LEO Posts (staged from DUI thread)

[Yota Up]

Originally Posted by chevyjepp

Could we have a inspection weekend were people that have questions about the legallty of thier rigs come and get answers with out fear of being ticketed.
I know I have question after reading all of this for the last couple of years. Were does my 1952 M38A1 fall in the mind of the LEO's.

I plan on contacting the office in charge just to understand what technically CAN be enforced. This answer may be different from what really happens, but it will provide us with a worst case scenerio.

I suspect most of it is officer discretion. So if that's the case, then it's best to be 100% legal. Just like most of the time you can go 60mph in a 55mph zone(and won't get pulled until you hit 9 over or more), but technically you should stay 55mph.

To be continued after I make contact with a suit to obtain confirmation...

[steveh]

LO is not going to inspect our vehicles per a request. We have to be responsible for looking at DMV code and deciding how close to the "letter" of the code we want to be.

As Yota Up posted in a few forums, it's not Rocket science to use good common sense.

It's good to see dialog with some of the LEO's that patrol the area.

[randii]

Originally Posted by Yota Up

...Just like most of the time you can go 60mph in a 55mph zone(and won't get pulled until you hit 9 over or more), but technically you should stay 55mph...

Great example, Martin, because anything over 55mph is illegal and can be ticketed, but many citizens and officers regularly exceed that limit, knowing that they may receive a ticket AND TAKING PERSONAL RESPOSIBILITY FOR TAKING THAT RISK.

Driving a modified vehicle is no different. Some of the things we do to make vehicles work better off-highway change their appearance and handling on-highway... but it is our own individual responsibility to street a safe and legal vehicle or put it on a trailer. Some folks invest in burly sway-bars, adjustable shocks, or air springs -- others just run their modifications on the street. In my mind, either is OK, as long as the driver understands that he is PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for that vehicle's safety, and that part of the job for officers of the law is to keep an eye out for vehicle code violations and unsafe operation. Officers have a great deal of discretion, but most everything still comes back to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for modified vehicles.

Randii

[Keith]

Originally Posted by kenmarcus

The only time I remember anything close to that was no windshield at all , no tail lights, no turn signals, no headlights, no mirrors, no bumper, basically it was a tube frame with wearing street legal plates...no green sticker near northshore, not on the trail.

I will be willing to bet that the entire strory was not told.

[elarsen]

Originally Posted by randii

Great example, Martin, because anything over 55mph is illegal and can be ticketed, but many citizens and officers regularly exceed that limit, knowing that they may receive a ticket AND TAKING PERSONAL RESPOSIBILITY FOR TAKING THAT RISK.

Driving a modified vehicle is no different. Some of the things we do to make vehicles work better off-highway change their appearance and handling on-highway... but it is our own individual responsibility to street a safe and legal vehicle or put it on a trailer. Some folks invest in burly sway-bars, adjustable shocks, or air springs -- others just run their modifications on the street. In my mind, either is OK, as long as the driver understands that he is PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for that vehicle's safety, and that part of the job for officers of the law is to keep an eye out for vehicle code violations and unsafe operation. Officers have a great deal of discretion, but most everything still comes back to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for modified vehicles.

Randii

On the street I agree with you fully. The issue is that alot of people do take responsibility & tow their rig to the chalet or dam. They remove their flaps, flares, mirrors at home because they do not want to damage them on the trail. They disconnect sway bars & lower tire pressures on the trailer. Some people trailer their street legal junk because they acknowledge damage may occor, ie broken windshield from a flop in the sliuce - making it illegal to drive on the road. It is B.S. that these people would be harrassed on the trail by federal leo that do not understand state law.

If the rig does not comply with OHV regs when on the trail, a ticket is well deserved.

[Yota Up]

Originally Posted by randii

Great example, Martin, because anything over 55mph is illegal and can be ticketed, but many citizens and officers regularly exceed that limit, knowing that they may receive a ticket AND TAKING PERSONAL RESPOSIBILITY FOR TAKING THAT RISK.

Thanks Randy. Part of taking responsibility is knowing that if you proceed at risk, you have no room to bitch about it to the internet later if you do get popped.

