pass referee in cali for loud exhaust...

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

How is a cop writing you a ticket for something that is against the law "abuse" and if I am not mistaken there are plenty of times they can legally search can they not?
And not sure you understand the word "usurp".

The only time they can legally search your car is if there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed that would require searching. They can sometimes get that by seeing something illegal in plain view.

If a dog hits on it that is trained for finding contraband, although even that is now suyspect because of controversy over the way dogs are trained to hit on command versus actually finding something.

Also the supreme court just recently ruled that officers cannot keep you longer than actual ticket in order to wait for a dog to arrive to try and hit on the car. This was due to cops not respecting people reserving their right to not consent to a search.

One of the dissenting opinions was a bit nonsensical even though it's probably accurate.

That was that cops would just make a routine traffic stop take longer so that they wouldn't have to keep them waiting.

That just isn't practical though. You could subpoena the records from that cop and get an average time for their traffic stop and if yours took longer it would be ruled unjustified. It's basically a check on abuses of authority.

Once a couple of times that the city and department (and individual officers as a circuit court ruled in florida) are sued, they'll start training their officers differently and officers will start acting differently.

I don't ever want to hear, "oh they're just doing their job". That would be like saying that a soldier rapes women in a foreign country because everyone else was doing it or their superiors told them to were just doing their job...

Their primary job as law enforcement in a free nation is to safe guard the liberties they are sworn to uphold. Just as military members' primary jobs are to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Their job is NOT to just do whatever their corporate masters tell them to do.

And yes, we are currently in the Incorporated United States of America and the incorporated State of California and the incorporated county of Riverside and the Incorporated city of Temecula. We have been living under corporate despotism since not long after the civil war and people are too wrapped up in keeping their own status quo to realize it.

Jaden

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

To the point of the violation, I would be pissed off if I was woken up by a 90+ dB exhaust, that's loud as fuck, don't know what the rest of y'all's tolerance is, but we're talking hearing damage, jackhammers, trains etc. Typically that level is measured at less than a foot from the exhaust so the average passerby would experience a much lower level. Still awfully annoying.

To the "commiefornia" brigade, as said above, we've got enough people 'round here, not in the business of driving up property prices even more.

Today I have two options of legal superchargers that give me an estimated 300 horsepower at the crank on pump fuel, plenty of upgrades like oil coolers to axles to handle the load, big fat sticky rubber, slam it on coilovers, do just about any aero modification that doesn't impact other drivers, many options for exhausts, and go spend a lovely day thrashing it around Laguna Seca, Thunderhill, Sonoma Raceway, Buttonwillow, Willow Springs, Fontana ("Auto Club") Speedway, or any number of AutoX sites without limits, take a leisurely drive through the Sierra Nevada's, down the coast along Hwy 1, through wine country or any number of windy hilly roads. All easily and legally.

Guess I'm missing out by not ripping my catalytic converters out or that I have to reflash before my smog test every two years if I have a non-certified tune? The maximum of 4 hp from not having access to 93 octane? That hypothetically other cops would be more lenient if I had a loud as fuck exhaust? Ok.

IT's not 90+ decibels from 20-30 feet away in normal driving conditions. It's not more than 95 decibels at REDLINE from 20". That''s 20 inches away from the exhaust. My neighbors don't even know I leave in the morning.

Jaden

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

To the point of the violation, I would be pissed off if I was woken up by a 90+ dB exhaust, that's loud as fuck, don't know what the rest of y'all's tolerance is, but we're talking hearing damage, jackhammers, trains etc.

No. You'd have to be exposed to 90 dB continuously for at least 2 hours for it to damage your hearing. That's about the normal loudness of a gasoline push mower. A jackhammer is around 120 to 125 dB, significantly louder than his exhaust.

Furthermore, unless I misunderstood, he wasn't driving around with 90+ dB exhaust. He had it tested without the baffles to get those numbers. The cop ticketed him for running it with the baffles, at a much lower sound level.

The cop was wrong.

[babydriver]

Originally Posted by kch

Nah, there are some states (midwest, plains area, and FL) that don't require an inspection at all.

Interesting point about Florida. They did have a statewide vehicle inspection program at one time (up to about 1978 or so) which was disbanded by the then governor because his own personal RV failed the inspection. It's good to be the king.

During the time that this program was in force, my close friend had a run in with the police in Daytona concerning the inspection sticker on his car, a 67 Ford Fairlane with a nicely built out 289. The car admittedly looked like s**t, with really bad paint and other cosmetic issues. The day we went to the beach, however, he had had the car inspected THAT DAY at one of the Florida inspection stations. It passed with flying colors, since paint was not on the list of things to be inspected.

