How to own a DSM in California?

[josh408]

Yea here in norcal, you should have some knowledge of your rights, like when they ask to pop your hood and stuff they must have a really good reason. But lately, they haven't been much of a pain in the A** except, to hondas with loud mufflers. Just don't give them a reason to pull you over and you'll be fine.

 

[GsxEcutioner]

I get scared SHITLESS when driving up north, the police there will pull you over for ANYTHING and crush your car without thinking twice. The cops here are a little more nice IMO.

They dont crush cars.......I saw that a long time ago in Socal, its because if your car has stolen parts on it, it will be crushed. At most they will tow your car.

 

[gofer]

I've never EVER been pulled over in El Diablo, granted I'm plated out of state but I have NO front license plate, a LOUD exhaust, and a BIG SHINY front mount. What it comes down to, in my opinion, is driving like a soccer Mom thats late to her kids game. I myself get up to speed, 65-70mph, and cruise in the slow lane and basically go un-noticed by the CHP because everyone else is going 80mph and changing lanes across 4 lanes of traffic with no blinker.

If I do get popped I'm not so sure what CHP would point at for being not SMOG legal, odds are it would be my air filter.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[black_gst]

I've never EVER been pulled over in El Diablo, granted I'm plated out of state but I have NO front license plate, a LOUD exhaust, and a BIG SHINY front mount. What it comes down to, in my opinion, is driving like a soccer Mom thats late to her kids game. I myself get up to speed, 65-70mph, and cruise in the slow lane and basically go un-noticed by the CHP because everyone else is going 80mph and changing lanes across 4 lanes of traffic with no blinker.

If I do get popped I'm not so sure what CHP would point at for being not SMOG legal, odds are it would be my air filter.

and your AFPR

 

[gofer]

Id just ask them why a gauge to monitor my fuel pressure is illegal? You're right though Adam, they'd probably think it was nitrous control like that hardass female tech inspector at Fontana did.

 

[simple jake]

I've never EVER been pulled over in El Diablo, granted I'm plated out of state but I have NO front license plate, a LOUD exhaust, and a BIG SHINY front mount. What it comes down to, in my opinion, is driving like a soccer Mom thats late to her kids game. I myself get up to speed, 65-70mph, and cruise in the slow lane and basically go un-noticed by the CHP because everyone else is going 80mph and changing lanes across 4 lanes of traffic with no blinker.

If I do get popped I'm not so sure what CHP would point at for being not SMOG legal, odds are it would be my air filter.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Holy crap that thing is badass! I think I'm in love. Your car is now my background for my laptop .

But ya here in the High Desert, its pretty easy to get away with things. Up here its wide open and most of the speed limits are 50 around town. I have a 3'' dump on my car and its loud as hell but I still haven't been pulled over. Every now and then I get on it, but not in the thick part of town.
The way I got mine smogged was just use my 2002 Eclipse for the smog, and just hand those papers into the DMV. I only paid 60 for the smog too, but that's because I'm really good friends with those guys. But ya, like stated many times you have to have the cash to keep your DSM on the road here in Cali.

 

[1gDSM4g63]

The only thing that worries me in cali are the smog checkpoints. How can you get away from that ? Can you just say no and get sent to the ref with stock piping?

Like I said before, California cops are prejudice. American cars can get away with anything albeit you don't drive stupid. I've never gotten pull over with my Jeep v8 5.9L race a non-full exhaust straight pipe race muffler, no cat, race intake manifold, cam, headers and throttle body. It sounds a mean muscle car!

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

However, it's a different story for my DSM... Get pull over first it's a huge fine and tell me to put it back to stock and second OR third time they'll impound my car and crush it because it's an unnecessary car.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

They dont crush cars.......I saw that a long time ago in Socal, its because if your car has stolen parts on it, it will be crushed. At most they will tow your car.

Yes, they do. They crush cars and/or suspend your license with a ridiculous fine.

sounds good to me, and yea I do golf and I do gamble . Thanks.

F$#k Indian down in Palm Springs! They gyp you and I wouldn't doubt California law enforcement and/or gamble department wouldn't do anything about it. All it's for them is raking in more money which leads to more money they get for taxes. Go enjoy the golf courses and maybe you'll find some celebrities because lots them take a break in Palm Springs!

As beautiful and good weather as California may be it's not as it seem with these liberals doing anything to get out of the billion dollar debt!

 

[ez@2gnt]

I've heard of crushed cars if you street race (ontario), or if you have stolen parts (riverside), but never if you are modded. If you've read different, please link to that site.

Again, just make it stealth. You can do things right in front of others eyes and people won't even pay attention. Kinda like how the bankers robbed the entire economy and no one even does anything.

 

[GsxEcutioner]

I've heard of crushed cars if you street race (ontario), or if you have stolen parts (riverside), but never if you are modded. If you've read different, please link to that site.

Again, just make it stealth. You can do things right in front of others eyes and people won't even pay attention. Kinda like how the bankers robbed the entire economy and no one even does anything.

Cops didn't seem bad in riverside, I drove my dads convertible 350z from normal to riverside for a week, Ontario I heard is big on crushing when it comes to racing and stolen parts. My friends have all driven from norcal to socal with their show cars, all modified and never got messed with. When I was down in Anaheim-Garden grove area , I saw boosted s2000's everyday as Dd and a bunch of fmic cars like supras, integers and such and they drive around like it's nothing.

