Just got a ticket for this.

[jamal1984]

I'm not mad at all, but i got a laugh for us government, to give ticket for something like THIS. Oh My God. :bow:

[tomato]

what did you get a ticket for, no front plaque?
black car?
too much wax on the car? not enough wax?
Having a sedan instead of a LB?
the possibilities are endless ... :wink:

[sqcomp]

I'd give him a ticket for the bubbles under the eyelid decal...

What exactly was it for though? As much as I rag on some people for receiving tickets...they're mostly for speeding which is easily their fault. If yours is truly for the decals on the top of the headlamp assembly, I'm on your side. What municipal statute was broken here? It'll probably say on the ticket.

[tomato]

not to sound like a dork or anything ;) but are eyelids illegal? :confused:



I'd give him a ticket for the bubbles under the eyelid decal..

:bellyroll:

[jamal1984]

It's the eyelid
The reason you guys see bubble under eyelids is because my headlight got burned there. That is why i put the eyelids on.
The cop pulled me over because i got an eyelids, he said i can't have any sticker on my headlight.
I was also about to pass out when i heard him said that and write me a ticket for it. I just shook my head and leave
Do the government need moneys that bad?
Ticket wrote illegal stickers on headlight.

[jamal1984]

I told the cop the reason why i put the eyelids there because it's got burned and the eyelids is not even affecting the headlight output at all. He looked at me and said I DON'T CARE BUY YOUR SELF A NEW HEADLIGHTS.

[BailOut]

It's a small thing but it makes sense to me as it blocks part of the headlight beam. Form should follow function, as we all know, but in this case the form was in the way of the function. The manufactured headlight covers that are sold here on YW carefully avoid getting into the beam's path. Your decals do not.

How did you burn your headlight housing, anyway? That's one of the oddest things I've ever seen. :laugh:

[sqcomp]

I say all he'd have to do is to trim the decal on the same plane as the hood line.

Still, we need to refer to the municipal statute for reference. I'm SURE this isn't a state law, it's too petty.

[MadMax]

Took me less than a minute to find it....

According to the Georgia Code of Motor Vehicles and Traffic - Title 40, Section 40-8-22, subsection (d):

The headlights required by this Code section shall be maintained in proper working condition and shall not be covered by any type of material, provided that the covering restriction shall not apply to any vehicle on which the original factory headlights were covered.

So, you really don't have much of an argument...ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

[BaknBlak]

I'm pretty sure all eyelids are illegal. Like he said, nothing on headlights, period. I'm kinda surprised he didn't get you for no license plate and things hanging from your rear view mirror while he was at it. All illegal in CA. Right or wrong, he gave you a break.

[tk-421]

Sorry to hear about that, @jamal1984!

Yeah those eyelids definitely get in the way of the light beam. Plus the material you used (I'm guessing vinyl?) is too flexible to cover anything up under there.

You really should consider getting some proper eyelids for your car. They're not as aggressive-looking as yours, but they are fine for daily use (they don't get in the way of the beam at all) and they can cover up the burn in your headlight a lot better. .02

[JBougie]

They really just want to pick on those who mod their cars. They know it's an easy way to make a buck.

I think it's stupid. They don't hurt or harm the functionality of the damn light - they should just leave it alone.

You can't tell me the police don't have more important things to be doing than screwing with people who have eyelids on their car.

[MadMax]

I'm pretty sure all eyelids are illegal. Like he said, nothing on headlights, period. I'm kinda surprised he didn't get you for no license plate and things hanging from your rear view mirror while he was at it. All illegal in CA. Right or wrong, he gave you a break.

The OP is in Georgia, which does not have front tags, hence it is not against the law not to have one.

Also, there is nothing against hanging things on a rearview mirror in the Georgia Code of Motor Vehicles and Traffic either, so he didn't "get a break."

If you are going to pass judgment on someone, at least use the applicable state laws...

[tomato]

Oh, well, if that is the law, better take them off before you get a repeat ticket (I'm guessing that'd be more expensive and more of a hassle).

[MadMax]

Just a quick question for the OP, considering you could easily remove the "eyelids;" can't this be handled as a "fix it" ticket? You remove the material, then take it to a police station or someplace to verify it has been removed, and the ticket is dismissed. Is that an option?

But given the law, I would either find aftermarket headlights or forgo putting any "eyelids" on at all; as even if this ticket is dismissed, it will still be on you record and if you get caught again it could have more serious ramifications!

[tomato]

they charge us for "Fix-it" tickets in California, these days.

I had one for lack of registration - my sticker fell off !! - when I had my old car, even though, my car WAS registered and they could easily check it. I asked them to remove the "non registration" ticket but they said no, I ended up paying a "fix-it" charge and having to pay again to get my sticker re-issued a second time :rolleyes: grrrrrr

That was in Berkeley, though, they're notorious for stuff like that. They hate cars :mad: Actually that day, I got 2 tickets since I also got a fine for an expired meter (2 minutes expired) :rolleyes:

[sbergman27]

I don't think that this is a case of it, but... a few times during the last few years I've been stopped on the Interstate for reasons which were obviously bogus. A Kansas HP officer stopped me a week or two ago, asking if my tag was expired. It was a temporary Oklahoma tag from the dealer, reading the purchase date of "02/25/10" and I didn't even have the paperwork to get a real tag yet. I noted that he was careful not to *say* it was expired, but to ask. I told him I'd just bought the car a couple of weeks ago, and he lamely explained that in Kansas they put the expiration date on the tag. (Hello? How long have you been a highway patrolman in our neighboring state of Oklahoma? And in all that time, I'm the first person with a new car from Oklahoma that you've stopped? Even though you are claiming that it's the soul reason you stopped me? And you look about 45 years old?)

