i just got off the phone with the local CHP office and i was talking to a officer about the consent to search, when it comes to cars..(you know the pop you hood B.S.) and he told me that you cant refuse the officer to search AT ALL, when it comes to cars if he sees or hears anything abnormal he can search your car.

Also he added that the officer is to use this power with discursions and must not abuse it..

I didn't ask about the V.C. # but it has to do with special equipment that’s not legal (mods) and its kinda like the probable cause thing.....

Can anyone find out the specifics of this.....

pancho,

 

this is BS.. i hate the cops more day by day.... why dont they take the time of stoping ppl that are not doing anything wrong with their "hobbies" = working on cars.. and use the time to stop some crime in oakland or other high crime area etc.... they treat us like we all hide 100 Lbs of coke in our engine bay..or if we have a after market exhaust that means we are heavily mod.

 

Thought I'd chime in since I'm a lawyer with a passing interest in law relating to cars and moving violations. With regard to searches the CVC is pretty much meaningless because the federal constitution governs the scope of government searches. While the text of the 4th amendment provides some guidance, one needs to look at what the Supreme Court has held in more particularized circumstances. Here is a good summary of USSC law with respect to searching cars:
It is established law that the warrant requirements of the 4th Amendment are less stringent with respect to the search and seizure of automobiles than for homes or offices. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). Because an automobile is by its very definition mobile, it might be moved out of the area before a warrant could be obtained, providing exigent circumstances which justify a warrantless search by law enforcement officers. Id. at 151. At the same time, the Court has recognized that individuals in an automobile have a diminished expectation of privacy because of the public nature of an automobile, compared to the private nature of a dwelling. See Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590 (1974). However, even though a warrant is not required to search an automobile, the Court has consistently held that probable cause to believe that the car contains contraband or evidence of a crime is necessary to justify a warrantless search. See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 48 (1970); Ca-rroll, 267 U.S. at 153.
Generally, probable cause to search or seize an automobile is found when police officers observe unlawful conduct, such as drunk driving, or when an automobile is lawfully stopped and the officer observes contraband in plain view in the car. See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987); Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990). However, the Court recently extended the warrant exception for automobiles in cases where a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the automobile itself is forfeitable contraband, pursuant to a civil forfeiture statute. In Florida v. White, 119 S.Ct. 1555 (1999), the Court found that, under a Florida civil forfeiture statute, the warrantless seizure of a vehicle which the police suspected had been used to transport narcotics over a period of time was consistent with the Fourth Amendment. In deciding that such a seizure was constitutional, the Court also upheld many Circuit Court cases in which a warrantless seizure was conducted under the federal forfeiture statute, which is similar to Florida’s. See White at 1558 (upholding United States v. Valdes, 876 F.2d 1554 (1989); United States v. Decker, 19 F.3d 287 (C.A.6 1994); United States v. Pace, 898 F.2d 1218, 1241 (C.A.7 1990)). The Court also disagreed with the lower court that there was a difference between searching a vehicle when there was probable cause to believe that it contained contraband and seizing a vehicle based on a belief that it had been used to assist in illegal activity in the past. See White at 1559.
I checked for California cases, but there don't appear to be any on point. My guess would be that there must be some tangible indication of a CARB violation. A loud exhaust would probably do it, while stickers or an appearance of being into the sport compact scene would be more suspect. I doubt you'll ever see a case on it because it's so expensive to litigate these questions.

 

Since my post was so long I should give a more digestable version. The law appears to be that you cannot refuse a search since a warrant is not required to search automobiles. Your primary defense is going to be judicial review of the probably cause determination. This situation, of course, creates practical problems because it would be a huge pain in the a** to get judicial review because it is both time consuming and expensive. I personally would challenge the probable cause determination to the cop's face before I ever popped the hood. I might even ask for a warrant on the guess that a cop doesn't have a nuanced understanding of the relevant law.