 

[gt35rx]

Doesn't matter what car you drive or how heavily modded your car is. The most important thing you have to know to survive in California or anywhere else is your RIGHTS. If you know your rights, you can avoid going to visit the ref's, under hood checks for non-smog exempt parts and saving yourself from stupid time wasting fix it tickets. You also can't be a dick to cops, even if you know your rights.
I have been pulled over multiples times by CHP or local PD with officers trying to intimidate and threaten me to pop my hood. Once you make it apparent that you know yours rights and that they are in violation by their threats, they will leave you alone.

 

[gho5tone]

Like the game Assassin Creed, blend in with the crowd.

 

[GsxEcutioner]

Doesn't matter what car you drive or how heavily modded your car is. The most important thing you have to know to survive in California or anywhere else is your RIGHTS. If you know your rights, you can avoid going to visit the ref's, under hood checks for non-smog exempt parts and saving yourself from stupid time wasting fix it tickets. You also can't be a dick to cops, even if you know your rights.
I have been pulled over multiples times by CHP or local PD with officers trying to intimidate and threaten me to pop my hood. Once you make it apparent that you know yours rights and that they are in violation by their threats, they will leave you alone.

Please elaborate more on our rights. I would like to know about what to say and do.

 

[PieEyedPiper]

Driving sanely can only help so much. Cops rubber neck at my car so bad it's comical. Sherrifs especially. I think they're all hoping I have some huge can on the back so they can pin me. Nice try boys, twin-tips 4 lyfe.

 

[beendenied]

I drive right by cops all the time 3"tb w/ 4" tip and they don't seem to care at all. But it's the chips that are the douches, I pop the clutch in as I roll past sometimes so it seems quiet

 

[PieEyedPiper]

Please elaborate more on our rights. I would like to know about what to say and do.

I know this much. Our rights will often only shine through in court. A cop can have any reason he wishes at the time to pop your hood. If he's given the order you must comply unless you want your car impounded.

It's not a perfect world.

 

[1gDSM4g63]

Doesn't matter what car you drive or how heavily modded your car is. The most important thing you have to know to survive in California or anywhere else is your RIGHTS. If you know your rights, you can avoid going to visit the ref's, under hood checks for non-smog exempt parts and saving yourself from stupid time wasting fix it tickets. You also can't be a dick to cops, even if you know your rights.
I have been pulled over multiples times by CHP or local PD with officers trying to intimidate and threaten me to pop my hood. Once you make it apparent that you know yours rights and that they are in violation by their threats, they will leave you alone.

San Diego cops or California Highway Patrol, CHP, must be uneducated if you can get out of the 'under hood check'. Check out CVC 2806. They could make up any 'reasonable cause(s)'! And that code not only gives the cop a under the hood check but also gives the right for ref's to inspect your car at anytime!

Shame on you! Stop believe in these false lies!

Arguing or worse resisting/refusing will just compound your problems even more! Fighting the officer off in traffic court and having him show up there WILL aggravate them even more!

 

[PieEyedPiper]

san diego cops or california highway patrol, chp, must be uneducated if you can get out of the 'under hood check'. Check out cvc 2806. They could make up any 'reasonable cause(s)'! And that code not only gives the cop a under the hood check but also gives the right for ref's to inspect your car at anytime!

Shame on you! Stop believe in these false lies!

Arguing or worse resisting/refusing will just compound your problems even more! Fighting the officer off in traffic court and having him show up there will aggravate them even more!

qft!! Here is a phenomenal story about some realities of the situation:

Last night i was on my way home from work doing about 38 miles an hour not doing anything wrong the speed limit was 40. My cars isnt even loud its silenced and i only run it open at the tracks. All of a sudden a hear sirens and i pull over. the cop walks up and with out a word says pop the hood. I asked if there was a problem and he said pop the hood again so i pop the hood he acts like he knows what hes doing fiddles around a little and walks back to the window says flip your switches so i do all it was was fog lights so he goes back to his car and come back wit a ruler. He gives me a ticket for having my graduation tassels hanging from my mirror. This is a typical thing around here police harrasin kids not doing anything wrong. its seems in this case the cop is the SCUM BAG.

You didn't have to pop your hood. Just ask him if he has probable cause to search, and on what basis. If he pulled you over for the tassle, that isn't reason enough to search under your hood.

Well IMO if you don't have anything to hide and the cop wants to give you a ticket, there's basically nothing you can do but get a ticket. On every single car on the road there's a shitload of things (like graduation tassels) that you can get cited for. In fact many cars come off the showroom floor with minor vehicle code violations. Basically when say, GM decides to make a car, they really only have to clear FMVSS and not all the vehicle codes of every state (some of which can even be conflicting). Anyways, getting back on topic if the cop wants to harass you and give you a ticket there's really not much you can do about it.

HOWEVER, if you do have something to hide (non-CARB exempt intake, non-CARB exempt turbocharger, guns, drugs, etc.) ALWAYS ask for the right to refuse a search. If the cop says no, then ask him why. If he proceeds to search anyways and you get caught for whatever (be it intake, guns, or even 10 kilos of coke) the cop will have to justify probable cause (based on either extenuating circumstances or the plain sight doctrine). In otherwords simply because you have too many foglights on your car or a 5" exhaust tip most likely does NOT justify a search of your engine compartment for VC violations, and most definately will not justify a search of your passenger compartment. Of course this is usually up to the judge to decide, so if the cop is going to search you, ALWAYS ask for the right to refuse. If the police officer answers "no" ask him for a reason/probable cause, and more often than not you can probably use that reason (or lack thereof) to get your case dismissed.

