What is the legal interpretation of &quot;does not bear all of the following&quot;?
<p>In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, the <a href="http://www.phillypolice.com/assets/directives/D12.6-AbandonedVehicles.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">definition of an abandoned vehicle</a> includes:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Motor Vehicle...That is left unattended on or along a highway or other public property for more
  than forty-eight (48) hours and <strong>does not bear all of the following:</strong></p>
  
  <p>a. Valid registration plate.</p>
  
  <p>b. A current certificate of inspection.</p>
  
  <p>c. An ascertainable vehicle identification number.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are two possible meanings of this phrase:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The vehicle <em>does not bear</em> (a), <em>does not bear</em> (b), and <em>does not bear</em> (c).</p></li>
<li><p>The vehicle does not <em>bear all of (a), (b), and (c);</em> in other words, the answer to "Does it bear all of the following?" would be "No".</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Now, I am guessing they mean (2), because vehicles are usually supposed to have all three of these things.</p>

<p>However my question is not about this specific case, but about the legal terminology: <strong>Is there an accepted unambiguous understanding of this phrase in law? Which of (1) and (2) would be correct?</strong></p>

<p>In this context "does not bear all of the following" is equivalent to "does not have any one or more of the following."</p>

united-states legal-terms pennsylvania language