pass referee in cali for loud exhaust...

[kch]

Originally Posted by mav1178

ok ok, didn't realize I was debating with a lawyer.

Everyone is a lawyer on the internets; didn't you hear? No but seriously, the distinction between the officer (1) popping your hood himself or (2) asking you to pop it is an irrelevant one. If your car looks non-stock in ANY way, that can be enough for "reasonable cause." If an officer asks you to pop the hood, it's not a request, it's an order.

So yes, the people claiming you can refuse to pop your hood on 4th amendment grounds are full of it. I mean it never hurts to put on the record that you don't consent to the search, but if he wants to pop your hood, he's gonna pop your hood, and there's not much you can do about it.

Edit: I still maintain my previous assertion that CA is ridiculous.

[Tcoat]

I have always felt that if I have nothing to hide then I also have nothing to worry about so look all you want officer.
If you have something to hide and have broken a law then that makes the cop correct in having probable cause and he has the right to check.
Also love how some take little snippets of the law and try to bend them to their own self serving purpose without taking into account all the other aspects of law that also apply to the situation.
The reference of the 5th amendment as a right to not be searched is ludicrous.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by mav1178

... you do realize that these emissions laws are all over the place, right?

No, they aren't. My other vehicle is a Jeep. I have a header and a high-flow cat on it, neither of which are CARB compliant. Yet they are EPA compliant and road legal in at least 48 other states. The emissions laws are simply not the same.

Furthermore, I have lived in ten different states, and I have never heard of anyone having a cop demand an under-hood inspection in any of them. In fact, I've never heard of that happening anywhere outside of California. Even the states that require emissions testing do not have uniformed thugs pulling you over to demand to see under your hood.

But please, by all means keep telling us about all these things they subject you to in California that people in the free part of American don't have to deal with. Eventually maybe you'll actually convince someone that government intrusion into your life is better than being left alone.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Also love how some take little snippets of the law and try to bend them to their own self serving purpose without taking into account all the other aspects of law that also apply to the situation.
The reference of the 5th amendment as a right to not be searched is ludicrous.

LOL. First a Californian lectures us on emissions laws and government intrusion that don't apply to the rest of the country, and now a Canadian is lecturing us on our Constitutional protections.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

LOL. First a Californian lectures us on emissions laws and government intrusion that don't apply to the rest of the country, and now a Canadian is lecturing us on our Constitutional protections.

I can read!
Enlighten me on what I missed in the 5th that protects you from search.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I have always felt that if I have nothing to hide then I also have nothing to worry about so look all you want officer.

I'm not one of those guys who belligerently argue with law enforcement officers but this is a dangerous line of thought. There was a comment on reddit awhile back that really solidified my opinion on the argument.

http://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/...wed_to/cd89cqr

Privacy exists for a reason, it is protected for a reason in this country all the way back to the founding of the U.S. with specific provisions to protect communication methods and personal property of the day.

Now that communication and property have become much more complex we are struggling to redefine those protections, rolling over and allowing a select few to determine what happens to the vast majority is asking for problems.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I can read!
Enlighten me on what I missed in the 5th that protects you from search.

The Fifth Amendment protects us from being forced to bear witness against ourselves. Case law has held that to include action as well as words. Therefore a police officer can't force us to open our hoods. If the cop has real probable cause, he can open it himself. But he can't force us to do it.

The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search and requires probable cause by extension. If the cop has probable cause, that still doesn't require a motorist to open the hood even if the cop has the right to see in there. A US citizen is never required to cooperate in his own prosecution.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

The Fifth Amendment protects us from being forced to bear witness against ourselves. Case law has held that to include action as well as words. Therefore a police officer can't force us to open our hoods. If the cop has real probable cause, he can open it himself. But he can't force us to do it.

The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search and requires probable cause by extension. If the cop has probable cause, that still doesn't require a motorist to open the hood even if the cop has the right to see in there. A US citizen is never required to cooperate in his own prosecution.

The amendment is very clear that it applies to criminal charges only. Are vehicle compliances a criminal act?

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The amendment is very clear that it applies to criminal charges only. Are vehicle compliances a criminal act?

Despite the wording, it applies to both criminal and civil proceedings under case law (Minnesota v. Murphy).

[Fishbed77]

All I can say is that I'm glad I don't live in Kommiefornia.

[Toyarzee]

so can i call myself much more informed and confused at the same time?

[8R6]

Originally Posted by Toyarzee

so can i call myself much more informed and confused at the same time?

Lol

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Toyarzee

so can i call myself much more informed and confused at the same time?

Here is what I have taken away from all this:
1) Any law that you don't like is dumb and should not exist
2) You can do what ever I want because nobody has the authority to do anything about it anyway
3) The police should not do their job because it interferes with what you want
4) All police are egotistic, power hungry, bumbling fools that have a personal vendetta against every single person they pull over
5) If you knowingly break the law fight it (see #s 1 & 2)
6) The constitutional rights that were originally written to protect the innocent have been twisted to a point that they really just serve to hide guilt


In summary: Never, ever cooperate or show any form of respect because it is your god given right to put up as much resistance as possible with the full expectation that you will somehow benefit from your actions.

[kch]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Case law has held that to include action as well as words. Therefore a police officer can't force us to open our hoods.

Citation please? I took con law like 7 years ago so all i remember is the blood sample case (Schmerber), and a few more recent district court cases that are split on whether you can be compelled to provide an encryption password.