State vs aftermarket exhaust

[WormGod]

That's obviously not true, because he got a ticket, and (as far as we know) the cop didn't use any sort of measuring device. The fact is, it happens all the time in Maryland. Read my previous posts for several other real world examples.

WG - I'm surprised you are going to court at all. Unless the rules have changed all you need to do is go to the Glen Burnie MVA and have the State PD inspect it. It's free (unless you're guilty, of course) and you can do it on your own schedule. I personally wouldn't bother wasting a day in court without first trying to settle it the easy way.

I simply feel I have a point to prove I guess. Present the facts to the judge and let my case be known. Of course, if there is some SECRET law that has been passed and it is simply not known to priveledged drivers, then I will surely be in for a surprise awakening, haha. Then again, my luck, the cop wont even show up and it will get thrown out.

And no need to go to Glen Burnie. I cop friend told me that I could deal with it at the Gaithersburg DMV. I was told by them that this works like a traffic ticket basically and if they are not mailed a reciept, a court date is mailed to my address and thus, the fun begins. So ya, I feel I have to point to prove somewhere deep down inside of me (probably my colon).

[kpaske]

There's a Full Service MVA in GBurg now? Last time I was living in Maryland they were just opening the new location in Beltsville and the MVA in GBurg was an MVA Express (close to 5 years ago). I'm glad to hear they are expanding so much. I remember the days when a trip to the MVA nearly always involved waiting several hours just to find out that you don't have all the right paperwork, then returning to wait several more hours to found out the previous person was wrong and you still don't have all the right paperwork, rinse and repeat. Seems like that happened every time I went there. And customer service was worse than a Mickey D's in Langley Park. Oh, the memories...

[JAFO]

I simply feel I have a point to prove I guess. Present the facts to the judge and let my case be known. Of course, if there is some SECRET law that has been passed and it is simply not known to priveledged drivers, then I will surely be in for a surprise awakening, haha. ...

Laws are not secret, however, it takes effort on the the citizens behalf to read and keep up on all of the changes. The burden is on the citizen to know the law and obey, not the government to keep the citizens informed.

Also I confired with some of my friends and co-workers, note we are not in the legal field, and one of them said something that I didn't recall. He said that when you apply for your drivers license here in Oregon the paper that you must sign to get your license, amungst other things, states that you acknowlege all driving laws and will obey them.

[tbigity]

Laws are not secret, however, it takes effort on the the citizens behalf to read and keep up on all of the changes. The burden is on the citizen to know the law and obey, not the government to keep the citizens informed.

Normally I would agree. I am a law abiding-citizen...pay my taxes, stop at stop signs, never murdered a guy...love the work cops do and respect them. However, as far as keeping up with laws, I must agree and disagree. It is our job to keep informed of them...after all we are the ones that must abide by them. However, I almost think that some enigma is purposefully left in the law.

Here is my case >> when I was underage, I was under the assumption that it was legal to drink IF, and ONLY IF you did so with your parents' consent, and you did not drive for a 24 hour period. Why did I think that? I asked a cop, a member of the executive branch of government, figuring he had to know the law in and out in order to execute it...moreso than a citizen. That was his response, what I mentioned above. However, that raised some concern with some parents who I described it to. So I went back to the same cop (was campus police at my HS). He went as far as to tell me that he was at a local restaurant and a minor requested a drink with his rents' permission. When the manager refused, the cop interjected and told the manager the law, the drink was served. However, my point is this. I have since asked 3 other cops. 2 agree with the first cop to the most part, though they have never mentioned a specific period of time that one must not drive after. The other cop I asked said if you are under 21, the law says you can't drink.

Well, wanting personal clarity (and to drink b4 turning 21) I consulted the OK laws via the state website. All I could find was the first law under the alcohol section stating it is unlawful for anyone under 21 to drink. i have since sent a barrage of emails to the state asking for clarity, non of which have been returned.

Therefore my [conspiracy] theory is that some level of obscurity is in the laws to keep people guessing so that if a cop wants to, he can find a reason, lawful or unlawful, to pull you over/inspect you/question you, whatever he wants to.

[tbigity]

I also wanted to mention this that is more on line with the thread topic. I can relate WG :

Last time I got pulled over (bout 3 years ago) I was courteous as could be to the officer, like I have been taught. After all, they are just doing there job. However, on that instance [,the last time i got pulled over,] the cop gave me a warning on 2 bogus accounts. Said I was going 3 MPH over (no joke...3!) AND that I ran a yellow light. In 100% honesty, the light went yellow as I was in the intersection. I explained to him that I thought (being not too far out of defensive-driving school) that yellow was safe to pass the intersection, with discernment, as it gave you a warning that red was coming next.

This is the part I love. At that point, he explained to me that if the light is yellow at all, the intersection is "not to be traveled in." And that I "should have known that." My thinking was "if you are not supposed to be in the intersection at all when it is yellow, why not go right from green to yellow?" Point being, the cop just wanted a reason to pull me over. Sub 20 yr old male, driving a nice 05 Jeep (father's)...surely he had to pull me over just for some good ole fashioned demographic profiling, something had to be wrong with that picture. I lost a lil respect for the cops that fall into that category on that day...the kind that follow the typical hard-nosed, jerk ace, don't-let-them-have-fun mentality.