[chevyjepp]

It still does not resolve on what rigs mud flaps are reqiure. Does every modified rig need mud flaps? Is it the tire size or the lift. Give us some guide lines.
I had a friend in the 70's with a 56 chevy that was jacked up in the back with 14inch wide tires. When it rained you could not drive behind him because of the rooster tail he made.He was told to put mud flaps on when he drove in the rain. so he carried mud flaps and install them when he got caught having to drive in the rain. The road condition made the requirement for the mud flaps.
I think officer Marcus should at least give us a standard that he is looking at because when we are not in his district rigs are not getting ticketed.

[steveh]

Do your own homework, no LEO is going to answer your questions on VC, none of them.

Link to DMV 2009 codes

Here is the specific law, read it and make an educated choice for yourself.

From:
A re-post for the billionth time on PBB, Section 27600


Fenders and Mudguards

27600. No person shall operate any motor vehicle having three or more wheels, any trailer, or semitrailer unless equipped with fenders, covers, or devices, including flaps or splash aprons, or unless the body of the vehicle or attachments thereto afford adequate protection to effectively minimize the spray or splash of water or mud to the rear of the vehicle and all such equipment or such body or attachments thereto shall be at least as wide as the tire tread. This section does not apply to those vehicles exempt from registration, trailers and semitrailers having an unladen weight of under 1,500 pounds, or any vehicles manufactured and first registered prior to January 1, 1971, having an unladen weight of under 1,500 pounds.

Comprehend? Now you know what LEO's use to decide if the like, or dislike your rig for splash protection.

Your welcome, I had to make the font big and bold and red because I am as blind as Keith,, well more blind, I'm a few years ahead of him, so i consider him a young blue smurf punk still

[steveh]

Vehicle Code Appendix B List of Violations of the Vehicle Code

I love having good search skills,,,, DMV uses Google search ,,,, Sweetness

Read the list, and you know what the LEO's can use as a guideline to violations of the VC.

[steveh]

Here is the one we should be most worried about,,, radar on the Con:
M 28150(d) Possession of four or more radar jamming devices.

[300sniper]

Originally Posted by steveh

Do your own homework, no LEO is going to answer your questions on VC, none of them.

Link to DMV 2009 codes

Here is the specific law, read it and make an educated choice for yourself.

From:
A re-post for the billionth time on PBB, Section 27600


Fenders and Mudguards

27600. No person shall operate any motor vehicle having three or more wheels, any trailer, or semitrailer unless equipped with fenders, covers, or devices, including flaps or splash aprons, or unless the body of the vehicle or attachments thereto afford adequate protection to effectively minimize the spray or splash of water or mud to the rear of the vehicle and all such equipment or such body or attachments thereto shall be at least as wide as the tire tread. This section does not apply to those vehicles exempt from registration, trailers and semitrailers having an unladen weight of under 1,500 pounds, or any vehicles manufactured and first registered prior to January 1, 1971, having an unladen weight of under 1,500 pounds.

Comprehend? Now you know what LEO's use to decide if the like, or dislike your rig for splash protection.

Your welcome, I had to make the font big and bold and red because I am as blind as Keith,, well more blind, I'm a few years ahead of him, so i consider him a young blue smurf punk still

i think we all knew they need to be as wide as the tire tread. i think the question is how far off the ground can they be or how far behind the tire can they be. what exactly is considered "adequate protection to effectively minimize the spray or splash of water or mud to the rear of the vehicle". my idea of adequate protection may be different than your idea of adequate protection and both of our ideas may be different than a ticketing officer's idea of adequate protection.

[steveh]

Originally Posted by 300sniper

i think we all knew they need to be as wide as the tire tread. i think the question is how far off the ground can they be or how far behind the tire can they be. what exactly is considered "adequate protection to effectively minimize the spray or splash of water or mud to the rear of the vehicle". my idea of adequate protection may be different than your idea of adequate protection and both of our ideas may be different than a ticketing officer's idea of adequate protection.

What? What part of "attachments thereto afford adequate protection to effectively minimize the spray or splash of water or mud to the rear of the vehicle and all such equipment or such body or attachments thereto" does not give you those exact parameters ???????

Sniper, I think if someone has a reasonable level of common sense, they can come up with something that will satisfy a LEO, and they won't even notice. Now, as far as other VC violations,,, heck if I know. I'll worry about and take responsibility for my junk.