When we got to Daytona that evening, we did as everyone else was doing and drove on the beach. About thirty minutes after our arrival, a Daytona cop took a dislike to this guy's car and stopped us. He saw the new inspection sticker and determined in his own mind that my friend must have stolen it off another car, because there was "no way that this car passed inspection". He was about to arrest my friend for what would have been a felony, when fortunately he was able to produce the receipt for the inspection carried out earlier that same day. This did not halt the hassling, though. He noticed that there were six passengers in a car that "officially" had a capacity of five (in a car with front and rear bench seats) and forced one of the people in the car to get out. Unbelievable.

[babydriver]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

No. You'd have to be exposed to 90 dB continuously for at least 2 hours for it to damage your hearing. That's about the normal loudness of a gasoline push mower. A jackhammer is around 120 to 125 dB, significantly louder than his exhaust.

A dB rating is dependent on two things: the actual volume of the sound and the distance from which the measurement is taken. Without specifying the distance, the dB number is meaningless. If the car's exhaust is 90+ dB at a distance of a meter (a common distance from which to take this reading with a dB meter) then it will be nowhere near 90 dB at anything approaching a normal distance found between the "listener" and the car's exhaust, unless the listener has his ear near the back of the tailpipe. In that case, he has much more to worry about concerning CO poisoning than losing his hearing.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Jaden

IT's not 90+ decibels from 20-30 feet away in normal driving conditions. It's not more than 95 decibels at REDLINE from 20". That''s 20 inches away from the exhaust. My neighbors don't even know I leave in the morning.

Jaden

Hence the second to last sentence in that paragraph.

Originally Posted by extrashaky

No. You'd have to be exposed to 90 dB continuously for at least 2 hours for it to damage your hearing. That's about the normal loudness of a gasoline push mower. A jackhammer is around 120 to 125 dB, significantly louder than his exhaust.

Furthermore, unless I misunderstood, he wasn't driving around with 90+ dB exhaust. He had it tested without the baffles to get those numbers. The cop ticketed him for running it with the baffles, at a much lower sound level.

The cop was wrong.

Didn't say the cop was right.

Jackhammer at 50 feet ~90dB according this source, i.e. analogous to a loud exhaust.
http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Jackhammer at 50 feet ~90dB according this source, i.e. analogous to a loud exhaust.

No again. His was measured at 20 inches. Without the baffles. Not even close in comparison.

I seriously doubt he's waking his neighbors.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

No again. His was measured at 20 inches. Without the baffles. Not even close in comparison.

I seriously doubt he's waking his neighbors.

You're right about the difference, the second part of my statement that you quoted was wrong.

OP's exhaust is legal, I personally find loud exhausts annoying, should be end of this discussion.



Edit: I've heard exhausts measuring over 90dB from 20 feet away, I do understand the difference, my words failed me tonight.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

You're right about the difference, the second part of my statement that you quoted was wrong.

OP's exhaust is legal, I personally find loud exhausts annoying, should be end of this discussion.



Edit: I've heard exhausts measuring over 90dB from 20 feet away, I do understand the difference, my words failed me tonight.

Sorry, I see now. Miscommunication.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

The cop was wrong.

The cop is not wrong, they are simply writing a ticket for a possible infraction of the vehicle code in question.

Whether or not it passes, that's up to the BAR referee to determine.

Just because the officer wrote a ticket doesn't mean you are guilty. To assume judgment is passed by the officer is twisting the entire system around to the advantage of law enforcement and giving up your rights.

Again: just because you get a ticket doesn't mean you are in violation. It simply means you are possibly in violation.

-alex

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Again: just because you get a ticket doesn't mean you are in violation. It simply means you are possibly in violation.

It means you have been accused of violating the law, and in this case the accusation was false and not based on any legitimate evidence. By swearing to a ticket, the cop was not saying that he was possibly in violation. He was making an official accusation.

This guy passed with the baffles removed from his exhaust. That means it was even quieter when the cop ticketed him and nowhere near the legal limit. The law allows the cop to issue citations based on his judgment, presuming him to be an expert with sufficient training to make such a judgment call. So, if he falsely accused this guy of a violation based on nothing more than his judgment, either he hasn't received sufficient training and wasn't qualified to make that determination, or he decided on his own to issue the citation without any basis in law just because he didn't like the sound.

Either scenario is an abuse of power, because it subjects the citizen to a process of proving his own innocence at his own expense and to the benefit of the government. It's frivolous prosecution. That's not freedom.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

It means you have been accused of violating the law, and in this case the accusation was false and not based on any legitimate evidence. By swearing to a ticket, the cop was not saying that he was possibly in violation. He was making an official accusation.

