Police caught me
09-30-2004, 12:01 PM
#16
Token Toyota Mod
iTrader: (50)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 52,306
Car Info: Something german
Originally Posted by DOHCammin
oh, and the state ref doesnt care about having no cats, they dont hand out the tickets, cops do. All they're there to do is check your exhaust for sound levels and its free, as long as you've been given a ticket.
09-30-2004, 02:51 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 189
Originally Posted by DOHCammin
oh, and the state ref doesnt care about having no cats, they dont hand out the tickets, cops do. All they're there to do is check your exhaust for sound levels and its free, as long as you've been given a ticket.
10-01-2004, 11:57 AM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 189
Trial by Written Declaration, for those of you who don't know, is where you plead your case by mail. The way it works is you pay your bail and plead not guilty and request for a "Trial by Written Declaration." You are given a form and instructions along with a deadline as to when to submit them with your arguments ("Statement of Facts").
Once you submit your information, the cop would have to do the same. A "judge" will then review the case and pass judgment. The beauty of this method is that if you lose, you have the opportunity to appeal and appear in person in Court with a new judge, whereas if you fight it in Court and lose, you have no chance to appeal.
Once you submit your information, the cop would have to do the same. A "judge" will then review the case and pass judgment. The beauty of this method is that if you lose, you have the opportunity to appeal and appear in person in Court with a new judge, whereas if you fight it in Court and lose, you have no chance to appeal.
10-02-2004, 08:22 AM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Burbank, California
Posts: 307
Car Info: 05 CGM FXT STi
Originally Posted by soggynoodles
What?? really? Is that all? I thought they "inspected the car for everything.
I had no cats when I went in, the guys were pretty cool about everything. I failed the first test w/o the silencer and they said they would do it again if I put a silencer in.
I even apologized to the guy that had his face right next to the muffler while the guy in the drivers seat was reving it at 4000RPM's.
10-04-2004, 01:48 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 31
just to give you guys some advise keep this in your glove box... it works i have been stopped a couple of times and show them this...http://www.enjoythedrive.com/content/?ID=8133 use it!!!
10-04-2004, 11:14 PM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 189
Originally Posted by DRFTR8
just to give you guys some advise keep this in your glove box... it works i have been stopped a couple of times and show them this...http://www.enjoythedrive.com/content/?ID=8133 use it!!!
10-04-2004, 11:24 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 189
Below is a copy of the letter I sent to argue my case.
Re: Case #1234567
People v. ivbdn
Your Honor or Executive Officer/Clerk Mr. Clerk,
My name is ivbdn, and I have been accused and cited for being in violation of California Vehicle Code 27151(a) – Modification of Exhaust Systems. I have entered a plea of not guilty and intend to prove my innocence and compliance to the Vehicle Code based on the following arguments:
1. I am in compliance with California VC Section 27151(a) by being in compliance with Section 27150.
2. I am in compliance with California VC Section 27150 by having a muffler that has been properly maintained and not equipped with any disqualifying devices as defined by the Vehicle Code.
3. I am not guilty of exceeding the noise limits specified by the California VC Section 27206.
California VC 27151(a) states:
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.
I am not guilty of violating CVC 27151(a) as I am in compliance with Section 27150 and was provided with no supporting evidence that I “exceeded the noise limits established…in Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 27200).”
California VC 27150 is the “Adequate Muffler Required” law of the Vehicle Code. It requires that motor vehicles that must be registered will “be equipped with an adequate muffler” as defined by the California Vehicle Code. It states that:
(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.
Amended Ch. 558, Stats. 1977. Effective January 1, 1978. Supersedes Ch. 579
I am in compliance of California VC 27150(a) as my car is equipped with an adequate muffler that has always been in operation. Inspection of the exhaust system shows signs of only normal “wear and tear.”
Officer A**hole provided no supporting evidence nor conducted any scientific analysis that it is emitting excessive noise. The sound being emitted by the exhaust system in question is not unusual for the engine of the car. The car is equipped with its original engine which has a “flat” configuration, also known as a “boxer engine.” It has its own unique sound, just as a car equipped with an engine having a V-8 configuration has its own sound unique to that particular engine configuration.