On a side note, later I was talking to a truck driver bud of mine about the situation. He just finished his yearly driving test with the company he worked for and told me that the handbook they have says that if the intersection is yellow when you are in it, and it then turns red you are still legal to pass. The reasoning is that the duration of "yellow" will vary, a substantial amount, from light to light as will the physical size of the intersection. So even if proper discernment puts you smack dab in the middle of the intersection when the light turns red, if you enter it while it is yellow, you are not breaking any laws.

Thus, my point is proven, and I feel that WG has been screwed.

[tbigity]

HOLY CRAP! Don't turn me loose on a subject I am passionate about. I just realized I wrote a freaking multichapter novel in the last few posts

[etlsport]

i always heard similar about being able to drink with your parents being OK.. i always thought it was more of that, 'if its only in our house, whos going to know' sorta thing, not actual law, of course i have never really looked into it either. when it comes to yellow/red lights, i know its legal to go through an intersection on yellow, take left turns while yielding to an oncoming green for ex. if you go halfway out into the intersection and the light turns yellow, you cant just stay there! at least in PA, i think situations like that are more the reason for being able to use yellow to clear the intersection, because yellow light durations are regulated here. when putting a light in, theres a whole bunch of equations that are used to calculate a safe duration for the light to be yellow based on how far away you are when you can first see the light, speed limit on the road, size of the intersection etc. lights are very rarely set up to those specifications though, so if you ever get busted for 'running' a red light, look into that. if you can prove the yellow wasnt long enough, they cant charge you (thats how i learned about all of that stuff, my roommate is a civil engineer and got pulled over for running a light, so i helped him go out and take measurements of the intersection for the calcs.)

[kpaske]

In WA it is illegal to enter the intersection if it is not clear all the way through, so that left turn where you wait for the light to turn yellow is actually illegal.

Alcohol laws vary from state to state. I remember being served in a restaurant in Tennessee when I was about 10 or 12. We were drinking wine that we brought ourselves (restaurants there could not sell alcohol, but could serve it if you brought it yourself). I got drunk as heck and fell out of my chair in front of everybody.

[WyrreJ]

Therefore my [conspiracy] theory is that some level of obscurity is in the laws to keep people guessing so that if a cop wants to, he can find a reason, lawful or unlawful, to pull you over/inspect you/question you, whatever he wants to.

Follow the money. It's not set up that way for the cops, they are just a piece of the machine.

Who writes laws? Lawyers. The vast majority of legislators and the lobbyist class are lawyers, although it has not always been that way.

Who makes money when there is a question of law? Lawyers - all 3 parties in court making money are lawyers - counsel for defense, counsel for plantiff and the judge. Even if the issue does not go to court, chances are at least one lawyer gets paid as part of the process - the one who gets consulted by the defendent for advice.

Such a result is the inevitable result of the way the system is set up -- its the equivalent of letting the wolves guard the hen house.

[tbigity]

Follow the money. It's not set up that way for the cops, they are just a piece of the machine.

I agree in part. While, like I mentioned, they are part of the executive branch and not legislative (to enforce, not create the laws) they still dictate why they pull people over and I doubt the reason do so is to give some "suit" more padding in his pockets. As was my point, if a cop wants to do so, he will find something to pull you over for. As has been mentioned, could have been the wrong cop on the wrong day. Just like a cop will let a group of 5 speeders all in-tow go by him and only nab one of them...the one he thinks there is more reason to pull over. Just looking for a reason. There is a certain mentaility that goes along with being a cop that simply cannot be avoided to some extent. I cannot recount the name of the Professor of Psychology that did the experiement a few years back...studied it in my psyche class. But it took a group of students and isolated them from everything they knew and put them in a hypothetical situation where they were to role play for weeks at a time with no outside contact. Half where the prison guards (cops) and half where the inmates. Keep in mind that these were piers going in...long story short, they were straight up enemies after the study. One of the "cops" had to be taken out of the experiment because he nearly killed one of the "inmates." Keep in mind this was just roleplaying. Some of the "inmates" had to undergo therapy afterward because of the treatment they received from the "cops." The interesting thing was that the study was performed again this time the students that had played "inmates" where now the guards and anew group was brought in for the "inmates." Nearly the same result. Despite having encountered the brutality of the previous group of "guards", the new guards did not learn from the behavior, but rather, that behavior became all they knew of that roll and so, they adopted it.

The point of the study was that there are certain roles in society where the behavior is governmend more by what you think (consciously or subconsciously) that role is supposed to be and not what you want to be in that role.

However, like I previously stated:

love the work cops do and respect them.

[kpaske]

The interesting thing was that the study was performed again this time the students that had played "inmates" where now the guards and anew group was brought in for the "inmates." Nearly the same result. Despite having encountered the brutality of the previous group of "guards", the new guards did not learn from the behavior, but rather, that behavior became all they knew of that roll and so, they adopted it.

OR perhaps what they learned was that the system dictates (or at a minimum, encourages) a certain behavior.

[tbigity]

that was the neat thing about this...it was technically out of the system. Granted, that mentality could have been furnished by the system, but the only stimulus they had was what was going on in their heads. The only instruction they were given was "these students are guards, these are the inmates." Kinda like a "we become what we know and nothing more" thing. If nothing else it just showed the human reluctancy to change :-/

[nfpgasmask]

You think traffic laws are enigmatic?!?! Try making clear sense out of your state's gun laws. Talk about muddy waters...

Bart

However, I almost think that some enigma is purposefully left in the law.

Therefore my [conspiracy] theory is that some level of obscurity is in the laws to keep people guessing so that if a cop wants to, he can find a reason, lawful or unlawful, to pull you over/inspect you/question you, whatever he wants to.