pass referee in cali for loud exhaust...

[MokSpeed]

Originally Posted by mav1178

I've gotten two "ref" tickets before, around 2003.

-alex

Originally Posted by mav1178

I have had 1 ref ticket in my entire 20+ year driving/modding history.

-alex

Which one is it?

[Phantobe]

Originally Posted by Cal3000

I love around the same area as the OP :/
I have a full header back exhaust with a Vortech SC on E85 with tomei headers and an N1 with a strong scent of alcohol from the exhaust.
What's the quietest exhaust on the market? Lol

Stock lol.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by MokSpeed

Which one is it?

If you must know:

I got 1 ticket in May 2004. I got the exact same ticket the week after (even before I had a chance to get the case documented in court and get my bail info in the mail).

When I informed the officer that I already got a ref ticket, the officer ignored the first ticket and wrote me up for a different vehicle code, which was 27156(f):
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...le=27150-27159

(f) No person shall operate a vehicle after notice by a traffic
officer that the vehicle is not equipped with the required certified
motor vehicle pollution control device correctly installed in
operating condition, except as may be necessary to return the vehicle
to the residence or place of business of the owner or driver or to a
garage, until the vehicle has been properly equipped with such a
device.

At the end of the day, I got 1 ref ticket (dismissed after parts were put back to stock) and the second ticket was thrown out since the first ticket wasn't even registered in the system yet and I understood my rights.

-alex

[cycleboy]

Originally Posted by phobos512

Oh look, there's still smog in LA...

2008: https://www.flickr.com/photos/moondoggie71/2603458118

2011: https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8032/8...c9ff3a07_b.jpg

I'm sure I could find ever more recent ones, but why? Your assertion that there's no smog now with that one silly comparison picture that comes up as nearly the first image with a Google search of "California smog" is at best farcical.

I don't think anyone is saying there's none, but I've been to LA many times in the past 45 years. It's definitely less noticeable now. Keep in mind that the visible part of smog is only part of the story. My eyes and nose don't burn when going there now.

Anyway, I have no problem if people hate this state. We have enough residents and tourists already.

[cycleboy]

FYI - I looked up the new car smog exemption for Ca:

A gas-powered vehicle is excused from Smog Check until it is seven model-years old.

So my '13 FR-S won't get a check until 2020.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by mav1178

If you must know:

I got 1 ticket in May 2004. I got the exact same ticket the week after (even before I had a chance to get the case documented in court and get my bail info in the mail).

When I informed the officer that I already got a ref ticket, the officer ignored the first ticket and wrote me up for a different vehicle code, which was 27156(f):
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...le=27150-27159


At the end of the day, I got 1 ref ticket (dismissed after parts were put back to stock) and the second ticket was thrown out since the first ticket wasn't even registered in the system yet and I understood my rights.

-alex

a cop is not a judge and jury, that law is invalid. You have to have your day in court, we are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Just because a cop CLAIMS that your exhaust is inadequate is not a valid reason to force you to change it at all until it is proven that your exhaust is inadequate, there's another thing I would fight all the way to the grave.

AS was proven in my case. My exhaust was proven by the bar to be adequate, the cop was WRONG...

The idea that a ticket can be written and then before you even get your day in court to be proven to be guilty, you can be cited for not changing what may have not even been a violation in the first place is ridiculous.

I'm getting incensed now at some of the things I'm reading.

The ref that tested my car brought it to redline and left it there for several seconds to even get the car to read as loud as it did, something I almost never do.

Jaden

[ApolloSki]

Originally Posted by Jaden

a cop is not a judge and jury, that law is invalid. You have to have your day in court, we are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Just because a cop CLAIMS that your exhaust is inadequate is not a valid reason to force you to change it at all until it is proven that your exhaust is inadequate, there's another thing I would fight all the way to the grave.

AS was proven in my case. My exhaust was proven by the bar to be adequate, the cop was WRONG...

The idea that a ticket can be written and then before you even get your day in court to be proven to be guilty, you can be cited for not changing what may have not even been a violation in the first place is ridiculous.

I'm getting incensed now at some of the things I'm reading.

The ref that tested my car brought it to redline and left it there for several seconds to even get the car to read as loud as it did, something I almost never do.

Jaden

Just like how I was written up for a "loud" exhaust even though I was pulled over in traffic....

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Jaden

a cop is not a judge and jury, that law is invalid. You have to have your day in court, we are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Just because a cop CLAIMS that your exhaust is inadequate is not a valid reason to force you to change it at all until it is proven that your exhaust is inadequate, there's another thing I would fight all the way to the grave.

AS was proven in my case. My exhaust was proven by the bar to be adequate, the cop was WRONG...

The idea that a ticket can be written and then before you even get your day in court to be proven to be guilty, you can be cited for not changing what may have not even been a violation in the first place is ridiculous.

I'm getting incensed now at some of the things I'm reading.

The ref that tested my car brought it to redline and left it there for several seconds to even get the car to read as loud as it did, something I almost never do.

Jaden

Uh, you do realize how the law works right?

I'm not going to type a long reply out but in the case of traffic tickets and vehicle code violations, it's just a citation for you to do one of 3 things: 1) fix it, 2) prove your innocence, 3) pay the fine.

Did you even read what I wrote? No one is forcing you to change anything, the law is just saying "If you are suspected of modifying emissions equipment, you should have it verified/signed off before you continually drive the car". Recourses include fixing the violation, getting a 3rd party verification that is it not a violation, or provide the paperwork up front that it is street legal (i.e. showing CARB paperwork, etc)

I actually think the law is very fair (once I got around to understanding it).

