CHP gives cliff a smog ticket for his teener Options

[Chris Hamilton]

Has a 2.0 with webers. Sounds like some kind of fixit ticket. Do 1971 teeners have to smog? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/WTF.gif) How would a six ever smog since those came with carbs too?

Do we have any california law experts here to explain this?

[Brando]

When he asks to see the engine, you pop the front hood.

"Oh crap... uh..."

Then the rear hood.

"Uh oh... Do i even have one?"

VC§ 2806 says that the officer has to have reasonable cause to suspect the engine is modified, or in the instance that the vehicle is a danger to others to search into the car. If you objected to his search and he found nothing, this would constitute an unreasonable search, yadda yadda.

VC§ 2800 says you have to comply with lawful inspections. If you do not comply because it is unlawful (unlawful search and siezure of things on your person, etc).

I'm guessing this brings to light whether or not you believe the search to be lawful. If you contest it and don't oblige the officer's request, it will more than likely become a pissing match in court where its your lawyer vs. the officer's intended enforcement, what he was looking for, questioning his "probable cause" etc.

How much time and money you wanna spend to set precedence?

[ericread]

When he asks to see the engine, you pop the front hood.

"Oh crap... uh..."

Then the rear hood.

"Uh oh... Do i even have one?"

VC§ 2806 says that the officer has to have reasonable cause to suspect the engine is modified, or in the instance that the vehicle is a danger to others to search into the car.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread:

No longer is "Probable Cause" a requirement. It has been supplanted by "Reasonable Cause"

In over simplified terms, probable cause exist[s] where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found, Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983).

The requirements to support "Reasonable Cause" are very easy to justify by law enforcement.

[ConeDodger]

When he asks to see the engine, you pop the front hood.

"Oh crap... uh..."

Then the rear hood.

"Uh oh... Do i even have one?"

VC§ 2806 says that the officer has to have reasonable cause to suspect the engine is modified, or in the instance that the vehicle is a danger to others to search into the car.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread:

No longer is "Probable Cause" a requirement. It has been supplanted by "Reasonable Cause"

In over simplified terms, probable cause exist[s] where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found, Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983).

The requirements to support "Reasonable Cause" are very easy to justify by law enforcement.

Yep. Look at that whale tail. Reasonable cause. Listen to that engine. Reasonable cause. In the case of my engine, you can see the carbs easily through the engine grill. An officer who knew 914's would have me without opening the engine lid. I have no rain tray.

We have a couple CHP officers in SVR... They both would have known where the engine is located and that it didn't come with carbs.