Cases from cite.case.law:

CLASSY CYCLES, INC. v. BAY COUNTY, a a, 201 So. 3d 779 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . approval of lighting devices), § 316.217 (when lighted lamps are required), § 316.220 (headlamps), § 316.221 . . .

UNITED STATES v. WRIGHT, a. k. a., 615 F. App'x 565 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 316.221(2)-(3). . . .

K. S. a v. STATE, 85 So. 3d 566 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 316.221 governs taillamps in motor vehicles and provides, in relevant part: (2) Either a taillamp . . . violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a non-moving violation.... § 316.221 . . .

C. EVERETT, v. MARIANNA POLICE DEPARTMENT, P., 431 F. App'x 819 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 316.221(2); see Tackett v. Florida, 745 So.2d 477, 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); United States v. . . .

DAVISON, v. STATE, 15 So. 3d 34 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . He contends that because the officer was mistaken in his belief that section 316.221(2), Florida Statutes . . . his contention that so long as the rear registration tag was clearly legible from 50 feet, as section 316.221 . . . operational and the officers erroneously believed that having one light out was a violation of section 316.221 . . . Section 316.221(2), Florida Statutes, requires that “either a taillamp or separate lamp shall be ... . . . Even though the officer mistakenly believed that section 316.221(2), Florida Statutes (2007), required . . .

PAUL, v. STATE, 991 So. 2d 404 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Similarly, section 316.221(1), Florida Statutes (2002), does not require taillamps free from cracks or . . .

UNITED STATES v. ZALDIVAR,, 292 F. App'x 868 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . Stat., § 316.221(2). We cannot consider Zaldivar’s second argument that his consent to Lt. . . .

LANGELLO, v. STATE, 970 So. 2d 491 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . The officer who stopped Lan-gello believed this violated section 316.221(2), Florida Statutes (2004). . . . Section 316.221(2) requires vehicles to be equipped with “either a taillamp or a separate lamp” that . . . The State contends that even if Langello did not violate section 316.221(2), the stop was proper under . . .

UNITED STATES v. ST. LOUIS,, 255 F. App'x 432 (11th Cir. 2007)

. . . . §§ 316.221, 316.217(l)(a). . . .

STATE v. LEE,, 957 So. 2d 76 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . ’s observation that Defendant’s taillamp was not operating justified the traffic stop under section 316.221 . . . Section 316.221, Florida Statutes (2005) provides: (2) Either a taillamp or a separate lamp shall be . . .

STATE v. SCHUCK,, 913 So. 2d 69 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . reasonable cause to stop the vehicle based on a founded suspicion that it was in violation of section 316.221 . . . findings, the officer was reasonable in his belief that the vehicle was not in compliance with section 316.221 . . . See § 316.221(1). . . . A violation of section 316.221 is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a non-moving violation . . . See § 316.221(3), Fla. Stat. . Review to the Florida Supreme Court granted by State v. . . .

HILTON, v. STATE, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . As the supreme court noted, section 316.221(1) specified the requirements for taillights: Every motor . . . because her tag light was too dim to make the tag clearly legible for 50 feet, as required by section 316.221 . . . Snead, 707 So.2d at 770, involved an inoperable taillight in violation of section 316.221, which requires . . .

FRIERSON, v. STATE, 851 So. 2d 293 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Section 316.221(1), Florida Statutes (2000) requires a motor vehicle to be equipped with “at least two . . .

E. COLE, v. STATE, 838 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (upholding traffic stop based on driving at night with an inoperable tag light); § 316.221 . . .

MICHEL v. STATE, 752 So. 2d 6 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . specifically the statutes requiring taillamps, stop lamps, and prohibiting the obstruction of the highway, ss. 316.221 . . .

TACKETT, v. STATE, 745 So. 2d 477 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Tackett’s vehicle failed to illuminate the license plate as required by section 316.221(2) of the Florida . . .

STATE v. PARRISH,, 731 So. 2d 101 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See §§ 316.221(2), 316.605(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

HOLMES, v. STATE, 710 So. 2d 651 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . See §§ 316.221(2), 316.605(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. HOLLOMAN,, 113 F.3d 192 (11th Cir. 1997)

. . . Section 316.221(2) of the Florida Uniform Control Law requires a tail lamp or separate lamp to illuminate . . .

INDIALANTIC POLICE DEPARTMENT, v. ZIMMERMAN,, 677 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . State, 540 So.2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); §§ 316.217, 316.221, Fla. . . .

UNITED STATES v. HOLLOMAN, 908 F. Supp. 917 (M.D. Fla. 1995)

. . . of June 29, 1995, at about 10:30 p.m. for not having a tag light in violation of Florida Statute § 316.221 . . . Holloman’s violation of Florida Statute § 316.221(2), having no tag light, is objectively determinable . . .

R. WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 640 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . State, 588 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); § 316.221, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

DOCTOR, v. STATE, 596 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1992)

. . . . § 316.221 (taillamps); id. § 316.222 (stop lamps and turn signals); id. § 316.2225 (additional equipment . . . The only such statute arguably applicable in the present case is section 316.221(1), which specifies . . . reasonable officer would have known the statutory requirements for taillights as prescribed by section 316.221 . . .

V. JOSEPH, v. STATE FRANCOIS, v. STATE, 588 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Section 316.221, Florida Statutes (1987), requires that a motor vehicle have two taillights emitting . . .

DOCTOR, v. STATE, 573 So. 2d 157 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . See §§ 316.221 & 316.234, Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .

ANDREWS, v. STATE, 540 So. 2d 210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . However, appellant overlooks section 316.221(2), Florida Statutes (1987) which provides in part: Any . . .

STATE v. FERNANDEZ,, 526 So. 2d 192 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . vehicles, subject to exceptions with respect to parked vehicles, under the following conditions; ****** 316.221 . . .

WILHELM, v. STATE, 515 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . However, section 316.221, Florida Statutes (1985), provides in pertinent part: (1) Every motor vehicle . . .

S. KEENER, v. STATE K. SMITH, v. STATE, 290 So. 2d 513 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . . § 316.221, F.S.A., (1971). . . . .