And then the questions started. Where are you coming from? Where are you headed? Have you done any drugs or alcohol today? (It was 10:27 in the morning.)

Eventually, it appeared that the business had concluded. He started to walk away. But then, he turned... and I swear this felt just like an old Columbo episode... he asked the expected question: "Can I have a look in your trunk?"

I'm a male driver traveling alone, so I must be carrying drugs, you see. This happened to me a couple of times before. So I looked up just what my rights were. They can ask. I can refuse. So I refused. (Actually, that's what I did the two previous times, but it was on instinct and not knowledge.)

Now, understand that I didn't have anything more interesting than dirty underwear in the trunk. Any of those times. I simply choose not to do recreational drugs or transport them. But it is just plain *wrong* to stop people on bogus pretense, and then prey on the victim's presumed ignorance of his rights to intimidate him into letting you conduct a search.

So we talked political philosophy for a while. Really, we did. I couldn't believe I had the nerve to fence with a highway patrolman like that, but this third attempted violation of my rights and privacy really had me ticked.

( And yes, a lot more than even my friend Brian, in this forum, has managed to do. :-P )

What it finally came down to was that he admitted that he couldn't force me to allow the search. But... he could force me to wait for a K9 unit to arrive. I told him fine. If that's what we have to do, then fine. It's still wrong. But fine. He said it might take a while. Maybe 30 minutes. (He waited for my reaction.) I said fine.

He went back and talked to his buddy. After a while, he came back and said that the K9 unit was 30 minutes away and that he wasn't going to detain me any longer. I told him I appreciated that. And put out my hand to shake. He said that "everyone" said what I had said. (I have difficulty believing that real drug traffickers made exactly the arguments I did, or as well. But perhaps that's just vanity.) He shook my hand, and I looked him in the eye and told him, in as sincere a voice as I can manage, that there really *wasn't* anything of interest in my trunk. I didn't do it, but I probably should have asked him to think about that sometime when he had chance. But I was rattled. And my nerves have limits.

I was glad to be on my way.

-Steve

Edit: One really strange thing that I forgot to mention is that while he asked me if I had insurance on the car... he never so much as asked me for my driver's license or proof of insurance.

[tk-421]

But given the law, I would either find aftermarket headlights or forgo putting any "eyelids" on at all; as even if this ticket is dismissed, it will still be on you record and if you get caught again it could have more serious ramifications!

This is a very good point. I hadn't thought of that.
I think eyelids may not be in your future, jamal... :frown:

[RHDVIPbB]

Glad I designed and cut mine so that they follow the trim around the headlight. Sucks that they pulled you over for that.

I got a ticket once because my tags had expired the day before. I still hadn't received my sticker (which came a week later) and the officer drilled me on everything from address on license, where I was headed, etc. Needless to say I shrugged it off and went to court with my registration.

[BaknBlak]

The OP is in Georgia, which does not have front tags, hence it is not against the law not to have one.

Also, there is nothing against hanging things on a rearview mirror in the Georgia Code of Motor Vehicles and Traffic either, so he didn't "get a break."

If you are going to pass judgment on someone, at least use the applicable state laws...

Who's passing judgement? In CA, he would be getting a break. Don't know or care about GA law.

[jamal1984]

thank you for you guys opinions, to be honest i would like to get rid of the eyelids and buy a projector h4 bixenon and paint my inside headlights black already, the Vinyl eyelids on my headlight is not affecting the beam at all, i did a test before i put it on my headlights.
Anyway, Yaris at Georgia listen up, you got an EYELIDS you becareful outthere,

[LA Yaris]

Sounds like a red neck cop to me.

[MadMax]

Sounds more like a cop doing his job to me. Those are the laws of the state...he didn't make them, he's paid to enforce them...

[Kaotic Lazagna]

I don't think that this is a case of it, but... a few times during the last few years I've been stopped on the Interstate for reasons which were obviously bogus.

Your post reminds me of Jay Z and Linkin Park's song...

"The year is '94 and in my trunk is raw
In my rear view mirror is the mother fuckin law
I got two choices yall pull over the car or
Bounce on the devil put the pedal to the floor
Now i ain't tryin to see no highway chase with jake
Plus i got a few dollars i can fight the case
So i...pull over to the side of the road
And i heard 'Son do you know why i'm stoppin you for?'
Cause i'm young and i'm black and my hats real low
Do i look like a mind reader sir, i don't know
Am i under arrest or should i guess some mo?
'Well you was doin fifty five in a fifty four'
'Liscense and regestration and step out of the car'
'Are you carryin a weapon on you i know alot of you are'
I ain't steppin out of shit all my papers legit
'Do you mind if i look round the car a little bit?'
Well my glove compartment is locked so is the trunk and the back
And i know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that
'Aren't you sharp as a tack are some type of lawyer or something?'
'Or somebody important or somethin?'
Nah i ain't pass the bar but i know a little bit
Enough that you won't illegally search my shit
'Well see how smart you are when the K-9's come'
I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one
Hit me"

[sbergman27]

Your post reminds me of Jay Z and Linkin Park's song...
Wow! I mean... I'm white... and middle aged (though you'd never get me to admit it)... and I don't wear a hat. But the lyrics pretty much fit in every other way.