But, as i have stated, it is unlikely a LEO will answer the question because the are the law, not the order. I'll defer any further elaboration to our forum barrister, Chas.

[Lil Uzi]

If you haven't heard yet EDSO is patrolling the "con" and making numerous contacts for a variety of violations. While many may think that windshields and registrations are "CS" and unworthy of our time, it is these types of violations that justify our stopping the various vehicles to check further and to say hi. Are there more heineous violations out there than the expired registration, absolutely, but the minor violations lead to the more dangerous violations that we are really looking for i.e. open containers, DUI, weapons, etc.

To finalize, if you are driving a vehicle that is green stickered, then only those equipment requirements need to be met. If your driving a highway registered vehicle then all of the applicable equipment requirements need to be met, including current registration, front plates, windshields, and yes even insurance and valid drivers licenses.

If you have any questions please feel free to talk to the deputies working out there, I can guarantee you none of them have any type of chip on their shoulders and will many times be glad to answer your questions, just be mindful that if they are already dealing with someone on another issue, don't interrupt and they will be glad to get to you as soon as they can.

As always, if I can assist the best way to contact me is by my personal email of lawman090@sbcglobal.net or work email of mortonb@edso.org

corruptisima re publica plurimae leges

In the most corrupt state are the most laws

[Mr.Highhood]

Originally Posted by Lil Uzi

corruptisima re publica plurimae leges

In the most corrupt state are the most laws

man that sounds like a shirt, make em and ill buy one

[chasinternet]

Originally Posted by Lil Uzi

corruptisima re publica plurimae leges
In the most corrupt state are the most laws

"Every actual State is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Let's look at an example of how law is read by courts.

Originally Posted by California Government Code Section 831.3

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for any injury occurring on account of the grading or the performance of other maintenance or repair on or reconstruction or replacement of any road which has not officially been accepted as a part of the road system under the jurisdiction of the public entity if the grading, maintenance, repair, or reconstruction or replacement is performed with reasonable care and leaves the road in no more dangerous or unsafe condition than it was before the work commenced. No act of grading, maintenance, repair, or reconstruction or replacement within the meaning of this section shall be deemed to give rise to any duty of the public entity to continue any grading, maintenance, repair, or reconstruction or replacement on any road not a part of the road system under the public entity's jurisdiction. As used in this section "reconstruction or replacement" means reconstruction or replacement performed pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 1160) of Chapter 4 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.

"Law is mind without reason" - Aristotle

A "plain" reading of the above would indicate to most people the County can not be sued if it decides to do some maintenance - such as crack rocks at Little Sluice. As a matter of fact - this clause has been used as the basis to sue Counties because - there is an "if". The phrase "if the grading, maintenance, repair, or reconstruction or replacement is performed with reasonable care and leaves the road in no more dangerous or unsafe condition than it was before the work commenced. " - means if the County touches it, it brings upon itself a responsibility and liability that did not exist before. So while the County had no liability before - this section creates it.

How many here would see that from just reading the law itself? You can imagine what a field day lawyers would have arguing if something is better or worse.

The CHP has said in some past hearings it does not enforce these types of vehicle codes on unmaintained county roads. No idea if that is still their position.

USFS is one thing, I have larger concerns if the County starts making believe this is a "county street" - the antis will hang everyone with Federal Laws since this is now, in their view, a designated area under 13267/Porter Cologne/Clean Water Act and the state RWQCB has no authority to do anything about it because it becomes a Federal matter- the antis have done it before in California suing both volunteers and Counties so the Bush administration had the EPA write exceptions and protections (example: http://www.epa.gov/ow/goodsamaritan/faq.html). I'm saying nothing the vultures aren't already mulling over and might try if they think they can sway the courts - so this is very basic and not likely - but there are worse things. I'm not going to get more blunt than this.

I continue to be amazed at the nonsense the County is willing to entertain to its own peril. I understand that people want to trust authority structures but the Rubicon situation makes things unusual right now. The situation warrants sometimes I'm going to push back rather than just embrace what is going to be coming down the (turn)pike. Others will see it differently - so they do their thing and I'll do mine.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson

[cruzila]

Thank you Charles

[Keith]

Originally Posted by steveh

Do your own homework, no LEO is going to answer your questions on VC, none of them.

