I agree it sucks, but I also believe the OP was breaking some laws, by his own admission.

Sorry, I meant any moving violation laws. Seems like just getting pulled over because he felt like it; I guess I'll never know. :popcorn:

It did sound like it, based on the OPs version of the story.

I agree with others there is a chance it would get thrown out if he can prove the cop had no basis for pulling him over, assuming the laws in CA that allow the police to look under your hood doesn't also allow them to do random spot checks of same. The level of tint on the back window could possibly be enough to pull you over, even if the cop didn't say that.

I don't believe (but could be wrong) they are required to tell you why they pulled you over, at least not initially. The policeman could pull you over, ask for license and registration, write you a ticket, hand it to you, and explain what you are being ticketed for. The cop could just say/justify his comment about the car was meant to be a compliment but was taken wrongly by the driver.

(FULL DISCLOSURE: I have a father-in-law who was an MP, and a brother-in-law who is a retired cop, as well as a son interested in law enforcement. None of them are "jerks" just like not all people that drive sports cars are racers)

you really can't tell if its catted or not unless you go under the car. I'm wondering how the catless status was verified?

Doesnt matter if its catted or not. We dont have any CARB legal headers for our car that I know of so any kind of aftermarket header would have been written up.

You keep saying "no means looks or sounds like a race car" yet you have a body kit, wheels, lowered, and exhaust. I'm not judging you as I most of these modifications myself, but my car definitely doesn't look or sound like a stock BRZ. I'm sure it comes off to many as exactly what they consider a race car. Just because you're not covered in stickers and a carbon fiber hood doesn't make you exempt from that general opinion.

Good luck with the ticket. Be happy the officer didn't give you a referee ticket and just pay the small fix-it fines. If you try and fight it you'll probably lose and they'll be pulling you over and giving you a referee ticket for now on.

I was written up for my header, which means he did get me for a referee ticket. If I would have only gotten fix it tickets, I would never have made this thread as those are nothing to waste time over.

Bigger question is, what is an Airport cop doing mod inspections on cars passing by?

I'm still not sure why you made the thread. You got busted for your mods because your car looks modded. It's something we'd all like to avoid but if your car looks modded you're taking a risk.

It's a violation of the constitution to detain someone because they look like they race.

It's not a violation of the constitution to detain somebody for having an illegally modified vehicle. Whether they heard your exhaust, thought the car was too low, or saw your tint, they can pull you over and examine your vehicle for illegal modifications. You all know your mods are illegal and then get mad at the cops for enforcing the law. Take responsibility for your actions instead of bitching about them.

If you read carefully, I just wanted to share my experience of being pulled over because my car looks modded. I wasn't breaking any laws that the guy could see and yet he still found the time to pull me over.

I didn't force anyone to read this thread.

Post whatever you like. That's the point of this place. I just think its childish to say your car doesn't look or sound like a race car when that's exactly what it does look and sound like. Then complain that you want to fight the ticket because you got busted for the choices you made. I love the modding community but take responsibility for your choices and not blame the police for doing their job.

Thank you for your input. Anyway, I'm not going to fight it. Header swap is easy enough. I hope you never have to deal with getting stopped & inspected.

I have been busted. It sucks. You're fortunate that its a quick fix. Best of luck

It is NOT a violation of the constitution to detain (pullover/question) a person if that person is suspected of committing a crime. Period. End of discussion on that point.

Now WHAT is considered probable cause to "suspect one of commission of a crime" is definitely open for debate.

[quote=Pneub;2110846]It's not a violation of the constitution to detain somebody for having an illegally modified vehicle.[quote]

That's right.


If he sees a violation or had reasonable suspicion a violation exists, yes he can pull you over. If he just thinks you probably have a violation because "you look like a racer" that's not probable cause. Unless you have some case law that I'm unaware of.

Pulling people over for looking like racers is a violation of the highest law in the land, the constitution. Seems like you want to excuse cops when they break the law.

Got some case law on that? Suspicion has to be reasonable and hunches are explicitly not reasonable.

Mirror mounted on a telescoping rod with an LED light attached to it. These are even referred to as "Inspection mirrors". LEOs use them for many a thing. Sad thing is, the header doesn't have to be verified catless, just look "modified".

