2d 159, 171 (2003). The best evidence of legislative intent is the statutory language. When possible,
a court should interpret the statute according to the plain and ordinary meaning of the language.
Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d at 171. In determining legislative intent, the court should consider, in addition
to the statutory language, the reason for the law, the problems to be remedied, and the objects and
purposes sought. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d at 171-72. A statute is ambiguous if it is subject to two or
more reasonable interpretations. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d at 172. When the statute contains unde ined
terms, we may employ a dictionary to ascertain the plain and ordinary meaning of those terms.
People v. Davison, 233 Ill. 2d 30, 40 (2009). Where the language is clear and unambiguous, we will
apply the statute without resort to further aids of statutory construction. The construction of a
statute is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo. Davison, 233 Ill. 2d at 40.
Defendant concedes that the Vehicle Code authorized Hucker to initiate the traffic stop
because she was driving without wearing her seat belt. See 625 ILCS 5/12—603.1 (West 2008).
Defendant further concedes that she was driving with a suspended license and that her car did not
contain an insurance card to show that the vehicle was insured. See 625 ILCS 5/6—303(a) (West
No person shall operate a motor vehicle designed to be used on a public highway unless the
vehicle is covered by a liability insurance policy (625 ILCS 5/7—601(a), 3—707(a) (West 2008)),
and every operator of such a motor vehicle shall carry within the vehicle evidence of insurance (625
ILCS 5/7—602 (West 2008)). “The evidence of insurance shall be displayed upon request made by
any law enforcement of icer wearing a uniform or displaying a badge or other sign of authority.” 625
ILCS 5/7—602 (West 2008). Furthermore, “[a]ny person who fails to comply with a request by a
law enforcement officer for display of evidence of insurance, as required under Section7—602 ofthis