Link to DMV 2009 codes

Here is the specific law, read it and make an educated choice for yourself.

From:
A re-post for the billionth time on PBB, Section 27600


Fenders and Mudguards

27600. No person shall operate any motor vehicle having three or more wheels, any trailer, or semitrailer unless equipped with fenders, covers, or devices, including flaps or splash aprons, or unless the body of the vehicle or attachments thereto afford adequate protection to effectively minimize the spray or splash of water or mud to the rear of the vehicle and all such equipment or such body or attachments thereto shall be at least as wide as the tire tread. This section does not apply to those vehicles exempt from registration, trailers and semitrailers having an unladen weight of under 1,500 pounds, or any vehicles manufactured and first registered prior to January 1, 1971, having an unladen weight of under 1,500 pounds.

Comprehend? Now you know what LEO's use to decide if the like, or dislike your rig for splash protection.

Your welcome, I had to make the font big and bold and red because I am as blind as Keith,, well more blind, I'm a few years ahead of him, so i consider him a young blue smurf punk still

The way I read that Steve is......
If my tires stick out of the body 8", I can run flaps that cover the tread width of the tire, and have them sized accordingly to keep spray from exiting the rear of the vehicle

[cbassett]

Originally Posted by 300sniper

i think we all knew they need to be as wide as the tire tread. i think the question is how far off the ground can they be or how far behind the tire can they be. what exactly is considered "adequate protection to effectively minimize the spray or splash of water or mud to the rear of the vehicle". my idea of adequate protection may be different than your idea of adequate protection and both of our ideas may be different than a ticketing officer's idea of adequate protection.

Try 82.6, which CHP uses as a guideline to enforce CVC 27600:

http://www.johnarenz.com/DOC031.PDF


Helpful synopsis John wrote-up on 27600 and 82.6:

http://www.johnarenz.com/Mudflaps.html

[steveh]

Originally Posted by Keith

The way I read that Steve is......
If my tires stick out of the body 8", I can run flaps that cover the tread width of the tire, and have them sized accordingly to keep spray from exiting the rear of the vehicle

Works for me too Keith! Seems to work great for semis etc too!

Steveh, putting away his sarcastic pot stirring for a while on this subject. Don't want to make Keith's head hurt any worse that it does already, heck, don't want my head to hurt any worse either!

[ROCKLIMO]

The tree of liberty needs watering.

[wheelerpeeler]

Originally Posted by elarsen

On the street I agree with you fully. The issue is that alot of people do take responsibility & tow their rig to the chalet or dam. They remove their flaps, flares, mirrors at home because they do not want to damage them on the trail. They disconnect sway bars & lower tire pressures on the trailer. Some people trailer their street legal junk because they acknowledge damage may occor, ie broken windshield from a flop in the sliuce - making it illegal to drive on the road. It is B.S. that these people would be harrassed on the trail by federal leo that do not understand state law.

If the rig does not comply with OHV regs when on the trail, a ticket is well deserved.

X2 with this post.

[dieseldick3408]

Originally Posted by 77bawls

my windshield is cracked on the passenger side. The law says you don't have to replace it if it doesn't affect the drivers view. I would be pissed if i got a ticket for it.

same here i gotta exo and a window is going to be a bitch to replace

[chasinternet]

Originally Posted by ROCKLIMO

The tree of liberty needs watering.

YouTube - Blueberry (2004)

[Valley Auto]

So I read this whole thread and couldnt find an answer to my question, so I will ask now. One of the guys in our group this year is having a lot of issues with his registration. He wants to green sticker it but has no previous paper work or title. Special construction is pending but very very slow. He wants to run the con with us this year as with the birth of his son coming it may be awhile before he gets back. What will happen if he is stopped for registration? He is a good guy definetely doesnt fall into the dui or open container class, always has his seat belt on and trash bag hanging. Hes just having a hell of a time getting the registration good.

Will they impound it?, or will he be making a charitable donation to the leo's?

Thanks for any and all info, hopefully the dmv will come through and this wont be an issue.

[cruzila]

One way or another it needs to be legal. If it has a VIN, he can do a title claim. May backfire but I am not sure there is another way that is legal.

You fill out a form and they send a request to the last registered owner. They claim it you are hosed, they don't, you own it legal.