-Steve

"And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Unknown Author

[Kaotic Lazagna]

Wow! I mean... I'm white... and middle aged (though you'd never get me to admit it)... and I don't wear a hat. But the lyrics pretty much fit in every other way.

-Steve

"And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Unknown Author

haha, yeah, I wanted to delete that part of the lyrics, but the rest wouldn't flow. haha

[sbergman27]

I'm glad you posted it just as is.

-Steve

[yarrr]

"And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Unknown Author

Now that reminds me of NOFX - regaining unconsciousness

First they put away the dealers,
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.

Then they shooed away the bums,
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers,
fed us suspicions and fears.
We didn't raise our voice,
we didn't make a fuss.
It's funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us.

[goliath1812]

Sounds more like a cop doing his job to me. Those are the laws of the state...he didn't make them, he's paid to enforce them...

+1

[sbergman27]

Sounds more like a cop doing his job to me. Those are the laws of the state...he didn't make them, he's paid to enforce them...
Back when I had car sound systems that were worth anything at all, I had a couple stolen during the night. The police "did their job" saying there was nothing they could do. Glad they finally made up for it by nailing this hardened criminal.

-Steve

[sqcomp]

I'll concede that the officer probably had something better to do...

The thought that asking you to let him search your vehicle is not out of the question. You CAN refuse. It is your right to refuse an unlawful search and seizure absolutely. However, if I rollup on you, and you've got something wrong with the vehicle or are displying some sort of sign that something might be a bit off...I'll pull you over too.

Okay, I get you pulled over, I walk up on the vehicle and start talking to you. There are certain behaviors which might give me the reason to be suspicious of the situation. Admittedly, eyelids aren't at the top of offenses...

out of curiosity, with the sound system, what exactly were the police supposed to do? Post a guard around your vehicle? Were they supposed to police your stereo behaviors? Were they supposed to make sure you didn't put stickers on your vehicle tha advertised the fact that you have a bunch of equipment in the vehicle? Were they supposed to double check the installation of the stereo so as to make sure it was unremovable? ...or did you want them to call CSI Oklahoma City in there and break out the DNA analysis and blacklights?

...After all, it is their fault your stereo was stolen. Damned police! Having to let out all the crackheads and car thieves because they aren't allowed to check in the criminal's vehicles when they pull them over for having eyelids that are illegal...

Do you peeps even realize how much crime is stopped by these tertiary stops? What exactly is wrong for the police to make stops like this? Yeah it's annoying. But if you have nothing to hide, what's the issue?

If we don't like the laws, change them! If you don't like your car being broken into, change the sentencing laws. Make it a judge dread situation. Let's execute a crackhead.

[sbergman27]

The thought that asking you to let him search your vehicle is not out of the question. You CAN refuse. It is your right to refuse an unlawful search and seizure absolutely.
Except that most people probably don't realize that or are too intimidated to even consider their rights. Here's this authority figure telling you open your trunk, in a voice that implies that you don't have the right to refuse. But stopping just short of actually *saying* that you don't have that right. He was employing a lot of psychological techniques, including, but not limited to, the "Columbo" move I mentioned. (It's only after analyzing the incident later that I realized just how clever, or perhaps just practiced, his techniques were.)

However, if I rollup on you, and you've got something wrong with the vehicle or

You use the word "I" here. Am it to take it that you actually do this?

In my case, there was absolutely nothing wrong. My tag was fine. The patrolman *knew* it was fine. The tag was the most obvious, and flimsiest of ruses, unless we are to believe that he was just hired yesterday. Are you defending this type of abuse of authority?

There are certain behaviors which might give me the reason to be suspicious of the situation. Admittedly, eyelids aren't at the top of offenses...

My car's a black sedan like the OP's, except completely stock, with no problems at all. Don't try to confuse the two incidents.

Do you peeps even realize how much crime is stopped by these tertiary stops?

You're making the claim. The burden of responsibility for proving it is on you. But note that it is a separate question from that of the legal and ethical status of systematic intimidation of innocent people, by agents of the state, to trick them into handing over their rights.

What exactly is wrong for the police to make stops like this? Yeah it's annoying.
It's much worse than annoying. It's an effective erosion of the personal rights and privacy which were the bedrock upon which this country was founded. I suspect that citizens of most free and civilized nations could probably say the same about their countries. If convenience were my concern, I would have popped the trunk and been on down the road considerably more quickly, with less personal, internal agitation.

But if you have nothing to hide, what's the issue?

Nothing... except the very fiber of democracy. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Your question is, in it's way, quite chilling.

I've chosen not to address your questions about the stereo thefts in order to avoid diverting the conversation from the important points and principles into relatively trivial matters. Except to say that if recovering the equipment involved these kinds of groundless searches, I would not approve.

-Steve

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[sqcomp]

It seems that what you want is the police to be everywhere and nowhere at the same time. You're pushing the fact that the police did nothing for you when your property was stolen yet if an officer wants to make the relatively minor annoyance of a tertiary stop you cry foul. I'm not going to stop you for no reason. The reason might not be apparent to you...I will tell you what I'm stopping you for.

Which is it?

When the bad guy rolls up on your car, smashed the window out in the middle of the night, and takes all your stuff...an hour later he's rolling down the road, 2 am, creeping slowly around the neighborhoods...I decide to stop him.