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Telescoping-Dual-LED-Inspection-Mirror-Stainless/dp/B005U5VI7E"]Telescoping Dual-LED Inspection Mirror - 2" Real Glass - Extends to 34" - Stainless Steel Shaft - Textured Soft-Grip: Machine Tool Inspection Mirrors: Amazon.com: Industrial & Scientific[/ame]

[quote=YouShallKnow;2110867][quote=Pneub;2110846]It's not a violation of the constitution to detain somebody for having an illegally modified vehicle.Pulling somebody over because their car is loud (from the header and deleted cat), pulling somebody over to inspect if their car is too low (because his car is clearly lowered), and pulling somebody over for illegal tint (because his tint is illegal) are all within the boundaries of the law.

Yes, provided his suspicion was reasonable in all those regards. And I agree that the cop would be smart enough to testify that "you look like a race car" was just shorthand for "your tint was too dark and your exhaust was too loud."

I don't think he's close enough to being illegally lowered to justify a stop on those grounds though.

But if the cop testified that he literally pulled him over because he looks like a race car, that's not reasonable suspicion.

and he wouldn't.

If he said any of those things I would understand, but that's why I said: we were in traffic(barely noticeable exhaust note), my windows were rolled all the way down, and I'm not even close to being too low. I just want to know for next time, if the cop has no justifiable cause to inspect my engine bay, do I have to pop the hood? Or can a cop inspect any vehicle he wants, regardless of the reason?

The applicable code is Cal. Vehicle Code § 2804

"2804. A member of the California Highway Patrol upon reasonable belief that any vehicle is being operated in violation of any provisions of this code or is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person, may require the driver of the vehicle to stop and submit to an inspection of the vehicle, and its equipment, license plates, and registration card."

2806 gives the same right to any other cop.

So it comes down to reasonable belief, which is the same for our purposes as reasonable suspicion (the standard to justify pulling you over."

First and foremost, you should NEVER give your consent. But if you want to stay out of the back of a police car, you shouldn't prevent him from checking.

If he looks and a judge later finds it unreasonable, you can get the ticket (or any other charge that results from the inspection) thrown out.

But the problem is that cops know how to testify to prevent this (as in your case where he could easily say that he thought your exhaust was too loud).

So for your purposes, I'd assume any cop could defend a pull over and inspection and I wouldn't protest too much. You'd probably have better luck trying to be cool with the cop.

Yup, thats just what I thought. I tried to be cool letting him poke around without any resistance. I thought he just wanted to check the car out lol (has happened to me before). Thanks for the info!

For educational purposes...

I don't understand how a cop can cite for the headers. I agree that ANY aftermarket header is a violation. But wouldn't that mean the cop would have to have knowledge of what a stock header looks like? And as far as I can remember, there are underpanels blocking the header from view from below. And from atop, I can only see a small portion of the header. The rest is blocked from view by the engine.

So unless the cop has xray vision, and has a encyclopedia of ALL stock headers for all cars, I don't see how he can cite for aftermarket header?

I'm not trying to argue against the cop, I just want to know how they can justify citing for it.

Probably because there is no shortage of reckless, aggressive, and dangerous drivers speeding, lane swerving, and having no regard for life or property that we witness operating vehicles, and share the road with on a daily basis. My mom and I were almost killed the other day when she was merging onto the freeway on a short onramp. We were a good 11 - 12 cars length ahead a huge semi truck, and she merged properly just behind the Tacoma that just passed her. The semi truck driver (that was already doing a good 10 - 15 mph over the speed limit for trucks) then proceeds to recklessly speed up to our flank as we were about to complete the merge, completely cock blocking us and forcing us onto the (extremely narrow shoulder) while we had to wait for his huge ass vehicle to pass us - meanwhile the cops are pulling people over for cosmetic modifications, and other misdemeanors.

Moreover, the OP was clearly profiled - and that's something that will upset most people.

No one is crying - this is called discourse as the OP has several options available if he chooses to contest the citations.

It amazes me that people click on threads when they have a rigid opinion on an issue that doesn't concern them, and just make a post to poo poo someone, or their choices while missing the point entirely. If we all lived by your philosophy of just accepting the way things are and moving on - well, women would still have no rights and black people would still be slaves.

I wonder what the cop would have made of this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zUNGJS1uCE...0/917+lega.jpg

So reading comprehension not your strong suit I gather?