-alex

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by mav1178

I have no issues with driving a modded car in California as I took time to understand how the law works and what my mods impact my rights.

That's the whole point. In many other states you simply don't have to worry about it.

Non-Californians call that freedom.

[kch]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

That's the whole point. In many other states you simply don't have to worry about it.

Non-Californians call that freedom.

It may sound a bit over-the-top when you put it like that, but there is a certain value in literally never having to worry about my mods getting me in trouble.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Uh, you do realize how the law works right?

I'm not going to type a long reply out but in the case of traffic tickets and vehicle code violations, it's just a citation for you to do one of 3 things: 1) fix it, 2) prove your innocence, 3) pay the fine.

Did you even read what I wrote? No one is forcing you to change anything, the law is just saying "If you are suspected of modifying emissions equipment, you should have it verified/signed off before you continually drive the car". Recourses include fixing the violation, getting a 3rd party verification that is it not a violation, or provide the paperwork up front that it is street legal (i.e. showing CARB paperwork, etc)

I actually think the law is very fair (once I got around to understanding it).

-alex

It's not fair at all if you understand how our judicial system is supposed to work.

A violation, is a violation of law. It's a VC vehicle code violation as opposed to a PC penal code violation, but it is a violation of law. In our judicial system, LEO's are not able to pass sentence...

The very fact that we can contest VC violations and go to court attests to that.

Until such time that you get your day in court, any suspicion of violations (that may or may not be violations) should not be useable against you.

That is probably the reason that his second violation was thrown out by the court.

That provision must be for a violation after it has been entered into the system, IOW, AFTER a conviction.

Until the conviction takes place any other attempts at writing up the same violation should be null and void.

That LEOs go power tripping and assign them anyways is a PROBLEM...

If the court determines that the violation is in fact a violation, THEN continued use of the equipment found to be in violation could be deserving of additional citations, but not until that conviction takes place.

Most people don't even bother doing what I did, and they just pay the fine, but then they accept a conviction of that VC violation.

I wasn't about to do that and the 108 I had to spend in order to not do that was worth it.

I will most likely end up out of ALL three violations the officer wrote me up for, cause they were pretty much ALL bs.

two will be signed off and the third I will contest through a trial by written declaration.

I've won three tickets through trial by written declaration and have yet to have lost one, including one that I was cited as going 104 in a 65 zone.

Jaden

[kch]

Originally Posted by Jaden

I was cited as going 104 in a 65 zone.

Instead of fighting your tickets, you could just get fewer tickets by not driving like an ass.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

That's the whole point. In many other states you simply don't have to worry about it.

Non-Californians call that freedom.

Don't have to worry? Or is it just a simple matter of cops not enforcing the law?

I can't think of a single state that allows you to blatantly modify whatever you want in the engine bay. Just because there's no inspection doesn't mean it is legal.

You guys also don't have to worry about a landscape that contributes to some of the worst smog problems in the US.

Originally Posted by Jaden

It's not fair at all if you understand how our judicial system is supposed to work.

I do understand it.

I got one ticket that I fixed because of modified emissions (non-CARB legal header).
I got one ticket that was dismissed because the officer applied the wrong provision. On the second ticket, they did not write me up for the first infraction, but rather wrote up the "do not drive until it's fixed" provision. This one was applied in error.

There is no passing judgment in my case, and I really still think the law is written clearly:

Get modified emissions ticket, get it fixed or written off.
If you get pulled over again without getting the first ticket fixed or written off, you will get a different ticket.

The officer wasn't tripping, they were enforcing the VC exactly as it was written. Nowhere in the VC requires a conviction to trigger VC27156(f) to apply... so no one is tripping here.

-alex

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Don't have to worry? Or is it just a simple matter of cops not enforcing the law?

I can't think of a single state that allows you to blatantly modify whatever you want in the engine bay. Just because there's no inspection doesn't mean it is legal.

You guys also don't have to worry about a landscape that contributes to some of the worst smog problems in the US.




I do understand it.

I got one ticket that I fixed because of modified emissions (non-CARB legal header).
I got one ticket that was dismissed because the officer applied the wrong provision. On the second ticket, they did not write me up for the first infraction, but rather wrote up the "do not drive until it's fixed" provision. This one was applied in error.

There is no passing judgment in my case, and I really still think the law is written clearly:

Get modified emissions ticket, get it fixed or written off.
If you get pulled over again without getting the first ticket fixed or written off, you will get a different ticket.

The officer wasn't tripping, they were enforcing the VC exactly as it was written. Nowhere in the VC requires a conviction to trigger VC27156(f) to apply... so no one is tripping here.

-alex

It doesn't HAVE TO BE WRITTEN...

You obviously DON'T get it. It doesn't have to be written in the VC for that to be an unlawful application. It is inherent in our justice system and the way it is supposed to work.

To have a law (VC) that allows them to cite you for something that is contingent upon another citation that has not resulted in a conviction is adherent to the very core of what our justice system is supposed to represent (i.e. innocent until proven guilty).

If for example, another cop were to have pulled me over before I had had my court date and before I had had my exhaust level tested and I informed him that I am in the process of contesting a violation of 27150a and he wrote me up for that other violation, both would end up getting thrown out. It is WRONG that he even has the authority to write it up, or that he is trained to write it up in the first place as I've stated it is adherent to the core of our judicial system.

All in the name of stopping non existent and uncontrollable even if it weren't, GW.

Jaden