There are two factors that I have going for me. Probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion tells me that it is not normal for a vehicle to be creeping along residential street at 3am. I am going to get in close and see what I see. I stop the car for creeping around...and look! What do I see after running the plates, looking at the info on my MDT? I walk up on the person in the vehicle. I've got to look at EVERYTHING going on, his movements, his attitude, demeanor, what the car's condition is, what's in the car...I don't have the luxury of trusting people. Just because I walk up on you after checking your plates, seeing that whoever this vehicle is registered to is clean; this doesn't mean YOU are. Heck, it doesn't mean you're the owner. You may have just stolen the vehicle. You may be driving around trying to goad me out of my car to set me up for an ambush. I CANNOT assume that you are a nice person. When that happens, I die. That will NOT happen.

The burden of proof is not an issue; I'm working off PC and RS. Simply because you have a clean car doesn't mean you're innocent or guilty. It simply means you've got a clean black car. I'm working on different parameters than what kind of car you drive.

Don't try to play the innocent and scared person. If you're doing something suspicious, I'll stop you. If you've got illegal eyelids...I'll stop you. Who knows what else is in the vehicle, perhaps it's the stolen audio equipment, perhaps it's a gun sitting on the seat, perhaps there's a smell of alcoholic beverages coming from you and your vehicle.

Every fiber of Democracy...don't feed me that line. YOU pay me to try to keep you safe. If you're breaking the law, YOU pay me to investigate. You've got some illegal modification I have the option to stop you. The question for you is, what is "reasonable"? Is it reasonable to stop boy racer for illegal modifications to his car? Is it legal to ask him to search the car? Both answers are yes. Now, when you refuse, I have two options. I can let him go or I can (within a reasonable amount of time) get a dog to see if it gets a hit on your vehicle.

If the dog hits on your car, I have probable cause.

I LOVE the BF quote, it is actually one of my favorites. You have to ask yourself, at what point is reasonable. It seems to skew when someone does you wrong, yet when I'm stopping someone for a tertiary reason, I'm the bad guy. You are waffling. Don't change the rules of the game to suit your wants.

Next time you get stopped break this out, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I know what you're talking about when you say you feel that you're being violated. I'll give you this to think about, what is a reasonable expectation of privacy? What is a reasonable search? What would give me cause to ask you to search your vehicle? I cannot search your vehicle without probable cause. If you have illegal eyelids...that problem is solved. You've already broken the law.

[sbergman27]

It seems that what you want is the police to be everywhere and no where at the same time. You're pushing the fact that the police did nothing for you when your property was stolen yet
Don't misrepresent what I've said. From my post, which you are responding to:

I've chosen not to address your questions about the stereo thefts in order to avoid diverting the conversation from the important points and principles into relatively trivial matters. Except to say that if recovering the equipment involved these kinds of groundless searches, I would not approve.

That should settle that. I'm not interested in pressing this point because it is not the important one. Let's not go off in the weeds.

Don't try to play the innocent and scared person.
I'm hardly scared. I think your implication that I was not innocent is interesting. It is certainly quite reasonable to be apprehensive when those given authority start abusing it so obviously and unashamedly, right in front of one's face.

YOU pay me to try to keep you safe.
If it were my decision, the composition of the police forces would be somewhat different. Resulting in rather different state, city, and county employee payroll files. Plato may have gotten some things wrong, but he also had a few things right.

Your post sounds very defensive, BTW.

-Steve

[sbergman27]

Cops are dicks. They go out of their way to intimidate people.
You make me wonder why I bother to type so many words to express something which can be said so concisely. :-)

-Steve

[jamal1984]

You make me wonder why I bother to type so many words to express something which can be said so concisely. :-)

-Steve
+1
It's a FREE Country after all, a lot of educated peoples live in this country.
As my first posted say, i don't get mad for getting this ticket.
There are a lot of right laws out there that i absolutely agreed to it, example.....Speeding, super dark window tinting, hit and run.....loud speakers....
etc,
But when it's come to something like this, in my 2cents it's Stupid, they are Bullying us, Harassing innocent peoples, trying to make revenue out of us, we are tax payers.
If i'm not a criminal or a killer let's me do something to my car that make it's look nice, let's me buy stuff spending the moneys to help the economy, rather than pull me over just for something like this. The more they doing this, the more it's remind peoples of communist.

[sbergman27]

As my first posted say, i don't get mad for getting this ticket.
You are doing very well there, then. I think you should be concerned. And posting here demonstrates that you are.

I would be *angry* and concerned. To be sure, anger is a double-edged sword. Anger can prompt us to take action which we might otherwise be too lazy or distracted to take... or it can cloud our perspective.

I don't think that those agencies who abuse their authority really want cases which involve their abuses paraded before the courts. The courts *could* put a crimp in their style. Concerning my own recent adventure, I considered contacting an attorney, or an organization like the ACLU, to see what, likely small, action I could take too bring this incident to the attention of at least someone in the legal branch of government. I haven't. The infraction, in my example, was relatively minor in the grand scheme of things.

But still, what we're seeing can be viewed as death by a thousand cuts for principles which we thought we held sacred.

There are a lot of right laws out there that i absolutely agreed to it, example.....Speeding, super dark window tinting, hit and run.....loud speakers....
Indeed. I would agree. Others' freedom ends where my nose begins. And rattling the plates in all the houses one passes is... well... in a great show of restraint, I won't call for capitol punishment on that one. Just 25 years in a federal penitentiary, say. ;-)

But when it's come to something like this, in my 2cents it's Stupid, they are Bullying us, Harassing innocent peoples, trying to make revenue out of us, we are tax payers.

It's not just stupid. It's dangerous to the long-term health of our society. To be sure, we have lots of those. But this is a symptom of something that really eats at the foundations.

