CHP gives cliff a smog ticket for his teener Options

[Chris Hamilton]

Grant, lets see that video!

Sorry its not the best quality but there are still a few good sounds. I would love a car like yours one day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3Xy_gw3Fvw

Wow, you really see the acceleration in the video, don't feel it too well in the drivers seat. Thanks for taking the clip!

The car has really been a thrill to drive, I wish it were mine. It however belongs to one of our racing buddies Larry, who couldn't make it because of an injury. He plans to time trial the car, and asked me to take it to a few autocross events to see what it will probably need. My dad ( Lee ) also repaired a bunch of the suspension points under the front of the car, so we're taking it out and shaking it down to make sure they're solid before painting over them.

[dw914er]

technically, i am in the crack of the smog law. I have a 73 914 1.7, with the stock fuel injection system. But, it is a 49 state car, so technically is still isnt smog legal lol

(my parents would detune the car for every smog test since it was in cali in '76 to pass hehe)

[DanT]

even the california cars had to be tweeked to pass the tailpipe test, then retweeked after testing so they would run (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

[Cap'n Krusty]

I just gave that link a good speed read and it appears that pertains to the removal of a device like a cat or an air pump. This is my spin. If the car doesn't have a "pollution control device" to remove, there is no violation. I would call injection a "pollution control device" It's a fuel delivery system.

First the car is exempt for a reason. Most 1971 model cars wouldn't pass the basic standards for emissions set forth for their year of manufacture 37 years after they were made. It's an unreasonable expectation. Obsolecence has taken many of these cars off the road and more are expiring every year. Like all the 70's model daily drivers, more doors, old undesirable work trucks, 70's imports like the Toyota's and honda's with their complicated air delivery emissions with 30 vacum hoses.

Second, parts to run the FI are starting to become NLA and wear is causing these controls to fall out of spec. It would be reasonable to change the fuel delivery system to one that will still allow the use of the vehicle.

Third, all cars fall out of tune from time to time. Tune the car up and bring the part slips to court. Show a good faith effort to correct the problem the officer noticed and remind the judge that the car is "pre-emissions equipted" The ticket that was issued doesn't apply, and based on the year is exempt from smog.

Beatable! CHP was messin with ya. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/jerkit.gif)

the state doesn't care if the stuff is NLA or not. If it was an FI car at birth, then it is till supposed to be an FI car. and in CA the early cars did have stuff that was considered smog related. various parts of the FI on type IVs were there for smog.
blow by recirculation, cold start valves, hot start valves all had something to do with not only driveability but also emissions.
Even my stock motored 1967 Bug had a smog device or two, and when we still had to have it smogged, those pieces had to be there.
Remember California was requiring smog equipment on cars before the rest of the nation was, back in '66 and '67.

The ONLY smog equipment on your '67 bug was the closed crankcase system, which consisted of a rubber boot at the bottom of the road draft tube. This started for ALL cars in 1965 or '66. The Cap'n

[Cap'n Krusty]

The statement about the exemption is only partially true. It's a ONE TIME exemption, and it's granted mostly for hardship cases. As for NLA equipment, they give you a number to call, and you better believe those guys can find almost any smog part you'd ever need. If they can supply it, cost is out of the equation. The Cap'n

[Cap'n Krusty]

technically, i am in the crack of the smog law. I have a 73 914 1.7, with the stock fuel injection system. But, it is a 49 state car, so technically is still isnt smog legal lol

(my parents would detune the car for every smog test since it was in cali in '76 to pass hehe)

It wasn't until 1975 that there was a difference in CA and 49 state emissions equipment for 914s. Cali is a city in Colombia. The Cap'n

[dw914er]

technically, i am in the crack of the smog law. I have a 73 914 1.7, with the stock fuel injection system. But, it is a 49 state car, so technically is still isnt smog legal lol

(my parents would detune the car for every smog test since it was in cali in '76 to pass hehe)

It wasn't until 1975 that there was a difference in CA and 49 state emissions equipment for 914s. Cali is a city in Colombia. The Cap'n

California***

good point about the equipment, the difference was the tuning of the motor, not the actual system. though, it still shows that the car wouldnt pass the smog law for this state without having to be retuned again.

so even is still correct stuff, is it still legal? Doesnt really matter though, i highly doubt i will ever need to deal with that issue.

[joefri187]

There was a lot of discussion earler regarding the Officer's right to look under the hood.

To those who would refuse to consent to an inspection under the hood or demand a search warrant, I'm sorry to say you are probably going to be inspected anyway... and failure to submit to the inspection could result in an arrest or citation.

VC§ 2806. Vehicle and Equipment Inspection
Any regularly employed and salaried police officer or deputy sheriff, or any reserve police officer or reserve deputy sheriff listed in Section 830.6 of the Penal Code, having reasonable cause to believe that any vehicle or combination of vehicles is not equipped as required by this code or is in any 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 those tests as may be appropriate to determine the safety to persons and compliance with the code.
(Amended by Stats. 2003, Ch. 292, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 2004.)

