[squirrel]

I figured I would post some of the most used Vehiclke Code sections I see that are violated. Hope this comes in handy for those w/ any questions about their mods.

Loud car stereo. Illegal if heard more than 50 feet from the vehicle
(27007 VC).

Lack of front and rear DMV-issued license plates
(5200 VC).

Radar jammers. Radar detectors are legal, but jammers, or any device which interferes with radar signals, are illegal (28150 VC).

Lowered frame (or any other part) that is lower than the lowest point of the wheel rim (24008 VC).

* Air and hydraulic suspension systems that are operated unsafely or with the vehicle lower than allowed (24002, 24008 VC).
* Tinting the front side windows and the windshield (except for a narrow band at the top of the windshield). Windows behind the driver's head may be tinted. If rear window is tinted, right-side mirror is required (26708 VC).
* Lack of white rear license plate light (24601 VC). It must illuminate the license plate, not project light behind the vehicle.
* Missing front and/or rear bumpers (28071 VC).


Illegal engine modifications. Most are illegal due to smog (27156 VC). See Air Resources Board web site for more info and list of parts that are legal.


Blue and yellow headlights. Headlights must be white - blue and yellow are illegal (24011 VC). Look for the DOT symbol on the bulb and package.
* Headlights brighter or higher wattage than those from the factory. You may be able to see better, but the lights are illegal (24011 VC).
* Tail lights other than red (24600 VC).
* Illegal brake lights. Brake lights on vehicles newer than 1979 must be red (24603 VC). (Vehicles older than 1979 may be red or yellow.)
* Lack of rear reflectors. Two red reflectors are required on the rear of cars and trucks (24607 VC).
* Incorrect color of turn signal. It must be white or yellow to the front, red or yellow to the rear (24953 VC).


Red lights to the front. They are illegal except on emergency vehicles (24003 VC). This is one way to get pulled over very quick!

* Tail lights that incorporate a bulb with a red tint or coating. In general, custom tail lights that incorporate a clear outer shell and red inner lens are legal (24011 VC). If they don't incorporate reflectors, they must be added to the vehicle (24607 VC).


Tail lights that are too dim, washed out or show yellow, white or other colors (24600 VC).

* Illegal color of side marker lights. If present, must be yellow in the front and red in the rear (25106, 24003 VC).

Driving with just parking lights on (24800 VC). Vehicles that have factory-installed automatic daytime running lights must meet federal requirements and are legal.

Illegal decorative lights (24003 VC). All flashing decorative lights are illegal (25250 VC).

* Illegal windshield washer nozzle lights. Only white or yellow are allowed. (25106 VC, 24003 VC). All those folks with the ugly blue ones will get cite one day soon.

Lights attached to tire valves (24003, 25250 VC).

Lighted license plate frames (unless red) (24003 VC).
Illegal lights, whether or not they are operating. It is illegal just to have them on the vehicle (24003 VC).

Excessively noisy exhaust systems and mufflers (27150, 27151 VC). Many aftermarket exhaust systems and parts are illegal. Look for parts that meet California law. If it doesn't say it meets the law, it probably doesn't.

Exhaust systems which meet smog requirements but are still too loud. Exhaust equipment that states it is, "Legal in all 50 states," refers to smog, not noise.

* Note: New law (27150.2 VC) does not require law enforcement to use sound level meters to test for excessive noise. Citation is based on officer's judgment. Cited violators may have testing done at smog referee stations or may be directed by the court to have testing done. Vehicles in violation must be brought into compliance. A fine may also be imposed.

[youthinasia]

thanks! great info!

[itsla005]

I agree, Great info. Thanks~
LA

[daramg]

Thanks. If we all get the PBA cards from you, would these mods be okay?

[Scion-Doll]

Thanks for the info. I pretty much am legal, so I'm cool!

[andersg]

Wow, seems like more than half the cars at the kickoff were "illegal".

[hubbard]

I'm a Texas criminal defense attorney, and in my opinion, that is some well-presented and useful information to the folks in that jurisdiction.