The fact that you or I got stopped and harassed is of no fundamental consequence. But the general trend, going far beyond traffic issues, *is*.

-Steve

[eht13]

super dark window tinting

I wonder about this one. I'm in Georgia too, and I know our laws have a tint limit. But I see cars all the time that almost definitely exceed the tint limit. I assume they can pull someone over for just that reason, but maybe not... maybe there has to be another reason, such as speeding, and then they can also say, "by the way, I need to test this tint percentage". Did you (the OP) get stopped for any other reason, or just the eyelids/headlight decals?

[SailDesign]

<snip> I'm not following the ebonics.

<more snip>.

Dood - Just because the guy's handle is jamal, he's from Georgia, and he maybe doesn't write as well as a Harvard English professor, is no reason to bring out the "ebonics" crap.
I mean, really, stick to the cop stuff, which you DO know.

[sbergman27]

Dood - Just because the guy's handle is jamal, he's from Georgia, and he maybe doesn't write as well as a Harvard English professor, is no reason to bring out the "ebonics" crap.
I mean, really, stick to the cop stuff, which you DO know.
I had missed that. Perhaps we should give officer Sqcomp a chance to explain what he really meant by that obvious racial slur, and describe how he prevents that from interfering with the performance of his job, which necessarily involves elevated authority over other people, of various races, creeds, and cultures.

The floor is yours, sheriff.

-Steve

[sbergman27]

But thank god we have rights and lawyers to defend us from people of that mentality...
I'm supremely appreciative of the rights. The lawyers are a mixed bag. (Mercenaries in the cause of justice.)

I highly approve of the lowercase 'g'.

-Steve

[jamal1984]

I wonder about this one. I'm in Georgia too, and I know our laws have a tint limit. But I see cars all the time that almost definitely exceed the tint limit. I assume they can pull someone over for just that reason, but maybe not... maybe there has to be another reason, such as speeding, and then they can also say, "by the way, I need to test this tint percentage". Did you (the OP) get stopped for any other reason, or just the eyelids/headlight decals?

just the eyelids, nothing else.

[sqcomp]

Oh GTFO... You are absolutely correct, I shouldn't criticize the lack of grammar.

You can't defend your position with search and seizure so you're switching up.

All you can do is gripe about how you got pulled over for breaking the law. Keep on...let's hear the arguments on how it is wrong to stop someone for breaking the law.

If you don't like the law...change it. Vote the change in. You give the legal parameter and it will be enforced.

...as for the profiling issue...

when I was doing my old LP job, guess who stole the most? ...15 to 24 year old white females...

Who are most of the people that are dealt with now? White male meth users ranging from the early twenties to mid fourties.

[SailDesign]

Oh GTFO... You are absolutely correct, I shouldn't criticize the lack of grammar.

You can't defend your position with search and seizure so you're switching up.



Acksherley, it was not the OP who "switched up", it was me. And I'm not bitching about his position, or yours, just the language.....

Do try to keep up.

[sqcomp]

and? Are we going to get to the fault of the officer here? Oh wait! There isn't.

[SailDesign]

and? Are we going to get to the fault of the officer here? Oh wait! There isn't.

No-one, least of all the OP, said there was. Read the first post again - Jamal was laughing at the situation, and probably still is.

[cali yaris]

I didn't read this whole thing. Don't the eyelids cover up the turn signals, or make them less easy to see for oncoming cars?

They do on the liftback.

[Gideon]

lol, like no one here has never done anything illegal or broken a law ever. If I get pulled over for speeding, sure that's a law I've broken, and officer has caught me and I'll probably go to court and pay it (requesting traffic school of course) but if an officer asks me if they can search my vehicle it's been NO every time.

I cooperate with law enforcement officers only to the point that I am legally required. It's within my rights as provided to me by the United States Constitution and interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. :thumbsup:

[sbergman27]

Oh GTFO... You are absolutely correct, I shouldn't criticize the lack of grammar.
To the extent that it matters, you're not exactly in a position to criticize there. Yours is not the best. I do agree with Sail that your slur was inappropriate. And I will add, "in poor taste".

You can't defend your position with search and seizure so you're switching up.
I've defended it pretty well, but you are attacking other people. Why not attack *my* position, with facts, instead?

All you can do is gripe about how you got pulled over for breaking the law. Keep on...let's hear the arguments on how it is wrong to stop someone for breaking the law.

Jamal has had very little to say beyond reporting the incident. And at best "you" have him on a ridiculous technicality.

I got pulled over for a completely bogus and contrived reason. My tag was perfectly fine. And the fellow who did it knew very well that it was a bogus and contrived reason. (If you doubt that, we can discuss the facts further.) The real reason being that I was a male traveling alone. You can't reasonably defend that policy.

-Steve

[SailDesign]

This looks like a good place to close this one. No-one has started name-calling yet, and the initial point has been lost long ago.
Mods?

[sbergman27]

This looks like a good place to close this one.
I disagree. Internet discussions should be about more than "Oh! That's cool!" and "Yes! I so agree with you!" and "Me too!".

These forums should foster interesting discussion. And *disagreement*. Disagreement is so *very* important.

I remember a greeting card I once saw in a gift shop. It had a sort of middle-aged, "average" looking guy sitting on a cloud, with wings, and a halo, and a harp sitting next to him. Chin on hand. Looking really bored. And the caption was "Hmmm.... I shoulda brought a magazine..."