This guy passed with the baffles removed from his exhaust. That means it was even quieter when the cop ticketed him and nowhere near the legal limit. The law allows the cop to issue citations based on his judgment, presuming him to be an expert with sufficient training to make such a judgment call. So, if he falsely accused this guy of a violation based on nothing more than his judgment, either he hasn't received sufficient training and wasn't qualified to make that determination, or he decided on his own to issue the citation without any basis in law just because he didn't like the sound.

Either scenario is an abuse of power, because it subjects the citizen to a process of proving his own innocence at his own expense and to the benefit of the government. It's frivolous prosecution. That's not freedom.

You're basically describing the root of the problem.

So let me ask you: The sound limit is 95db in CA. How do you go about determining if a car is in violation of that? Set up annual checks? What SAE procedure do you follow to test? Where do you test?

Following the same reasoning, I am driving 65MPH on the freeway with a 65MPH speed limit, and both my GPS as well as the road radar sign shows 65MPH. I get pulled over and am accused of doing 70MPH because the cop thinks I was speeding. How do you determine innocence or guilt? Do you accuse the cop of frivolous prosecution as well, just because you feel you were driving exactly 65MPH?

My point is that this is not judgment of guilt. I do realize that it passes with the baffles removed, but what if it doesnt? Even with a trained ear, it's borderline impossible to tell the difference between 93 and 95db, not all sound is the same...

At least there is a test method in place in CA for exhaust noise violations. SEMA fought for this legislation over a decade ago and now it's pretty easy to get it cleared up if you have an exhaust in compliance. Before, it was just your word vs the officer's.

Honestly, the law is pretty simple in CA on exhaust noise violations. Feel free to read:

27150. (a) Every motor vehicle subject to registration shall at all
times be equipped with an adequate muffler in constant operation and
properly maintained to prevent any excessive or unusual noise, and
no muffler or exhaust system shall be equipped with a cutout, bypass,
or similar device.
(b) Except as provided in Division 16.5 (commencing with Section
38000) with respect to off-highway motor vehicles subject to
identification, every passenger vehicle operated off the highways
shall at all times be equipped with an adequate muffler in constant
operation and properly maintained so as to meet the requirements of
Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 27200), and no muffler or
exhaust system shall be equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar
device.
(c) The provisions of subdivision (b) shall not be applicable to
passenger vehicles being operated off the highways in an organized
racing or competitive event conducted under the auspices of a
recognized sanctioning body or by permit issued by the local
governmental authority having jurisdiction.



27150.1. No person engaged in a business that involves the selling
of motor vehicle exhaust systems, or parts thereof, including, but
not limited to, mufflers, shall offer for sale, sell, or install, a
motor vehicle exhaust system, or part thereof, including, but not
limited to, a muffler, unless it meets the regulations and standards
applicable pursuant to this article. Motor vehicle exhaust systems or
parts thereof include, but are not limited to, nonoriginal exhaust
equipment.
A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.



27150.2. (a) Stations providing referee functions pursuant to
Section 44036 of the Health and Safety Code shall provide for the
testing of vehicular exhaust systems and the issuance of certificates
of compliance only for those vehicles that have received a citation
for a violation of Section 27150 or 27151.
(b) A certificate of compliance for a vehicular exhaust system
shall be issued pursuant to subdivision (a) if the vehicle complies
with Sections 27150 and 27151. Exhaust systems installed on motor
vehicles, other than motorcycles, with a manufacturer's gross vehicle
weight rating of less than 6,000 pounds comply with Sections 27150
and 27151 if they emit no more than 95 dbA when tested in accordance
with Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J1169 May 1998.
(c) An exhaust system certificate of compliance issued pursuant to
subdivision (a) shall identify, to the extent possible, the make,
model, year, license number, and vehicle identification number of the
vehicle tested, and the make and model of the exhaust system
installed on the vehicle.
(d) The station shall charge a fee for the exhaust system
certificate of compliance issued pursuant to subdivision (a). The fee
charged shall be calculated to recover the costs incurred by the
Department of Consumer Affairs to implement this section. The fees
charged by the station shall be deposited in the Vehicle Inspection
and Repair Fund established by Section 44062 of the Health and Safety
Code.
(e) Vehicular exhaust systems are exempt from the requirements of
Sections 27150 and 27151 if compliance with those sections, or the
regulations adopted pursuant thereto, would cause an unreasonable
hardship without resulting in a sufficient corresponding benefit with
respect to noise level control.



