"Andy Levy" <andy.levy@gmail.com> wrote:
: On 3/14/06, Rick Barnes <rascal@scrtc.com> wrote:
:>
:> Gustapo! California Department of Automotive Repair? Man, California is SO
:> screwed up. No wonder its population is actually going down...the guy is
:> doing nothing wrong, not speeding, driving dangerously, just minding his own
:> business and gets pulled over and picked on. Reminds me of my days as an
:> old biker when cops just pulled us over to hassle us. They won't do it
:> anymore cause so many attorneys ride Harleys now. Oh yeah, I was a Miami,
:> FL cop at one time....never did this crap to anyone. Its just another way
:> to screw with people and generate revenue. How does Leno get away with
:> driving his Toronado?
Because he's rich and influential? ;-) Actually, that car might be
old enough to be exempt from the emissions requirements and such, but
it still illustrates how stupid the laws are.
: Keep in mind that this is a training video.
Which is a scary thought in itself. ;-) Oh, and could they have
picked an actor who was more mis-matched to his car? I think this video
was probably the first time the guy has ever even sat in an import. :-)
Speaking of which, if this car had all these illegal modifications to it,
why do the cops get to drive it on the street to make the training film?
Was the street shut down to all other traffic, and did they obtain the
proper permits to film and operate an illegal vehicle on a public street,
hmmmm? Kinda makes me wonder where the car came from in the first
place. What do you suppose are the odds that it was impounded (stolen)
from a US citizen?
: The officer pulled the car over initially for a true violation - CA
: law (like many states) requires both front and rear plates, the car
: only had a rear. Pretty low on the scale of offenses, but it's still
: a violation. He then uses this opportunity to find other possible
: violations. *This happens all the time*. A broken taillight is an
: excuse to check an otherwise normal driver for drunk driving. And so
: on.
Yep, I don't recall the exact terminology now but I think it is
something like "primary" vs "secondary" enforcement? The secondary
items aren't enough to be able to pull somebody over for, but if
you've pulled them over for a primary violation, you can ticket them
for the secondary stuff too. In NY, I think seat belts used to be
secondary but now they are primary.
I definitely see Rascal's point though - the only "true" reason to
pull this guy over is to harrass him, feed your superiority complex and
extort money. Here's a thought, maybe this wiener should spend a
little less time harrassing people who are minding their own business
and not hurting anybody and spend a little more time going after people
like, oh, I dunno, murderers, rapists, terrorists and stuff... I guess
things run so perfectly in California that this is all they have to
worry about? ;-)
: The real question is, was the driver legally required to submit to the
: search, or could he have refused?
Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. Seems like having the guy
pop the hood constitutes a search. In the video, when the guy required
a warrant before the officer could look under the hood, they placed him
under arrest. (Which is basically the only way to proceed if the
officer wants to pursue this - you can't detain somebody without cause,
so at that point they'd either have to let him go with the license plate
ticket or place him under arrest.) They implied that they had the
authority to check under the hood to ensure compliance. I can see both
sides of this one - I can see how they would need to be able to check
under the hood if it is their job to ensure the vehicle meets the legal
specs, but it still seems a bit far reaching. I believe there are laws
about not being able to search the interior of the vehicle unless the
officer sees something out in the open. Doesn't seem right that this
same protection wouldn't extend to under the hood. It doesn't seem
like the police should be concerned with emissions stuff anyway,
safety equipment yes, but emissions should be handled by the inspection
stations. And of course, the laws mean very little once you get into
the courtroom. The gov't can make any law that it wants to, wether it
is ultimately upheld by the courts and the people is another story.
(Although I have to admit that it seems relatively few laws are sucessfully
challenged. Thousands upon thousands of blatantly unconstitutional laws
remain on the books, unchallenged or upheld due to ignorance, corruption
and greed.) :-(
At any rate, this sort of crap really burns me up. "Adjustable
timing is illegal, this hose isn't correct, etc." At what point do
you cease to be a citizen and become a subject? These days, that point
is a bit too close for comfort, IMHO.
--
-Jon-
.- Jon Steiger --- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com -.
| 67 Dodge Coronet, 70 Plymouth Barracuda, 76 Peugeot TSA |
| 78 Dodge B100, 90 Dodge Dakota Convertible, 92 Dodge Ram 4x4 |
| 96 Dodge Dakota, 96 Suzuki Intruder 1400, 96 Kolb FireFly |
| 99 Jeep Cherokee 4x4, 01 Dodge Ram 3500 CTD |
`--------------------------------- http://www.jonsteiger.com --'
.
.
.------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Make your plans NOW to attend the National DML Meet in Colorado! |
| Date: July 15-23, 2006 - More info: http://meet.dakota-truck.net |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 02 2006 - 18:27:15 EDT