That's what heavily moderated boards are like. Have a little faith in people's ability to save a thread that looks like it might be in trouble. Sometimes they crash, and sometimes they soar, in my experience, and in forums which let them. Don't vote to kill it at the first sign of trouble. That forces people to take some responsibility for it.

Disagreement is good. It's when we all agree the we should have a profound sense of worry.

-Steve

[SailDesign]

I disagree.

<snip>

Disagreement is good. It's when we all agree the we should have a profound sense of worry.



There you have it - I disagree (which is good) about the closure :smile:

Some threads you just KNOW are going to turn into a flame-fest. Especially when someone has already played the grammar card.....

[sbergman27]

Some threads you just KNOW are going to turn into a flame-fest.
Do they *have* to? Or do we have a choice as to the kind of thread we want? Not just you and me. But all the members of YW?
Especially when someone has already played the grammar card.....
Yeah. And I played mine. But reasonable discussion could continue. It just depends upon what people want.

Back in the 60s, my mom used to hound and hound upon me to get out of bed, get ready, and go to school. I started learning responsibility when she stopped.

-Steve

[SailDesign]

OK - I'll just say that MY participation has run its course.
Have fun - play nicely.

[sbergman27]

OK - I'll just say that MY participation has run its course.
I think mine might have too. We'll see.
Have fun - play nicely.
Magazine? :-)

-Steve

[MadMax]

The bottom line is that all laws are enforced, even the ones some people think are stupid. They are made for a reason, and it is each person's responsibility to know them. If you get caught violating one, then accept responsibility and do what needs to be done to satisfy the penalty. If this can be corrected as a "fix it" ticket, then take the damn eyelids off and get it cleared.

And criticize the police all you want, your First Amendment rights allow you to do so; but I doubt most of those who do would ever want to spend a week in a cop's shoes. It is a relatively thankless job full of no-win situations; but they are always the first to be called when the shit hits the fan...

[MadMax]

Some threads you just KNOW are going to turn into a flame-fest. Especially when someone has already played the grammar card.....

People play the grammar card when they don't have a valid counterargument…

[cali yaris]

Your bickering was obviously more important than my substantive question, which was ignored. Shame on both of you.

[Kaotic Lazagna]

The two times I've been pulled over for my tint (yeah, I know it's illegal, I took them off after the second time), both CHP officers were dicks towards me, for no reason whatsoever. The second time, the officer was trying to be a smartass, saying I exited only because I saw him. Ummm, he should have checked the exit since it was the exit for my school. I should have flashed my parking permit in his face and said that I was exiting for my school.

Now, I'm not saying that all cops out there are asshats. I've encountered a few that are civil and don't abuse their power/authority.

[MadMax]

Your bickering was obviously more important than my substantive question, which was ignored. Shame on both of you.

Garm

Your question was answered back in post #9...

According to the Georgia Code of Motor Vehicles and Traffic - Title 40, Section 40-8-22, subsection (d):

The headlights required by this Code section shall be maintained in proper working condition and shall not be covered by any type of material, provided that the covering restriction shall not apply to any vehicle on which the original factory headlights were covered.

Georgia law states that there will be no material whatsoever on the headlights of cars. Obviously Jamal was unaware of that hence the citation. I hope it is a simple "fix-it" ticket, but either way he was in violation of the above statute...

Cheers! M2

[sbergman27]

The bottom line is that all laws are enforced...
But they aren't. They are enforced very selectively. The WASP in the patrol car decides who he stops and who he doesn't. If all the existing laws were enforced uniformly then we'd all be in jail.

...even the ones some people think are stupid.
No. If the laws don't happen to be enforced against *them*, they don't know or care.

They are made for a reason
Yeah. Like the one in Kansas that says that any woman driving a mototcar must be preceded, by 20 feet, by a man carrying a lantern.

and it is each person's responsibility to know them.
Did you know about the lantern thing, BTW? Have you memorized all the statutes in your own state?

If you get caught violating one, then accept responsibility and do what needs to be done to satisfy the penalty.
You're probably OK on this one as long as you are male, and don't care about the plight of any female who goes out driving without a lantern-guy. Though I confess that I'm not certain who takes the fall if your woman recklessly goes out by herself.

And criticize the police all you want,
The OP didn't do that. He simply detailed what happened.

but I doubt most of those who do would ever want to spend a week in a cop's shoes.

Not the point, or the problem. The problem is that those who *are* attracted to that job are exactly the wrong people to do it. Read Plato.

-Steve

[sqcomp]

Indeed...so you're running the circle around that last issue...

You can criticize but then it's not the point or the problem when you're called to the mat. The point is, that the OP was caught breaking a law and he didn't like it. The problem will be if he still has the eyelids on later down the road.

...then of course that'll be the cop's fault to because he doesn't coddle you enough.

Police officers are all the wrong people, they're all jerks on a power trip, yadda yadda...

I'd rather be a jerk than a pushover. If the latter were the case, then the guy that steals from you wouldn't have to worry about me, he'd simply try to bully his way out of being caught.

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant huh? Now we're even. Wait...no we're not. You people are still butt hurt over almost incoherent writing. Besides, law enforcemet types don't have feelings after all.

[cali yaris]

Garm
Your question was answered back in post #9...

that post states the law, which basically settles the whole thread...

but it didn't answer my question about the turn signals. :smile:

[nemelek]

I'll probably jinx my self by saying that I haven't been pulled over or ticketed in 10 years. I do have a bit of a lead foot, however, I don't lead the pack. I go with the flow.

