
a. a driver examination point;*
b. a vehicle inspection station;
c. a commercial or noncommercial
vehicle repair or service facility.
C. For the purpose of determing
whether or not compliance with the
applicable requirements of paragraph
(b) (4)-have been met:
1. A “place of business” shall
include jther farms owned or operated
by persons other than the vehicle regi
strant; commercial businesses
engaged in buying, selling or market
ing agricultural commodities or sup
plies; and any premisis for disposal of
any waste or residual materials result
ing from the use of agricultural supply
or production of any agricultural com-
(Turn to Page A2B)