On a technical analysis of CVC 2806, 2806 is NOT a free ticket for police officers to violate basic search and seizure laws, and to search your car simply because you have a vehicle code violation. If you reach the vehicle carefully and do some research, you can clearly see that the spirit of the code is actually two-fold. One is to allow sheriffs and local law enforcement to make determine whether or not a vehicle is in compliance with CVC -- this code is necessary because it is generally the domain of the CHP to make CVC determinations (therefore everything is nice and legal when you get that front license plate ticket by your local motorcycle cop). The second part is obviously to allow police officers a LIMITED search in order to make such a determination. For example if your engine is bellowing black smoke then of course probable cause is more than likely present to allow an un-consented search of the engine bay. However, simply because a vehicle is in violation of say, headlights too low (for some God-forsaken reason you slammed the shit out of your ride), this doesn't necessary provide probable cause for a search of the engine compartment. The reasoning behind this is basically that a lowered car does not necessarily equal modified emissions equipment, etc, and only suspension modifications (or fat people in the car for that matter). IMO I don't think CVC 2806 can be seriously used to justify a lawful search in most circumstances.

But of course with that new Texas ruling the cop can always throw your ass in jail "at their discretion" and then search your car to "document the belongings" in your car (no BS! hahaha), but I guess that's a whole other argument.

Anyways, for those of you that actually read through all of this (i'm falling asleep myself) I think it's always good to ask for the right to refuse when an officer asks to search your vehicle. Of course this DOESN'T mean you have a green light to be an ass and try to resist a vehicle search as cops have all sorts of stuff that can give you a bad day (handcuffs, mace, baton, firearm, etc.). What this does mean though, is if you get cited for whatever they do find on the search, you increase your chances of getting your case dismissed by simply asking for the right to refuse.

For Ghuang, I would take issue with a couple of your statements about probable cause and 2806 CVC. It does not limit local Police Officers and Deputy Sheriff's in any way by comparison with CHP. 2800 CVC clearly states that citizens must comply with Peace Officers orders, not just CHP. Vehicle Code violation determinations are in no way only in the purveyance of the CHP and not local cops. The powers of both are identical based upon Peace Officer status in the State of California. Secondly, let's look at a couple of the examples you used. In the case of the foglights, too many lights of any kind can overload an improperly wired electrical system. It wouldn't be hard at all to justify looking in the engine compartment or interior to evaluate whether or not the wiring was substandard and a fire risk. Would that be an "unsafe condition as to endanger any person"? Certainly. In the case of the exhaust tip, if the officer could not tell if it was the exhaust tip that was making all the noise, or an aftermarket intake or other engine modification, they could certainly justify it as probable cause to believe that the vehicle was "not equipped as required by this code". Obviously an exhaust tip isn't the only thing that makes noise on a car.

How about the headlights too low? Why are they too low? Are the springs cut to lower the car? Perhaps the upper spring mounts are disconnected or broken? If so, a dangerous practice that could render the car unsafe and again fit into the "unsafe condition as to endanger any person". Are the shocks broken or shot? An officer couldn't tell unless they can inspect the shocks and mounts and that would probably necessitate opening the hood. Ghuang is right when it comes to justifying a search later. Certainly the court system is designed to scrutinize the actions of law enforcement during any search, be it a vehicle, home, or person. This isn't anything new and takes place daily in our courtrooms. But, nowhere in 2806 does it say that the officers can only make a "limited" search. Clearly the section reads "may require the driver to stop and submit the vehicle or combination of vehicles to an inspection and such tests as may be appropriate to determine the safety to persons and compliance with the code". The courts will later determine what tests are "appropriate" and any officer who goes too far will lose their case and possibly more. A good officer does their homework and knows ahead of time what they can and can not do.

Any person who is having their vehicle, home, or person searched can certainly state that they are not giving consent. They may also ask questions at the appropriate time about what is taking place. I don't recommend arguing prior to the search or attempting to stop the officer from conducting it unless you want to make your situation far worse. Asking an officer what their probable cause is during the event is usually a waste of time. The officer will have to document it anyway in their report. It just makes you seem like a curbside lawyer and isn't going to win you any breaks. It is a bit of a misnomer too that if you tell an officer they can't search they will immediately get all bummed out and storm off stomping their feet. I usually don't ask for permission to search unless I already have the right to do it anyway. Permission is usually just icing on the cake. I encourage my officers to take time out later to answer any questions that someone may have and they are free to ask for a supervisor if they aren't satisfied as long as they don't want to try the entire case on the side of the road. I recommend that every driver take time out to become familiar with the various codes that effect their daily lives and to understand their responsibility to adhere to the same. Knowledge is power.

though getting pulled over like that guy did sucks...that cop sucks butt for giving him a ticket for the thing hanging from his rear view mirror..he could have atleastr told him to take it off! damn them cops! give a fair warning atleast if its nothing major! sheesh...

CVC 2806 blankets most equipment inspections. An officer can inspect any part of your vehicle except for the passenger compartment without your consent and without explanation. You can only hope that the officers conduct themselves professionally and don't abuse their power, which unfortunately isn't always the case.