[tomato]

Everybody takes a deep, deep breath in here :smile:

@steve: we don't like to heavily moderate, lock threads, etc., but this crowd seems to have a low tolerance for some stuff and the peeps who have been on this forum a while can pretty much tell when a thread is starting to go to hell, I think that's all Sail was trying to say.

Everybody (yes, you too, Sqcomp , just because you're far away doesn't mean your exempt :wink:), y'all please take a deep breath now .. in, and out .. in and out .. :smile:


in ... and out ... (ooops) :redface: er.. :laugh: :laugh: ahem..

[cali yaris]

^ oh boy.

and that there, pretty much describes the thread as a whole.... umm... "whole"... LOL :redface:

[MadMax]

...but it didn't answer my question about the turn signals. :smile:

Then this should...:biggrin:

Georgia Code - Motor Vehicles & Traffic - Title 40, Section 40-8-26

(a) Any motor vehicle may be equipped and when required under this article shall be equipped with the following signal lights or devices:

(1) A brake light on the rear which shall emit a red light and which shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake and which may but need not be incorporated with a taillight; and

(2) A light or lights or mechanical signal device capable of clearly indicating any intention to turn either to the right or to the left and which shall be visible from both the front and the rear.

(b) Every brake light shall be plainly visible and understandable from a distance of 300 feet to the rear both during normal sunlight and at nighttime, and every signal light or lights indicating intention to turn shall be visible and understandable during daytime and nighttime from a distance of 300 feet from both the front and the rear. When a vehicle is equipped with a brake light or other signal lights, such light or lights shall at all times be maintained in good working condition. No brake light or signal light shall project a glaring or dazzling light.

(c) All mechanical signal devices shall be self-illuminated when in use at the times mentioned in Code Section 40-8-20.

(d) All lenses on brake lights and signal devices shall be maintained in good repair and shall meet manufacturers´ specifications. (Source (http://law.onecle.com/georgia/40/40-8-26.html))

It may be argued that the "eyelid" inhibits the ability to see the turn signal from 300 feet in front of the vehicle during the day. It would be up to a judge to determine if that is true or not.

When I first got my Jeep a few years ago, I was worried about losing the two side mirrors when I removed the doors. I did a little research and found that only one mirror that allows the driver to see 200 ft behind the vehicle is required, so as long as I have my rearview mirror, I'm good to go!

When in doubt, do a little research! All motor vehicle codes are available online, and are easily searchable.

Cheers! M2

[tk-421]

I didn't read this whole thing. Don't the eyelids cover up the turn signals, or make them less easy to see for oncoming cars?

They do on the liftback.

The turn signals don't get covered up on the sedan. But even on the LB it's not that bad...

I think this is one of those cases where a cop looks for an excuse to stop someone so that he can fill his daily quota early in the day, get called a hero and go home.

Not a big fan of cops, quite honestly. It's quite rare to meet a cop that doesn't abuse his authority around these parts (Mexico), unfortunate as that may be.

[eht13]

The turn signals don't get covered up on the sedan. But even on the LB it's not that bad...

Unlike the liftback, on the sedan the turn signals are across the bottom, well away from where the eyelids would go. And I think the eyelids only cover up a part of the clear headlight housing that sits above chrome molding... behind the open part where the bulbs are. So it's odd that those would be illegal, because on some cars that space right behind the bulbs would not even be clear plastic housing anyway, and would instead be the metal of the hood or quarter panel.

[Kimmy]

Sorry to hear you got a ticket just for that

[tomato]

OK, since you guys aren't (for the most part) big fans of cops, here is a really short video you are going to enjoy very much I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytZiJIkT4pk

(you need sound for this, so you can hear the cop's reaction. That's right, blame the car, why don't you!)

It's kind of a classic, someone sent me that a couple of years ago and it still makes me laugh for some reason.

[sqcomp]

funny...

Now, go out and do the job.

Oh, you can't. Too bad, so sad.

[tomato]

Are you talking to me? :rolleyes:

[sqcomp]

What are we talking about here? Hating on police officers? Fine. I reiterate, do the job. See how jaded you become.

There's nothing to bait here. It's black and white. You don't like police.

I submit that we remove all police, fire, and emergency services from your community. Have fun.

The issue I'm having here is the duality that a lot of you are expressing. You want the police to be around to protect you 24 hours a day, yet when you get dinged for something you complain...then you hate the fact that the police even exist.

Hypocrisy rocks doesn't it?

Come back with how much of a jerk I am for pointing out the obvious. You want your cake…

Yes, it is the officer’s prerogative to pull you over for tertiary reasons. YOU gave them those rights! If you don’t like it, change it. Get into a position where you have to take the teeth away from the very people you expect to protect you. You’ll love life, I’m sure.

Being an armchair quarterback is no substitute for actual experience.

[tomato]

Holly cow, it's a joke!!! You're the one who's being aggressive here BTW.
Why are you being so defensive?!!

[sqcomp]

Fine. It's called being jaded. Having to hand out wet naps to all the unwiped bottom ends every day slowly grinds at a person. This is a primary reason for the curt, turse, and downright rude responses from a lot of police officers.

You do something stupid and then expect the police to coddle you.

[tomato]

hmmmmm.... you think the civilian world is easy? Let me tell you something, in this economy, life ain't easy for anybody right now.

You gotta admit that video was a little funny, no? :iono:

[tomato]

And for the record, I didn't yet express an opinion in this board about the police, one way or the other.