There are no holes or leaks in the exhaust system of my vehicle, nor has my vehicle been “equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar device.” Aside from the aftermarket muffler, a customized pipe leading from the second catalytic converter to the muffler was fashioned in order to provide the proper clearance required to fit the muffler, and provide the aesthetic appeal which I favored.
Along with the customized piping, I had installed a 28” glasspack resonator. Unlike a cutout or bypass which leads the exhaust gases to another exit separate from the muffler, the glasspack resonator allows the flow of the exhaust gases to exit from the muffler, but aids in the muting of the noise emitted from the engine through the exhaust system. The original piping from the manufacturer is also equipped with a resonator and therefore, my aftermarket resonator cannot be construed as a “similar device” to a cutout or bypass.
I am exempt from paragraphs (b) and (c) of the aforementioned Section of the California VC as my car does not meet the conditions to qualify as an “off-highway motor vehicle” nor was I operating my vehicle “off the highways in an organized racing or competitive event.”
Article 2.5, commencing with Section 27200 establishes the maximum noise limit for the various vehicles in operation on the highway. I am exempt from the following Sections of Article 2.5 – Noise Limits of the California VC as I am not a car dealer nor does my motor vehicle qualify as any of the vehicles defined in this Article:
§ California VC 27200 – Vehicle Registration and Sale Prohibitions
§ California VC 27201 – Pre-1970 Motorcycle Limit
§ California VC 27202 – Motorcycle Limits
§ California VC 27203 – Snowmobile Limit
§ California VC 27204 – Limit for Vehicles Exceeding 5,999 Pounds Gross Vehicle Weight
§ California VC 27207 – Limit for Governor-Equipped Vehicles Exceeding 10,000 Pounds
I am, however, not exempt from California VC 27206 – Limits for Other Vehicles as my motor vehicle qualifies under this Section. California VC 27206 states:
For the purposes of Section 27200, the following noise limits shall apply to any other motor vehicle, not specified in this article, manufactured:
(1) After 1967, and before 1973 86 dbA
(2) After 1972, and before 1975 84 dbA
(3) After 1974 80 dbA
Amended and renumbered Ch. 558, Stats. 1977. Effective January 1, 1978.
My motor vehicle was manufactured in April of 1999 and sold as a Model Year 2000. As a result, my vehicle is allowed a limit of 80 dbA under standards set up by the California Highway Patrol.
Officer A**hole conducted no such testing at the time of the citation, and his testimony is simply his subjective opinion.
Again, I am entering a plea of “not guilty” in regards to the citation given to me on the morning of February 3, 2004.
California VC Section 27150.7 – Dismissal of Prosecution states:
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.
Amended Sec. 8, Ch. 92, Stats. 2001. Effective January 1, 2002.
Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 569, Stats. 2002. Effective January 1, 2003.
I believe that I have met the requirements of California VC Section 27151(a) and have shown “reasonable grounds to believe” that I was not in violation of Section 27151(a). Therefore, if it pleases the Court, I request that the charge brought against me be dismissed in accordance to California VC Section 27150.7.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Respectfully,
ivbdn
People v. ivbdn
Your Honor or Executive Officer/Clerk Mr. Clerk,
My name is ivbdn, and I have been accused and cited for being in violation of California Vehicle Code 27151(a) – Modification of Exhaust Systems. I have entered a plea of not guilty and intend to prove my innocence and compliance to the Vehicle Code based on the following arguments:
1. I am in compliance with California VC Section 27151(a) by being in compliance with Section 27150.
2. I am in compliance with California VC Section 27150 by having a muffler that has been properly maintained and not equipped with any disqualifying devices as defined by the Vehicle Code.
3. I am not guilty of exceeding the noise limits specified by the California VC Section 27206.
California VC 27151(a) states:
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.
I am not guilty of violating CVC 27151(a) as I am in compliance with Section 27150 and was provided with no supporting evidence that I “exceeded the noise limits established…in Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 27200).”