I've had some similar experience, and it wasn't exactly pleasant.

For Wired, the passenger/driver compartment can also be included in 2806 if there any part of it is potentially unsafe or in violation. For example, a steering wheel that is falling off, missing or broken seatbelts, a seat not secured to the floor, or any other item that would render the vehicle unsafe or "endanger any person". Hopefully you will get an explanation at the scene. If not, certainly later.

For Sgt. Grant, I would like to take issue with some of your statements. I'm sure VC 2806's "spirit" can vary widely and be subject to various readings even by the legislators themselves, so I won't argue with you about that. That's the job of a good lawyer in the court room.

However I think that it is very clear that a person's right to privacy can far outweigh possible equipment violations. This is why VC 2806 is written the way it is, with specific emphasis on "reasonable cause" as the causal mechanism to allow a vehicle search. Reasonable/probable cause is NOT "a suspicion", "a maybe", or even "a strong reason to suspect." Based on all current case-law, probable cause falls much more in the realm of "more probable than not" and "a substantial possibility."

In the foglight example, I differ with your opinion in that I feel it would be exceptionally hard to justify probable cause especially if the primary reason for stopping a vehicle was based on a foglight violation. The questions that should obviously be asked would include "how did you calculate that the lights exhibit a potentially 'unsafe condition". "Were the lights smoking, crackling or giving any indication of overload?" "Were substandard wires visible?" Clearly by your statement of "to evaluate whether or not the wiring was substandard and a fire risk" defeats the very notion of the existence of probable cause as there was absolutely no indication of a potentially "unsafe condition." For all anyone knows, the vehicle could have had the lights proffesionally installed by their local rally tuner. In my opinion, simply because the vehicle has a few too many foglights does not provide a "strong reason to suspect" an unsafe electrical system - thus no probable cause.

In the exhaust tip example, you stated that "if the officer could not tell if it was the exhaust tip that was making all the noise, or an aftermarket intake or other engine modification" this would justify reasonable cause. I think in this case it is also extremely difficult to justify probable/reasonable cause, ESPECIALLY if the officer does not himself know what he is searching for (either intake, exhaust, or open downpipe for that matter) - only that the car "was making all the noise". There are dozens (if not hundreds) of case law examples that have established that these searches CANNOT be exploratory in hopes of simply finding SOMETHING, rather they must be calculated. I think an argument of "making all the noise" simply does not constitute the substantial possibility of an equipment violation in the engine compartment as there are dozens of non-VC violating causes that can make a car can sound unusually loud or odd.

Again in the "headlights too low" example, this principle also holds true. Vehicle headlights too low do not immediately establish reasonable cause because it is clear a specific cause for the altered ride-height is difficult to determine (be it blown shocks, damaged shock mounts, sport springs, or high-end coilovers), and simply the suspiscion that a car is riding on damaged upper mounts does not, in my opinion, constitute reasonable cause especially not on the level of "more likely than not". In this situation probable cause would most likely only exist if say the shock piston was sticking out through the hood or something to that effect.

I think a clearer distinction needs to be made between "reasonable cause" justifying a search and "suspicion" which does not justify a search. In my opinion, reasonable cause is a front mount intercooler on a factory NA car, reasonable cause is a wastegate or BOV releasing pressure coupled with compressor noise on a factory NA car, and reasonable cause may even be a carbon fiber / fiber glass hood, or a driver sitting on books where his seat should be. In my opinion, reasonable cause is NOT a honda civic with 18" wheels, a body kit, and a custom paint job, is NOT a grey-market vehicle with proper FMVSS and EPA ceritifcation, and is NOT even an acura integra with a lawn-mower sounding exhaust because these VC violations cannot automatically lead to the conclusion of there being a "substantial possibility" that there are VC violations in the passenger or engine compartment.

The bottom line? Although the existence of "reasonable cause" is always going to be strictly for the determination of the courts and perhaps even based on the jurisprudence of the individual judge, I feel that any officer who bases a search on VC 2806 is on very shaky ground as it is difficult to establish probable cause based on equipment violations. Does that mean that the next person who is forced to open their engine compartment to search should play curbside lawyer? Of course not. That's obviously a no-win situation. Simply asking for the right to refuse is sufficient, even if it's denied. Why? Because an un-consented search is established. You can take that fact to court and challenge constitutionality if you want to - or you can just pay the ticket. Personally, I know I'm sure as hell not going to spend tens of thousands of dollars challenging an air-filter ticket even if I feel that my constituational expectation to privacy was violated. That's the reality of the situation, and that's why (coupled with the individual jurisprudence of the courts) questionable searches continue on a daily basis. However the next person who has their engine compartment searched for suspected VC violations and is then discovered to be in possession of 10 kilos of coke might just so choose to contest the existence of reasonable cause. Because of this I recommend that every officer take time out to become familiar with precedent setting search & seizure cases. Armed with this knowledge officers can make sure their arrests are prosecutable and make life fair for the rest of us "vehicle-code" criminals. In my book that's win-win.

I was referring to more common type of equipment inspection, e.g. a "modified" exhaust or a vehicle appearing too "low" does justify a search of the passenger compartment, especially the glove compartment.

As for the explanation that you would think a driver gets (at the scene, or later), I wouldn't count on it, at least from my experience with the SJPD. Even when I asked Lt. Moore of IA, he conveniently told me that "details cannot be disclosed".