Not sure why you need to be a jerk about it.

But since you are, let's go over how wrong you are.

That's wrong. Suspicion is not sufficient. Suspicion has to be reasonable.

You're confusing two concepts. Probable cause is for searches and arrest and is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion, which is what's required for a traffic stop or under-hood-inspection.

Blah Blah......Wrong!:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

No one's talking about Terry stops. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd be embarrassed right now.

Look it is a FACT: The Police can pull you over if they suspect that you might be committing a crime. PERIOD.

How can you possibly argue otherwise?!?

I THEN went on to point out that they require "probable cause" but WHAT that cause is is up to the officer at that moment.
Citizens do not get to second guess the officer on the spot. PERIOD.

If you would like to argue with the officer and deny his requests to pull over/stop/obey his orders, you will get arrested. But be my guest.

:popcorn:
I love where this is going.

But seriously, everyone's getting all riled up about a story that we all read SECOND HAND.

I read the post, got a kick out of it, and started to remember why this forum has gotten a reputation for going to shit the further I read.

All of this "all cops are pigs" bulls#*t on the first page. Please! And then all of the quoting of court cases long past. Wow!

I think both sides could be right. If the officee did pull the OP over for the stated reason then it was obviously a BS call. That being said, I have similar mods to my car and would completely UNDERSTAND if an officer pulled me over for no reason whatsoever.

Car's like this stand out and scream "Look at Me!" We bulid them to do this. You got caught, it sucks but it is what it is.

-Rant Over-

That's not true. It has to be reasonable suspicion. You cited the case law yourself. Terry requires not just suspicion, but REASONABLE suspicion. You keep mistating the law.

Cops can suspect your Benz is stolen because you're black, doesn't make it legal to detain you on that ground.

Because you're misstating law that you cited yourself. You want me to let your inaccuracies slide after you insulted my reading comprehension? Nope.


Nope, look up the probable cause test; again it's based on an objective standard, not the subjective will of the police. And when cops fuck it up, which they do frequently, judges throw out all the evidence they obtained illegally.


I never said they did, their lawyers get to second guess the cops in court and judges get to decide.

Yeah I know. That was specifically included in my advice to apollo. No one's arguing that.

You are totally missing the point.
If the police feel like pulling you over FOR ANY REASON, they WILL do so.

It does not matter if it is constitutional or not.
IF it turns out that it was NOT, then the charges are thrown out BUT YOU STILL HAD TO PULL OVER!.
THIS STEP IS PERFORMED AFTER THE FACT.

Based on your response, it seems that YOU BELIEVE that if the driver feels that the police officer SHOULD NOT have probable cause then the driver should just keep on driving.

Your logic is just plain fucked up.

So again:
Look it is a FACT: The Police can pull you over if they suspect that you might be committing a crime. PERIOD.

It MIGHT turn out that the officer was WRONG.
That does not mean that he did not have the right to investigate.

To argue otherwise means you are just trolling.

Right so by that same logic police can murder anyone they like.

^thats true. they can step in front of a car and say their life was in danger. and empty a whole clip into you.

they can pull you over for any reason, and (can)even lie about it. I got pulled over for "going a little fast" This was in a slammed car with wheels but other wise stock going from 1st to 2nd gear at 2500rpm, never passing 25mph. I refused to consent to a search. They cuffed me, threw me in the back of the squad car and searched my car and found nothing. They uncuffed me and sped off. How can you make a complaint when flashlight was in your face the whole time and you were in the back of the car and never saw any faces? They know the law better than you do, and they KNOW how to break the law better than you do.

Right but everyone understands that already. I was trying to offer insight into the legal aspect of their powers which are not well known.

And I was trying to point out the fact that: If the police suspect a person is committing (or has committed) a crime, they can stop and search/question you.

The Terry case confirms this.

Just 100% fact right there.
Only a Moron would argue with that statement


Of COURSE (as I mentioned above) what happens AFTER a stop is up to a judge and the judicial system and any charges that result from the stop MIGHT be thrown out based on the constitutionality of the stop.

DURING the stop you dont get to pull the "this is an unconstitutional stop" bullshit UNLESS you WANT a ride in a police cruiser.

And I never once said anyone should challenge the cop, I offered the exact opposite advice.