So that is what my argument would be. I'm 24 and on the "outside" my car looks completely stock.



I do plan on getting wheels for the car, but I am too scared to do anything else to the exterior to draw attention to the car.

I feel that it all depends really on your age and how you look. The cop is going to treat a teenager different then he would treat me and treat a more elder adult different then he would myself. Why? Because of the assumption that

teenager = fast and furious
mid-adult = mature but still into illegal things
adult = they would never do such a thing on purpose

Anytime and every time I get pulled over, I always use the most respect to them and always say "Sir". It all depends on the cops you deal with, but for the one I dealt with, he was one of the few not on a power trip.

The whole time I was thinking "do I have the right to deny him access if he asks to pop my hood?" Luckily it didn't come to that but from the experience I've had with majority of cops, they will threaten people. There has been an occasion where I was in another state and the cop said "This isn't California son, go back to the beach" I was still respectful because they were egging me to get mad so they had cause to do something. I requested for his name and badge number and he refused to give it to me threatening that if I asked again he would use force on me.

 

.......................... it happens

 

Dude thats a stretch. If anything the cop will violate your rights by popping your hood without consent before he goes out and fabricates evidence.


that is true thats why they pop it open without consent.

You dont have to justify anything. Evidence attained illegaly gets thrown out of court. Ignoring the bill of rights in open court is serious business.

I told you I speak from experience ;-)

 

They have to have probable cause to search your vehicle, and usually authorization from up their chain of command. If the pull you over for tail-lights, then it is now their obligation to prove they are not legal. If you provide even slightly substantial evidence on the spot that they are factory and DOT approved for the year they were produced, then the cop is now on a very slippery slope. If he then asks you to pop your hood, you can then say "With all due respect sir, I must respectfully decline giving you authorization to perform any type of search as I have not broken any laws, sir." I've done this in different vehicles in Colorado, and the one cop that tried to write me for it, got reamed by the judge in court. I then kept those papers documenting the reason for the hearing and the status of dismissal for any future incidents. Force the officer into following their own rules, but do it in a respectful manner. Sometimes, everyone needs a wake-up call. Even I needed a wake-up call here and there when I was in Law Enforcement.

 

Next time point out to the officer that both of the rear tail lights lenses have SAE and DOT markings on them (bottom center of each lens) indicating compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 (FMVSS 108). If the officer tells you that FMVSS 108 is not state law, tell him that title 49 USC 30103 (B1) ,passed by congress, prevents any state from forbidding a system that is FMVSS 108 compliant. If the officer still has a problem or says that anyone can make those DOT or SAE markings, tell him you'll see him in court. Of course he can always just say you used that spray on blackout crap on compliant lenses but, hopefully this spiel will convince him/her that: a) you know your **** and b) your not worth it.

 

If he still thinks it's spray on, tell him to scratch it. Of course, with the caveat of: "If I am right, you will probably have to explain to the city why they are getting a bill for new tail-lights, and if I am wrong, then write me the ticket."

I wonder how many cops would go for it? lol.

 

Yes. Got pulled over 6 times in less than a year in my 01 ws6 because they though my taillights were tinted. One cop even went as far as try to scratch off said tint because he just couldnt believe they would be that dark factory. Needless to say the city bought me a new set of taillights and a set of LED bulbs to make them brighter at night. Nothing you can do during the day though. I even went as far as taking the new taillights in box to a judge to prove how dark they were and got a letter from the judge and the DA stating that those taillights were factory that dark and had the letters stamped with their seals. Went to court 4 out of the 6 times for that ****. 2 of them let me go with a warning.

 

So happened the other 2-times ? Fined ? Case-dropped ?

What a waste of taxpayers' money . . .

:-) neil

 

No wait you misunderstood i think. I was saying in the event you DENY popping the hood and he gives you a ticket anyway for modification, assuming it is modified, and you fight it in court, court might favor cop just for the fact you didnt pop the hood and just assume its modified. Unless you return your engine bay to stock and take photos and present it to the judge/court.




True, maybe that could be used in court if it comes down to it. However very hard to side with our particular type of community. Not many cities like modified cars to begin with. I would assume its terribly hard for you cali guys.




Then your word is as good as the cops.

Like i said above if a cop gives you a ticket for modification because you didnt pop the hood, and just assumed it is modified. Then you fight it in court, how will you prove to the judge/court that it is in fact NOT modified??

Can you prove to the court/judge what went down during that pull over? They dont know what words or actions were exchanged. For all you know, the cop could have lied and said "owner let me pop the hood". Its your word against his. There are shady *** cops too you know man.

The fact that 90% of the FD's here are actually modified, will be hard to convince the court that your car is not modified, just for the fact you denied popping the hood to the cop. The cop has the advantage, even if you didnt pop the hood, because your car is modified anyway. Whether he actually saw under the hood or not. That's what i was getting at.

And im not doubting your experience but your experience will vary tremendously from others, depending on town/cop.

 

I've noticed this is kind of the attitude with the general American public. The desire for performance is now "Deviant" although it's perfectly fine if it's a Harley or an old Muscle car because that's what they grew up with. But to be fair, the whole ricer scene that exploded after the Fast and Furious movie came out just made the cops have an allergic reaction to anything Japanese with 4 wheels. There were a lot of people with really crappy unsafe cars that were just horribly modified with taped on body kits etc. But the cops can't tell the difference between that and a stock FD sometimes.