Here's what I learned:

CVC 2806 + a cop + reasonable suspicion = vehicle inspection + explanation
CVC 2806 + an asshole playing cop = vehicle search + harrassment

Your comment about the courts ultimately deciding whether or not the officer had reasonable cause is the bottom line. Any time an officer uses reasonable cause for anything they have to explain it to a judge and possibly a jury. Don't agree with my examples? Go to court and listen to which way the judges tend to rule. You left out a piece of the probable cause equation. That is the officer's training and experience. Not the judges, not the violators, and not the jury. That is why the officer is asked to explain their probable cause later. As for finding those 10 kilos of coke, I have yet to see an officer use 2806 as an excuse to bust a good high level dope dealer. We are talking about street racing. When street racers get pulled over, it isn't hard most of the time to apply 2806 to their vehicles. Most of the time you don't even need it since there are so many obvious equipment violations that lead to further investigations that officers don't need to go on "fishing expeditions". 2806 simply states that the officer needs to have reasonable cause that the vehicle isn't equipped as required by the Vehicle Code OR is unsafe. A well trained and experienced officer could easily show in any of the examples that I used that their belief was that the vehicle was not equipped as required. And, this probable cause allows for a vehicle inspection.

You lost me on the I.A. thing. I am referring to asking the officer what they did at the scene, or later if you get arrested. The officer doesn't have to, but should, explain things to you as a common courtesy. Certainly if you call I.A. and ask questions about an internal investigation, the details will not be given to you.

Sgt. Grant, agreed - an officer's experience and training will definately hold significant sway over the ultimate decision in a case. However with the drug issue, my main point is that a good number of search and seizure causes are the direct result of an initial violation that is non-drug related. This can range anywhere from loitering, to vehicle equipment violation, to a driving infaction such as speeding. Because of this, the point I was trying to make is that if you use VC 2806 to search a vehicle for possible equipment violations and JUST SO HAPPEN to stumble across say 10 kilos of coke or a non-registered assault weapon, there is a good chance that this could be ruled as inadmissable as evidence because of an illegal search resulting for the lack of existence of probable cause.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the I.A. thing as I don't think I brought up anything about I.A. As for the "A well trained and experienced officer could easily show in any of the examples that I used that their belief was that the vehicle was not equipped as required. And, this probable cause allows for a vehicle inspection" I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree. It is my belief that a good lawyer will be very able to demonstrate the lack of probable cause in the examples that were discussed. Of course with search/seizure a lot of the legal "precedent" falls in a gray area, where courts often rule differently depending on the individual circumstance. Of course I'm not a judge, so all I can say is that it is my opinion that searches based on VC 2806 are often on very shaky ground, and it is my strong opinion that many equipment related searches would ultimately be ruled to be illegal if they were ever contested in court.

Here's the scenario:
1. An officer rudely conducts a vehicle search (which subsequently causes property damage) without any explanation.
2. Driver calls the department asking to speak to the supervisor, since he wants an explanation.
3. Dispatcher tells driver that the officer is off duty, so any inquiries will be handled by IA.
4. Driver contacts IA.
5. IA "investigates", then tells the driver that search was legal per CVC 2806 but no other information can be disclosed pertaining to the investigation.

Wired - I think in your case the best you can do is file a complaint against the officer. At least that makes his department aware of the problem. This isn't necessarily very effective (just look at say the corrupt LAPD CRASH hahaha), but nevertheless it should have some relevance in the particular officer's performance evaluation. I.A. in any agency is designed to protect its own self interests so you can't really expect much action or admission of a problem from them.

Aside from that if you were cited for something as the result of the search you can choose to contest the citation. If you're pretty serious your should probably seek counsel (which costs money), or you can try to contest it yourself. What I would do if you want to do this is to contest the citation (if the case is still open) and use discovery/fact-finding to try to obtain the officer's statement of facts. Based on that you would probably know if you have a case or not. If it's glaringly apparent in the officer's statement that he dropped the ball (which in all likelihood it won't be), you can consider contacting various civil rights groups to see if they'll be willing to assist you in your case.

For Ghuang, the way the search and seizure laws read, Federal and State, is that if you have a legal right to be in an area, anything you see is admissable later. In other words, if I conduct a vehicle inspection that is legal, and I stumble across those 10 kilos, they will always be admissable into court. This holds true for a variety of scenarios. If I tow a car that the driver was arrested for DUI, or any other violation, I will be conducting a vehicle inventory to complete the tow form. If I find illegal contraband or drugs, they will be admissable. If I conduct a search incident to arrest for drugs, and find a gun or stolen property, it will be admissable. This concept extends far beyond just vehicles. If I go to a home based upon a call for service that someone is getting beat, a party is disturbing the neighborhood, or some other more minor but prosecutable incident, then I will have the legal right to conduct an investigation. If I am legally in the home on one type of investigation, and I find something unrelated but also illegal, I can seize it and pursue an additional charge/investigation on the new item. The Federal and State statutes, along with case law, clearly give me the right to pursue other investigations or seize items in plain view, as long as I have a legal right to be where I am when I see it.

Ok now let me get this right. In California if a police officer sees a visible change on a vehicle he can then pull that vehicle over and do a search?