California VC 27150 is the “Adequate Muffler Required” law of the Vehicle Code. It requires that motor vehicles that must be registered will “be equipped with an adequate muffler” as defined by the California Vehicle Code. It states that:
(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.
Amended Ch. 558, Stats. 1977. Effective January 1, 1978. Supersedes Ch. 579
I am in compliance of California VC 27150(a) as my car is equipped with an adequate muffler that has always been in operation. Inspection of the exhaust system shows signs of only normal “wear and tear.”
Officer A**hole provided no supporting evidence nor conducted any scientific analysis that it is emitting excessive noise. The sound being emitted by the exhaust system in question is not unusual for the engine of the car. The car is equipped with its original engine which has a “flat” configuration, also known as a “boxer engine.” It has its own unique sound, just as a car equipped with an engine having a V-8 configuration has its own sound unique to that particular engine configuration.
There are no holes or leaks in the exhaust system of my vehicle, nor has my vehicle been “equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar device.” Aside from the aftermarket muffler, a customized pipe leading from the second catalytic converter to the muffler was fashioned in order to provide the proper clearance required to fit the muffler, and provide the aesthetic appeal which I favored.
Along with the customized piping, I had installed a 28” glasspack resonator. Unlike a cutout or bypass which leads the exhaust gases to another exit separate from the muffler, the glasspack resonator allows the flow of the exhaust gases to exit from the muffler, but aids in the muting of the noise emitted from the engine through the exhaust system. The original piping from the manufacturer is also equipped with a resonator and therefore, my aftermarket resonator cannot be construed as a “similar device” to a cutout or bypass.
I am exempt from paragraphs (b) and (c) of the aforementioned Section of the California VC as my car does not meet the conditions to qualify as an “off-highway motor vehicle” nor was I operating my vehicle “off the highways in an organized racing or competitive event.”
Article 2.5, commencing with Section 27200 establishes the maximum noise limit for the various vehicles in operation on the highway. I am exempt from the following Sections of Article 2.5 – Noise Limits of the California VC as I am not a car dealer nor does my motor vehicle qualify as any of the vehicles defined in this Article:
§ California VC 27200 – Vehicle Registration and Sale Prohibitions
§ California VC 27201 – Pre-1970 Motorcycle Limit
§ California VC 27202 – Motorcycle Limits
§ California VC 27203 – Snowmobile Limit
§ California VC 27204 – Limit for Vehicles Exceeding 5,999 Pounds Gross Vehicle Weight
§ California VC 27207 – Limit for Governor-Equipped Vehicles Exceeding 10,000 Pounds
I am, however, not exempt from California VC 27206 – Limits for Other Vehicles as my motor vehicle qualifies under this Section. California VC 27206 states:
For the purposes of Section 27200, the following noise limits shall apply to any other motor vehicle, not specified in this article, manufactured:
(1) After 1967, and before 1973 86 dbA
(2) After 1972, and before 1975 84 dbA
(3) After 1974 80 dbA
Amended and renumbered Ch. 558, Stats. 1977. Effective January 1, 1978.
My motor vehicle was manufactured in April of 1999 and sold as a Model Year 2000. As a result, my vehicle is allowed a limit of 80 dbA under standards set up by the California Highway Patrol.
Officer A**hole conducted no such testing at the time of the citation, and his testimony is simply his subjective opinion.
Again, I am entering a plea of “not guilty” in regards to the citation given to me on the morning of February 3, 2004.
California VC Section 27150.7 – Dismissal of Prosecution states:
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.
Amended Sec. 8, Ch. 92, Stats. 2001. Effective January 1, 2002.
Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 569, Stats. 2002. Effective January 1, 2003.
I believe that I have met the requirements of California VC Section 27151(a) and have shown “reasonable grounds to believe” that I was not in violation of Section 27151(a). Therefore, if it pleases the Court, I request that the charge brought against me be dismissed in accordance to California VC Section 27150.7.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Respectfully,
ivbdn
10-05-2004, 12:16 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 189
Originally Posted by DRFTR8
^^ the letter still works.. just recently someone got pulled over from the forum and they let him go...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Salty
Teh Politics Forum
16
09-07-2005 02:39 PM