27150.7. A court may dismiss any action in which a person is
prosecuted for operating a vehicle in violation of Section 27150 or
27151 if a certificate of compliance has been issued by a station
pursuant to Section 27150.2, or if the defendant had reasonable
grounds to believe that the exhaust system was in good working order
and had reasonable grounds to believe that the vehicle was not
operated in violation of Section 27150 or 27151.



27151. (a) No person shall modify the exhaust system of a motor
vehicle in a manner which will amplify or increase the noise emitted
by the motor of the vehicle so that the vehicle is not in compliance
with the provisions of Section 27150 or exceeds the noise limits
established for the type of vehicle in Article 2.5 (commencing with
Section 27200). No person shall operate a motor vehicle with an
exhaust system so modified.
(b) For the purposes of exhaust systems installed on motor
vehicles with a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating of less
than 6,000 pounds, other than motorcycles, a sound level of 95 dbA or
less, when tested in accordance with Society of Automotive Engineers
Standard J1169 May 1998, complies with this section. Motor vehicle
exhaust systems or parts thereof include, but are not limited to,
nonoriginal exhaust equipment.

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) with an established noise limit of 95-decibels (SAE J1169). Under the SAE standard, a sound meter is placed 20 inches from the exhaust outlet at a 45-degree angle and the engine is revved to three quarters of maximum rated horsepower. The highest decibel reading is then recorded...

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by mav1178

So let me ask you: The sound limit is 95db in CA. How do you go about determining if a car is in violation of that?

In general, you don't. That's the whole point. The government should generally leave people alone when they're not creating a problem. There's absolutely no need to prove that every exhaust complies with the law.

You talk about annual checks. That assumes that everyone is guilty, and they're all required to come in annually and prove their innocence. That's not the way it's supposed to work in this country. State governments get some leeway because driving is a privilege rather than a right, but generally speaking they're not supposed to use that to harass and intimidate their citizens.

IF someone is driving around with excessively loud exhaust and a cop witnesses it or gets complaints from citizens, THEN a cop might pull the person over and test the loudness of it. There is such a thing as a decibel meter. Out of all the billions of tax dollars police departments spend on militarization, you'd think they could shell out the money to buy the tools to actually do the job. You can even download an app for that. Even that would be preferable to the cop just saying it's too loud based on the fact that he doesn't like it.

In this case, the cop had no legitimate grounds to accuse OP of anything. If he didn't have any real evidence, he shouldn't have written the ticket in the first place.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

In general, you don't. That's the whole point. The government should generally leave people alone when they're not creating a problem. There's absolutely no need to prove that every exhaust complies with the law.

You talk about annual checks. That assumes that everyone is guilty, and they're all required to come in annually and prove their innocence. That's not the way it's supposed to work in this country. State governments get some leeway because driving is a privilege rather than a right, but generally speaking they're not supposed to use that to harass and intimidate their citizens.

IF someone is driving around with excessively loud exhaust and a cop witnesses it or gets complaints from citizens, THEN a cop might pull the person over and test the loudness of it. There is such a thing as a decibel meter. Out of all the billions of tax dollars police departments spend on militarization, you'd think they could shell out the money to buy the tools to actually do the job. You can even download an app for that. Even that would be preferable to the cop just saying it's too loud based on the fact that he doesn't like it.

In this case, the cop had no legitimate grounds to accuse OP of anything. If he didn't have any real evidence, he shouldn't have written the ticket in the first place.

So annual checks like vehicle inspections, smog checks, and other stuff are all assuming we're guilty until proven otherwise? I'm not implying that every exhaust needs to be tested, it was merely a rhetorical question about how to determine if someone is in violation.

If someone is driving around and an officer wants to test, how exactly do they test? On the side of a road? What about ambient noise? What about a properly calibrated test equipment? What about cross winds? What about noise reflecting off nearby surfaces?

Officers should not be the ones doing the testing... this part you bring up is the most absurd. Why is the officer supposed to be the standard of judgment on violations based on factual measurements? By that same reasoning, shouldn't an officer also be trained in DNA testing to determine if a suspect is at the scene of a crime? There are things law enforcement is good at, and that is law enforcement. They are executing the law, not judging it. Evidence should be collected by qualified individuals according to standards set in whatever law is drafted.

A lot of things you bring up can be thrown out in court because it is based on conditions that change and unpredictable, hence a standardized method of testing as listed in CA law.

I agree that there is no need to prove every exhaust complies with the law nor am I implying it be that way. My own experience tells me that no one really cares unless you stand out like a sore thumb.

-alex