For ito, No, in order to make a detention one has to have reasonable suspicion. I have posted the definition before but here we go again: Reasonable suspicion is described as three things; The activity is unusual or out of the ordinary, it is related to crime, and the person is related to the activity. In order to make an arrest, issue a citation, or search, one must have probable cause. Probable cause is defined as "Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution or prudence in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed (Draper v. U.S. 1959).

2806 CVC incorporates probable cause into the basis for conducting an inspection. An inspection is a form of search but in the case of 2806, the inspection is for the purpose of determining vehicle compliance and/or safety. Most arrests outside of street racing type violations come from investigations completely unrelated to 2806 CVC. Here are a couple of examples:

Non-street racing arrest: An officer is driving in an area known for drug dealing. It is 3:00 a.m. and the officer spots a car driving slowly down the street. The officer sees that the car pulls over, a person walks up to the driver side, and a short conversation ensues. The person then walks away and the car pulls out. The officer follows and sees that the car has a tail light out. The officer makes a stop. The officer makes contact and the driver exhibits symptoms of stimulant influence. The officer makes the arrest and finds that the person is in possession of crack cocaine. The vehicle may now be searched incident to arrest based upon statute and case law. In the car the officer finds an oz. of crack cocaine, a gun, and stolen property.

Street racing arrest: An officer is driving driving in an area known for street racing. It is 3:00 a.m. and the officer spots a car driving down the street. The officer sees that the car has a tail light out. The officer pulls the car over. As the officer exits, he/she can hear that the vehicle is very loud. The officer believes that it is exhaust but isn't sure yet. The officer makes contact and the driver has a valid DL. The officer then walks around the car and looks at the exterior and underneath (plain view). The officer sees that the muffler is aftermarket (not illegal in of itself) and notices that the piping from front to back looks brand new. The officer then notices that the cat cover is old and when the officer shines their light on the cat cover, it appears that it is a cover placed over a straight pipe. It also appears that the exhaust manifold is a header and the officer can't see any emissions equipment. The officer then conducts a vehicle inspection and finds that the engine has illegal intake, illegal header exhaust absent emissions equipment, a straight pipe cat, and a muffler louder than 95db.

The similarities with both are the vehicle stop. Both are based upon reasonable suspicion that there is a violation. Both scenarios involve detaining and contacting the driver. In the first case, the investigation continues based upon the driver exhibiting signs of stimulant influence. All subsequent searching is done incident to a probable cause arrest. In the second scenario, subsequent searching would be done under 2806 CVC based upon on visual clues that, in the officers training and experience, arise to probable cause to conduct a vehicle inspection. Remember, probable cause is a "belief" that a crime has been committed, not an absolute assurety. The officer based upon plain view observations believes that the vehicle "is not equipped as required by this code or is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person" and inspects it based upon his/her probable cause. The inspection reinforces the probable cause and a citation may be issued. If during the inspection anything else illegal is found, then the person may be legally charged with additional crimes.

In both cases the officer makes an appearance in court and in front of a judge and/or jury explains on what basis they had reasonable suspicion to detain, and then probable cause to search and/or arrest. The judge/jury will take into account many factors such as:
1. Observation
2. Expertise
3. Circumstantial Evidence
4. Other information

Some examples of the above include: Flight, furtive movements, observation of real evidence, admitted ownership, false or improbable answers, presence at a high crime area or crime scene, past criminal conduct, failure to protest, hearsay, informants, etc.

As I've harped on many times before, educating oneself regarding the law is the best defense. Simply if for no other reason it will act as a deterrent to someone doing something wrong. If one chooses to do it anyway, then sniveling about being caught should generate zero sympathy.

For Sgt. Grant, you are right of course, but let's examine the legal mechanisms to allow you/police officers to search. Let's start with your later examples.

"This holds true for a variety of scenarios. If I tow a car that the driver was arrested for DUI, or any other violation, I will be conducting a vehicle inventory to complete the tow form." - Sgt. Grant
When you tow the vehicle, the search is conducted SPECIFICALLY under the legal mechanism of taking inventory under the car. This is NOT a search based on probable cause but based on your authority to take inventory of items within the vehicle incident to arrest and/or seizure of the vehicle. Pretty much a different case. Of course it probably is relevant considering you would have a pretty strong case to tow anyone hanging out at the gas station at 2:00am with racing slicks on and pouring racing gas into their car.

"If I go to a home based upon a call for service that someone is getting beat, a party is disturbing the neighborhood, or some other more minor but prosecutable incident, then I will have the legal right to conduct an investigation. If I am legally in the home on one type of investigation, and I find something unrelated but also illegal, I can seize it and pursue an additional charge/investigation on the new item." - Sgt. Grant
This would basically fall under the "plain sight" doctrine, where, like you said, you would be legally in the area for one reason or the other. Something illegal is in plain sight, thus contraband is admissiable as evidence because, of course, contraband is in plain sight.

"In other words, if I conduct a vehicle inspection that is legal, and I stumble across those 10 kilos, they will always be admissable into court." - Sgt. Grant.
This is also true. Once probable cause is established for a legal search ANYTHING found in this search is admissable as evidence. However my earlier arguments were specifically directed toward the questionable legality of such a search. Where we agreed to disagree was that even with the implementation of VC 2806 as a legal mechanism to allow you to search a car, I argued that in many cases probable cause would likely NOT be established (for the examples given), and therefore would make such a search illegal. The example of the 10 kilos of coke was simply a hypothetical situation where the appropriateness of employing VC 2806 to establish probable cause would likely be challenged. I mean I sure as hell am not going to spend fees for a legal defense challenge an air-filter ticket, but my point was that someone who is looking at felony possession w/intent just may be willing to spend that kind of money to challenge probably cause based on VC 2806. If that person were to win such a case, everything from faulty wiring, a non-CARB legal filter, to 10 Kilos of coke, and an AR-15 with an M4 upper and an burst fire capability would ALL be inadmissable as evidence. That's all I'm saying...