As a matter of fact, I was gonna remind peeps that there are all kinds of people in the police, and yes, some good people too. I met some here in the bay area, pretty cool uniform cops if you can believe that. But generally, those "cool" cops are not the ones people see. They see others, like the CHP, and CHP is anything but friendly, ask anybody.

But anyway, we're now far, far away from the OP's topic, aren't we.


I see you have edited your post, that's fine. I get where you're coming from a little better. My response still stands. And the video stays, sorry :smile:

[tk-421]

I submit that we remove all police, fire, and emergency services from your community. Have fun.

I wouldn't go that far... There are some people out there with a true purpose to improve the quality of life, and I'm all for that. Unfortunately, it's seldom not the case.

The issue I'm having here is the duality that a lot of you are expressing. You want the police to be around to protect you 24 hours a day, yet when you get dinged for something you complain...then you hate the fact that the police even exist.

Do I want cops available when someone breaks into my house? Sure! Do I want them stopping me because they have a problem with the eyelids on my car? Hell no.

Yes, it is the officer’s prerogative to pull you over for tertiary reasons. YOU gave them those rights! If you don’t like it, change it.

I agree 100% with this statement. The problem is that 99% of people either don't know how to do this, or are too lazy to act on it. But I do agree the people are supposed to decide.

[sqcomp]

Yes, the civilian world isn't easy. I know. I've been there. I think we can all agree it's a big $hit sandwich sometimes.

...perhaps I'm a bit wound up...I've got CRAM systems going off around me. Speaking of video, I've got good video of that system and the M134 system when I get back stateside for you to watch.

[sqcomp]

I agree, I'll man up and coddle you just as soon as you do the same by not breaking the law and then griping about it when you get ticketed for it.

If I pull someone over for a minor infraction like the eyelid incident, the only real way I'm going to ask about a search of your vehicle is if I have something to go off of...like VERY nervous behavior, sweating, jitters, stuttering, possible drug paraphenalia, if I see a weapon, if I smell alcholic beverages...the list goes on.

If you'll recall I also mentioned that this stop was a little messed up. Still, you can argue the eyelids until yours turn inside out. The officer had a right to stop the vehicle. Personally, I'm not worried about searching Jamal's vehicle until he gives me good reason to do so. I would honestly start talking with him about his Yaris and eventually tell him to get the eyelids fixed (because I'm a fan of the Yaris) and let him be on his way. It is the perogative of the officer to write you a ticket.

Oh, here's a hint...

When a police officer says, "I have to give you a ticket for your speed"...this isn't always the case. Your attitude, my attitude, and other variables would be factors.

You are ABSOLUTELY right! There are "dicks" out there. Guess what? They're on BOTH sides! I pull you over to tell you that your brake lights are out, after asking for your license and registration, you immediately start flicking me shit? Alright, you want to play...I'm game. Of course, I'm not going to tell you immediately what I've pulled you over for, I want to verify your identity first. Just because the plate reads to one Carmelll Yaris lover on my MDT, it means NOTHING until I verify who YOU are that is driving it. After I know who you are...then we'll talk. Me verifying who you are keeps us both safe. BS? Nope. What happens if you look like a suspect put out on a BOLO? This is why you are cordial until there is a need not to be.

Who can say? Perhaps the guy driving your Yaris just took the car from your driveway in the middle of the night? I have to know. If the officer seems a bit edgy...here's an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZCC9qINBvw

The officer made a traffic stop...WTF? The driver doesn't comply with commands and produces a weapon. Great...the officer's day went from normal to REALLY bad in one stop...

The attitude you get directly corelates to your cooperation (at least with me it would). Being stupid isn't a crime on your part, neither is a bit of gruff attitude on the officer's.

[eht13]

My neighbor is a cop, and he's a really nice guy. I think he is probably doing the job for the "right reasons". I hope that the majority, at least, are doing it for those reasons too. When I hear some of his stories I'm amazed at how stupid/crazy people can be and what kinds of stuff cops have to deal with... it is a thankless job. That said, nobody has the right to get jaded by what they deal with and then take it out on other people who had nothing to do with it. It is a job, so they need to treat it like one and stay professional.

[tomato]

^ what a great comment! I think you nailed it, eht13. It *is* a thankless job. On the other hand, there is no need to become a big jerk either.

[Kaotic Lazagna]

If a cop is being a dick to the guy who breaks into my house that is cool, but to search someones car after being pulled over for speeding, not using turn signals, etc etc..... is just plain silly. Minor traffic violations do not warrant a search.

If you are jaded by the way you get treated on your job or you just don't like your job then QUIT! No one is making you do you job, no one. Only you. Don't take it out on average citizens. What a way to live a life always think someone is doing something wrong or someone is trying to hurt you. Man up and just do your job fairly and don't be a dick! Unless the person actually deserves it. Don't act like you are better than the person you are pulling over. Don't abuse you position of power. And please don't say police don't do it cause there is a lot of dirty police that do way worse shit than want to search someones car after a Minor traffic stop.

:clap::clap::clap:

[eht13]

^ Thanks. :thumbsup:

[Kaotic Lazagna]

The attitude you get directly corelates to your cooperation (at least with me it would). Being stupid isn't a crime on your part, neither is a bit of gruff attitude on the officer's.

I was cooperative and polite on both times I got pulled over by the CHP. Both times the officers acted like asshats. I don't see any reason as to why they would act that way towards me off the bat. If they were having a bad day, they shouldn't have taken it out on me.

[Kaotic Lazagna]

Again, not saying all cops out there act like dicks. I know a few who are cool guys and are polite.