I'll tell you an obscure law that was passed a few years ago in Texas that nooooooooobody seems to know about and which criminalizes nearly two thirds of the people on the road:

it is a violation of Texas law to have a license plate bracket that "obscures" any part of the text or the numbers on a license tag (read, "touches").

Check it out.

[Pumpkinbox]

I know about you being an officer an all - but it others should also know that any ticket involving noise -dB levels-, unless you are carrying a calibrated dB meter, a noise ordinance citation isn't worth the paper it's written on (unless you just like pleading guilty for the heck of it). "50 feet", although that is the actual stated distance, is far to subjective and open to interpretation (which isn't allowed in law). And tint on front doors - most officers I know (I've since moved out of state) quiet even trying to enforce the tint law on front doors in 1999 becuase of when the law changed from NO tint to "70% VLT", in order to legally enforce the law, a laser light meter is required - and nearly no one carries them in their patrol cars (although I do think that ALL cops should have one). The "band" on the upper portion of the glass refers to the AS1 area - which is only clearly marked on windshields - that's required by FMVSS205.

(not trying to argue the point - seriously - just my observations after having seen umpteen hundred noise and tint violations tossed out of court (Santa Barbara Cnty.) and having to hear the endless complaints at home about those cases clogging the docket - mom / godfather = judge, dad = sheriff (now retired).

[R_lilbox]

thanks for the info, now how many of us really have the front license plates on?

[hubbard]

I have the front plate because I don't like giving the police a reason to pull me over here in the Lone Star State.

[Pumpkinbox]

Originally Posted by R_lilbox

thanks for the info, now how many of us really have the front license plates on?

I don't - but it's not required where I am at though. - state here don't won't even issue two - even if you ASK for it.

When I did live in CA, I got stopped endlessly because my '95 MR2 didn't have a plate on the front - and I wasn't about to drive screws into the bumper for one either - but - what'ya gonna do.

[squirrel]

Originally Posted by Pumpkinbox

I know about you being an officer an all - but it others should also know that any ticket involving noise -dB levels-, unless you are carrying a calibrated dB meter, a noise ordinance citation isn't worth the paper it's written on (unless you just like pleading guilty for the heck of it). "50 feet", although that is the actual stated distance, is far to subjective and open to interpretation (which isn't allowed in law). And tint on front doors - most officers I know (I've since moved out of state) quiet even trying to enforce the tint law on front doors in 1999 becuase of when the law changed from NO tint to "70% VLT", in order to legally enforce the law, a laser light meter is required - and nearly no one carries them in their patrol cars (although I do think that ALL cops should have one). The "band" on the upper portion of the glass refers to the AS1 area - which is only clearly marked on windshields - that's required by FMVSS205.

(not trying to argue the point - seriously - just my observations after having seen umpteen hundred noise and tint violations tossed out of court (Santa Barbara Cnty.) and having to hear the endless complaints at home about those cases clogging the docket - mom / godfather = judge, dad = sheriff (now retired).

27007 VC is music audible over 50 feet from vehicle, so that means if I hear or feel the bass, then its audible, and if its more than 50 feet, you are in violation. No dB reading is necessary. I've written many of these tickets, and have yet to have one thrown out. I won't go into what I testify on the stand or what is incuded in my notes, but I have only had one ticket thrown out in the 13+ years I've been a Police Officer.

26708.5 VC states that no transparent material are to be placed on windows. The only exception is if you had a letter on file from a doctor stating that you must have tint on your windows.

I work in Alameda County, and maybe, just maybe, the Officers who wrote the tickets were citing under the wrong VC section, as many have, and will continue to do.

Like I stated above, out of all of the citations I have written, only one was dismissed since I have been an Officer over the past 13 years.

[DJ Unknown]

Originally Posted by squirrel

27007 VC is music audible over 50 feet from vehicle, so that means if I hear or feel the bass, then its audible, and if its more than 50 feet, you are in violation. No dB reading is necessary. I've written many of these tickets, and have yet to have one thrown out. I won't go into what I testify on the stand or what is incuded in my notes, but I have only had one ticket thrown out in the 13+ years I've been a Police Officer.