"Non-street racing arrest: An officer is driving in an area known for drug dealing. It is 3:00 a.m. and the officer spots a car driving slowly down the street. The officer sees that the car pulls over, a person walks up to the driver side, and a short conversation ensues. The person then walks away and the car pulls out. The officer follows and sees that the car has a tail light out. The officer makes a stop. The officer makes contact and the driver exhibits symptoms of stimulant influence. The officer makes the arrest and finds that the person is in possession of crack cocaine. The vehicle may now be searched incident to arrest based upon statute and case law. In the car the officer finds an oz. of crack cocaine, a gun, and stolen property." - Sgt. Grant
* In this case it is my opinion that the establishment of probable cause for search is ONLY that the driver exhibits symptoms of stimulant influence (that in itself doesn't seem like a very strong case but it will probably fly). Simply because a car is spotted in an area known for drug dealing, it's 3:00am, and a conversation is engaged with a suspicious person does not warrant a search. (Sibron V. New York 1968)

"Street racing arrest: An officer is driving driving in an area known for street racing. It is 3:00 a.m. and the officer spots a car driving down the street. The officer sees that the car has a tail light out. The officer pulls the car over. As the officer exits, he/she can hear that the vehicle is very loud. The officer believes that it is exhaust but isn't sure yet. The officer makes contact and the driver has a valid DL. The officer then walks around the car and looks at the exterior and underneath (plain view). The officer sees that the muffler is aftermarket (not illegal in of itself) and notices that the piping from front to back looks brand new. The officer then notices that the cat cover is old and when the officer shines their light on the cat cover, it appears that it is a cover placed over a straight pipe. It also appears that the exhaust manifold is a header and the officer can't see any emissions equipment. The officer then conducts a vehicle inspection and finds that the engine has illegal intake, illegal header exhaust absent emissions equipment, a straight pipe cat, and a muffler louder than 95db." - Sgt. Grant
* Again in my opinion this is an illegal search. The reasons given, I think, are insufficient to justify a search:
1. New piping can simply denote a cat-back exhaust system. As Sgt. Grant said not illegal in itself.
2. Possible/probable straight pipe - why would this justify a search of the engine compartment? A straight pipe is a clearly visible violation, but just because a car has a straight pipe does not suggest that other parts of the vehicle are modified ($2K fine ouch! hehe).
3. Exhaust manifold is a header - How does this justify probably cause? An exhaust header/manifold is an interchangeable term. Even if the officer could determine that an aftermarket header was in place, there are many aftermarket headers that are CARB exempt and therefore legal. What particular aspects suggested that the officer need to open the engine compartment to determine whether or not the header is illegal?
4. What other emissions equipment (other than cat) can possible be visible from under the car? A cold air intake? The MAF sensor dragging on the ground? I for one don't know of any cars that have emissions equipment on the ground other than the cat. For this reason, what possible violations can be seen to justify a search under the hood?
Again I don't see how probable cause is established in this case. If an open downpipe or something like that exists,I can see how a search would be justifiable to ensure that a cat/muffler is absent (rather than just not visible) in order to issue a citation for the lack of emissions equipment. However simply because a vehicle has a straight pipe, the conclusion CANNOT automatically be made that the vehicle has other emissions violations under the hood. Is there suspicion? Sure. But mere suspicion does not equal probable cause.

"Both are based upon reasonable suspicion that there is a violation." - Sgt Grant
But reasonable suspicion is NOT reasonable/probable cause...

"In the second scenario, subsequent searching would be done under 2806 CVC based upon on visual clues that, in the officers training and experience, arise to probable cause to conduct a vehicle inspection." - Sgt. Grant
Again we agree to disagree

"Remember, probable cause is a "belief" that a crime has been committed, not an absolute assurety."
Right, a little on the "loose" side of the definition, but using example #2, how would you justify that a "crime" has been committed to allow search. The only VC violation I see is 1. No Cat, 2. Modified Exhaust. Both of which do not require searching the engine compartment to cite.

Let me simplify it. An officer conducts a vehicle inventory based upon probable cause to conduct that inventory. Doesn't matter what the PC was, let's just assume that the PC was valid and therefor the inventory valid. Anything that the officer stumbles across during the inventory will be admissable. Now, just because the officer finds 10 kilos of coke in the engine compartment when they did their inventory doesn't mean that the coke will be inadmissable because the dope mule has a high powered attorney. You seem to be saying that if someone challenges anyone finding anything but an equipment violation during a valid 2806 inspection that it will be thrown out. Not so. You are confusing the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine here. That doctrine states that if the PC for the search was invalid to begin with then anything found during the search will be inadmissable. This is true, but that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying if the officer justifies a vehicle inventory, based upon PC that they can defend, then anything found during the inventory, no matter if it is unrelated to the original reason to inventory, will still be valid.

