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."