VC§ 2800. Obedience to Traffic Officers
(a) It is unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal, or direction of a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, when that peace officer is in uniform and is performing duties pursuant to any of the provisions of this code, or to refuse to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to this code.

[ericread]

There was a lot of discussion earler regarding the Officer's right to look under the hood.

To those who would refuse to consent to an inspection under the hood or demand a search warrant, I'm sorry to say you are probably going to be inspected anyway... and failure to submit to the inspection could result in an arrest or citation.

VC§ 2806. Vehicle and Equipment Inspection
Any regularly employed and salaried police officer or deputy sheriff, or any reserve police officer or reserve deputy sheriff listed in Section 830.6 of the Penal Code, having reasonable cause to believe that any vehicle or combination of vehicles is not equipped as required by this code or is in any 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 those tests as may be appropriate to determine the safety to persons and compliance with the code.
(Amended by Stats. 2003, Ch. 292, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 2004.)

VC§ 2800. Obedience to Traffic Officers
(a) It is unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal, or direction of a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, when that peace officer is in uniform and is performing duties pursuant to any of the provisions of this code, or to refuse to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to this code.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)
Although these items bring up questions regarding unreasonable search and seizure, unless you're willing to take it to the Supreme Court, you're proabably going to lose. In the mean time, you car would probably be impounded (at your expense) awaiting the search warrant. Then a thorough search would probably involve dismantling the car for inspection.

My experience is that you're not going to win a pissing match with a cop. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/screwy.gif)

[ConeDodger]

There was a lot of discussion earler regarding the Officer's right to look under the hood.

To those who would refuse to consent to an inspection under the hood or demand a search warrant, I'm sorry to say you are probably going to be inspected anyway... and failure to submit to the inspection could result in an arrest or citation.

VC§ 2806. Vehicle and Equipment Inspection
Any regularly employed and salaried police officer or deputy sheriff, or any reserve police officer or reserve deputy sheriff listed in Section 830.6 of the Penal Code, having reasonable cause to believe that any vehicle or combination of vehicles is not equipped as required by this code or is in any 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 those tests as may be appropriate to determine the safety to persons and compliance with the code.
(Amended by Stats. 2003, Ch. 292, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 2004.)

VC§ 2800. Obedience to Traffic Officers
(a) It is unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal, or direction of a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, when that peace officer is in uniform and is performing duties pursuant to any of the provisions of this code, or to refuse to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to this code.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)
Although these items bring up questions regarding unreasonable search and seizure, unless you're willing to take it to the Supreme Court, you're proabably going to lose. In the mean time, you car would probably be impounded (at your expense) awaiting the search warrant. Then a thorough search would probably involve dismantling the car for inspection.

My experience is that you're not going to win a pissing match with a cop. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/screwy.gif)

Illegal search and seizure as it regards a motor vehicle applies to the passenger compartment and storage areas. The engine as demonstrated above by the code is fair game. The engine is regulated. How do they enforce laws like engine modification if they cannot inspect?
Don't get me wrong. I would love to be able to tell the officer to get a warrant if he wanted to look under my hood but it isn't going to do you any good. In extreme cases it could end in your arrest for obstructing an officer.

[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?

[dw914er]

it is pretty amazing though that the officer knew that 914's didnt come with carbs in usa though. If anything, it was just bad luck. But i guess that is the risk you take if you remove the fi unit.

[Chris Hamilton]

it is pretty amazing though that the officer knew that 914's didnt come with carbs in usa though. If anything, it was just bad luck. But i guess that is the risk you take if you remove the fi unit.

I think it's worth the risk to get a reliable, good running car though. My 914 is going to get good EFI eventually, but nothing even resembling the stock unit.

[dw914er]

it is pretty amazing though that the officer knew that 914's didnt come with carbs in usa though. If anything, it was just bad luck. But i guess that is the risk you take if you remove the fi unit.

I think it's worth the risk to get a reliable, good running car though. My 914 is going to get good EFI eventually, but nothing even resembling the stock unit.

yea, reliability is key.

[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.

[ericread]

HA! No rain tray!!! You lawless SOB!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ar15.gif)

[rjames]

I blew through a drive by emissions test on my way home from work one day in my 914/6.

A drive by emissions test? Pardon my ignorance, but do these really exist?
And if so, how accurate are they?

[Cap'n Krusty]

I blew through a drive by emissions test on my way home from work one day in my 914/6.

A drive by emissions test? Pardon my ignorance, but do these really exist?
And if so, how accurate are they?

They exist, and they work well enough to catch cars with semi-serious emissions issues. The Cap'n

[dw914er]

those tests usually wont test the 914 unless you are blowing visible smoke. I passed one, officer asked my year (73) and said, ok, have a good day.

but they are out there