In Washington State they don't need a db meter to find you guilty, I have had 2 tickets for noise pollution I took both to court one got dropped from $500 down to $250 the other stayed at $1000....now I only listen to my music loud with the windows up while on the freeway!!

[DTRAIN619]

Originally Posted by DJ Unknown

In Washington State they don't need a db meter to find you guilty, I have had 2 tickets for noise pollution I took both to court one got dropped from $500 down to $250 the other stayed at $1000....now I only listen to my music loud with the windows up while on the freeway!!

A grand! That's harsh!

[chase123]

cool, I knew most of those but not all. Thank you!

[Pumpkinbox]

Originally Posted by squirrel

26708.5 VC states that no transparent material are to be placed on windows. The only exception is if you had a letter on file from a doctor stating that you must have tint on your windows.

sorta. then the "exceptions" list

(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), clear, colorless, and transparent material may be installed, affixed, or applied to the front side windows, located to the immediate left and right of the front seat if the following conditions are met:

(1) The material has a minimum visible light transmittance of 88 percent.

(2) The window glazing with the material applied meets all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 C.F.R. 571.205), including the specified minimum light transmittance of 70 percent and the abrasion resistance of AS-14 glazing, as specified in that federal standard.

---which is what I as talking about ... (and said) - you CAN tint it - BUT it's going to have to be CLEAR. It's forgalss breakage protection, UV and heat filtering

and unfortunately (I don't like this part myself) - becuase the morons in Sacramento went and changed that law in 1999 and added the "88%" term, it added a burden of proof on the state/county/city or whoever issued the citation. Before '99 it was just simply NO TINT.. you had tint, sign your ticket, end of story see you in court Mr.Civilian. I know most don't fight it, but those who would - and know the statute inside and out - can wiggle out of it (which I think is why they should either adjust the law to 35%VLT, or revert it back to NO film).

One question Squirrel - becuase of such bad backlogs in CA courts and what a PITA it is for officers ... what do YOU do when someone addresses their citations by writtten declaration (40519(b)) there and makes it so they never have to appear - do you also go ahead and submit your statement or just say "screw it" ?? Seriously - I'm always interested in how different officers handled those - I know they suck just becuase you have to bother with it and it's MORE paperwork.

[squirrel]

I have never had to deal w/ written declarations. Maybe its because of the city I work in? And some go to court because they think we won't show, and when we do show up, they plead no contest.

But, we are also held to our Subpoenas and if we "no show" w/o a legitimate reason as to why, we are also disciplined. So that's why the overwhelming majority of my dept shows up in Traffic Court.

On average, its a 2 month backlog in Alameda County, for Traffic Court.

As an Officer I prefer no tint for Officer Saftey issues, but as a civilian that lives where its 110+ during the summer, I like having it.

Yes, I have 35% on my front windows of my Matrix and 20% on my xB. And yes, I have been stopped, and lectured about it, numerous times.

[Pumpkinbox]

never could figure out why - when I lived in CA - people always thought "maybe he wont show" ... I would sit in either chambers or open court for HOURS and just watch cases ... and would be a running contest on people. You could tell who was there hoping the cop wasn't there too... But 99.9% of the time... *BANG!* - there's Mr.Officer and here comes the "no contest you honor".... dummies.

Don't know about Alameda County - but the guys down in Santa Barbara county are on the clock when the appear and it aint no skin off their nose to be there... they're being paid - "how 'bout you mr. lawbreaker?". And yeah - deputies and city guys that did have a habit of no shows caught total hell.

[squirrel]

Yeah, we get a minimum of 2.5 hours OT for court if its our duty day, and 4 hours if its our day off.

[ThunderGod]

Thanks for all the info Brad.
Now, how about sponsor stickers, vinyl stickers on front windshield. Either on the drivers and/or passenger side.
I've seen guys have it on thier vehicle at shows.

Thanks