As for a no cat or modified exhaust being the reason to get under the hood, look at the verbage of 2806 CVC again.

2806. Any regularly employed and salaried police officer or deputy sheriff having reasonable cause to believe that any vehicle or combination of vehicles is not equipped as required by this code or is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person, may require the driver to stop and submit the vehicle or combination of vehicles to an inspection and such tests as may be appropriate to determine the safety to persons and compliance with the code.

It doesn't say that the inspection has to be specifically related to the one thing that the officer sees visibly. It says that the officer can conduct a vehicle inspection if they have PC to believe that the vehicle isn't equipped as required. In your examples the officer stops a car and sees no visible muffler, or a straight pipe instead of a cat. The officer issues a cite and then goes to court later upon a summons. The defendant brings the judge out and shows him that he really had a muffler, or a cat, under their hood just after the exhaust manifold. Unlikely, but possible. The officer wouldn't have a hard time explaining to the judge that they had PC to believe the vehicle wasn't in compliance and needed an inspection to confirm that in fact the vehicle didn't have a muffler or a cat before a valid cite could be issued. Don't believe me? Go to court and see how many 2806 CVC violations are being upheld.

OK so it's pretty much the longest post ever, but it's worth while if you don't already have some law under your belt.

P.S. if it's not clear, SgtGrant is a police chief.

 

[eligst21]

I bought my car with all the stock parts. So, when it comes time, i have to swap all my stock parts. That is one benefit or a way to get by. But if someone has a fully built motor, the only way is to find a smog shop that helps you out. There are shops in cali that help many out. Where i am from, i know there is a couple. You just have to find some. But up north, the cops dont hassle you as much. They tend to look for hondas or anything like that, because they tend to have stolen parts. But thats another issue. Ha. Not to mention, if you have any reasonable suspicion, a cop has the right to make you pop your hood. So, any muffler, anything that seems un normal or anything a cop can make you pop you're hood. They typically do not care if the car is stock, they can make you pop you're hood, basically if they say so. And its almost easier to just comply with them.

 

[gt35rx]

Please elaborate more on our rights. I would like to know about what to say and do.

Well First, cops aren't allowed to open locked doors, unless you give them consent. This means if the officer approaches your car and asks to view inside or under your hood (locked) they can only do so if you give them permission to do so. You can easily refuse by saying, sorry officer, I don't consent to searches. He might point out your exhaust as probable cause and you can tell him that its perfectly legal because it's after the catalytic convertor, etc.

San Diego cops or California Highway Patrol, CHP, must be uneducated if you can get out of the 'under hood check'. Check out CVC 2806. They could make up any 'reasonable cause(s)'! And that code not only gives the cop a under the hood check but also gives the right for ref's to inspect your car at anytime!

Shame on you! Stop believe in these false lies!

Arguing or worse resisting/refusing will just compound your problems even more! Fighting the officer off in traffic court and having him show up there WILL aggravate them even more!

These aren't lies, it's your proven rights. If you don't believe in exercising them then you don't have to. Your right, cops can make up a reasonable cause to search your car, That why you should know your RIGHTS and how far they are allowed to go with their "probable cause". If they want to check under your hood, glove box, trunk which is a locked compartment they need a warrant. In no way is this resisting or arguing with the cops, you just need to know how to not have an attitude with them and this will work for anyone.

 

[my dreamt dsm]

Damn... THIS PAGE IS INTERESTING!

 

[Alex7747]

To that guy up there^^. That was the longest mother####ing post ever!! Ill definately read it later but for now its to late

 

[ncampos92562]

CA cops will go off ANYTHING for probable cause. And I have heard if cops refer to popping your hood for safety inspection then it is a must. Otherwise, they need probable cause.

 

[PieEyedPiper]

Well First, cops aren't allowed to open locked doors, unless you give them consent. This means if the officer approaches your car and asks to view inside or under your hood (locked) they can only do so if you give them permission to do so. You can easily refuse by saying, sorry officer, I don't consent to searches. He might point out your exhaust as probable cause and you can tell him that its perfectly legal because it's after the catalytic convertor, etc.



These aren't lies, it's your proven rights. If you don't believe in exercising them then you don't have to. Your right, cops can make up a reasonable cause to search your car, That why you should know your RIGHTS and how far they are allowed to go with their "probable cause". If they want to check under your hood, glove box, trunk which is a locked compartment they need a warrant. In no way is this resisting or arguing with the cops, you just need to know how to not have an attitude with them and this will work for anyone.

Did you read CVC 2806? Or any of what I posted?
We drive the car from the fast and the furious... I know you're not that naive.

 

[outlawdsm]

I am moving to norcal in a few months, and I am concerned about getting in trouble. My car will still be Colorado plates/insurance/registration for as long as possible. My car also has a very quiet flat black exhaust, FMIC, lowered (not slammed) 17" bronze wheels and worst of all, carbon hood and hatch. If they pop the hood I'm in big trouble (full-race turbo manifold/tial bov/jmf intake manifold...ect)

I dont drive like an idiot, I dont speed, I dont listen to loud music, there are no stickers on my car, I'll gladly put a front plate on, and the exhaust is quiet.

I will be living in sunnyvale (south bay)

Will I be ok?

 

[ncampos92562]

As long as you can keep your colorado plates while here youll be fine. Cops usually will just give you crap when you pop the hood but can't do much when you have colorado plates.