 

Listen to this man. He knows his ****.

Sad but true, this is exactly what it boils down to.

 

@ 1qwik7, the burden of proof is on the state, not you to prove them wrong. Without consent to prove it is modified they have no choice but to drop it.

 

I just feel like even if you win in court, you will be on the cops radars and sooner or later bring you down. Because I noticed when I was pulling away he was either taking down the make and model, but most likely my license plate. Wonder if my 7 is now "marked" in their system.

 

very true.

in orlando last year i had a cop pull me over (for tint too dark) and after looking at my ID (29yo) he actually said
"aren't you too old to be driving a car like this"

i had to bite my tongue not to reply "arent you too fat to be a real cop" but it wouldnt be worth all the tickets, so i kept my mouth shut. (his poor utility belt could barely contain his bulging gut)

he then proceeded to tell me my exhaust was too loud (i have muffled midpipe and RB dual tip, VERY quiet for a performance car) and that it was illegal because it was too loud, and also no one is allowed to have an aftermarket exhaust of any kind.

at this point i couldnt contain myself and i laughed aloud in his face.

i drove a 383ci heads/cam transam with straight through true dual 3" exhaust, it set off car alarms in every parking lot i drove through and was obnoxiously loud, but in 2 years of daily driving it, i never had a cop pull me over for the noise, in fact they usually gave a thumbs up.
with these older cops, its clearly a generational dislike for the japanese cars. muscle cars and big trucks are fine, because they are american i guess, or they grew up around them.

i said if the noise is the problem, then he better start pulling over every single tractor trailor truck, and every single diesel 4x4 because they are all louder than my car, and they come that way from the factory.

and if aftermarket exhausts are illegal, he better alert congress about the millions of aftermarket exhausts that are installed every single day, even by dealer option.

he replied with something even dumber...."they are all illegal, even from the factory"

lmfao......i just shook my head at him and kept laughing as he wrote me a ticket for the tint and told me to get my exhaust replaced with factory parts or he would stop me again.

im so glad that my tax dollars are being spent to pay this fatassed robot to harass me about some window film instead of stopping REAL crime.

 

Damn these tail light issues are more serious than I thought. My fd is gonna draw a lot of attention when it's complete. Guess I'll start keeping a brochure in the bin.

 

Anyone have a link to a brochure so I can print it and keep it in my bin!?? I've never had a problem before, but I'd like to have something to show the cop if it were to ever happen.

 

the other two times they were fairly reasonable and understood a little about cars and let me go.

 

Ah ok. Well at that point the cop is on the side of a losing case as he has no evidence of under the hood violations. There has to be some kind of proof either by sight, sound, picture, anything. Suspicion doesn’t hold up in court.

Heck yeah that gets used in court. The law is very clear: either the cop has consent, probable cause, or a warrant. For a case like this the real problem is that the majority of us (yes us as I include myself) don’t know how to argue in court effectively hence we lose these types of cases.

For example, this argument in court or on the roadside is not very strong by any means as it proves nothing:

Sorry HardHitter for putting you on the spot but that was perfect example. Now a better argument along the same lines is to question the officer why the search is warranted. Well your young... Nope not a good reason. Oh your gauges, nope gauges are legal. So the argument turns to given that your age and that you have legal gauges to monitor legal components in your vehicle, does not justify probable cause to search for illegal components. Given that there is no indication that you would break the law.

Not just the discontent to modified cars, but California is broke and the public is seen as a form of revenue that is for sure. That is why arguments made by the public have to be better than ever. Long gone are the days where if the judge had any doubt the judgement would be awarded to the motorist.


It’s not. I just kinda know to play the game. During a traffic stop I take every opportunity to trip up cops that I know are full of ****. Basically after they write me up, I ask questions (very respectfully) about how exactly they determined my infraction. Then I turn around in court and present to the judge what they said. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

You don’t have to prove anything as the cop doesn’t have any proof. Remember the burden of proof falls on the state. Assuming is not proof.

There is a great amount of ethics that comes with the job and most cops are not going to straight up lie and thus put their job in danger for something so small. Remember they see the real ugly in society, murderers, rapists, child abusers. And yes there is always a chance that an officer can lie. But if he/she is willing to lie in open court and under oath about a stupid traffic stop then the driver was being a HUGE dick or that officer won’t be in the force for long. As if he/she does this for something so small then who knows what else he is doing.

Guilty by association is not evidence. Because you decided to exercise your rights doesn’t give the state a valid reason to go after you in court. Sure it will **** them off and yes they may know that you are guilty but proof of the crime is the core of our criminal justice system. Without that it sets us back to the Salem witch trials which as you know was based on gossip and assumptions.

Guilty or not doesn’t matter. In court it is all about who can argue their case the best. And the cop has the advantage if he says he SAW said illegal components it counts as evidence and a cop’s word is worth more than ours. Even still the police take pictures of modified engine bays to solidify their case against motorists. See always proof… but ultimately if your rights get violated while acquiring the said proof it is is the court’s responsibility that the evidence gets thrown out.

Every situation is different but the law is the law. And like I said in court the one who argues the best counts just as much or more than just evidence alone.