PSA: VPD Handing Out VIs Like Candy

[tofu1413]

^ thats correct.

Akrapovic stamped on the M5 and M6 exhausts. built by them too.

[Gh0st]

Originally Posted by JD¹³

This is an easy win in traffic court. I had the same bullshit ticket issued while I was looking through my wallet at a stop light (to ensure I had my RPAL) and I was pulled over 100m later by IRSU posted down the road saying an officer at the intersection saw me with a phone in my hand. I specifically asked where the officer was standing and recorded the answer.

First, dispute the ticket. When you get a court date with all the info mail the officer / detachment with an evidence disclosure request. Sounds like at best you'll get a shitty hand written note like I did saying to the effect of "white Dodge Ram using electronic device". No photos, no description of the phone, nothing. In other words no evidence other than his word. Keep your 'verbatim' copy of the exchange and do not lose it.

In your case he has already admitted to not seeing you on your phone and has issued you a COMPLETELY SPECULATIVE INFRACTION. After my officer tried to tell the judge he saw me using my phone (I took my wallet from my centre console, looked through it for 5 seconds, put it back) I told the judge I'm not calling the officer a liar, simply that he is mistaken. I explained what I was doing with my wallet. I then asked the officer who was standing at the intersection (both he and the issuer had to show up) if he was in fact standing at position X, which he confirmed. I then calmly proved the officer was a liar by telling the judge the officer was standing in front of me to the right as I was the third vehicle from the intersection and that it was physically impossible for him to see through the front of my vehicle/dash, let alone see in to my lap as my 3" lifted offroad edition truck brings the bottom of my passenger windows up to about 5'7" off the ground. I said the officer has zero evidence of this infraction and issued me a completely speculative ticket simply because I was looking down momentarily.

Judge tossed it without hearing another word from the officer. If yours comes back with him simply saying he saw it: I would tell the judge that you've provided a logical explanation for what the officer saw, that the officer admitted to not actually seeing an electronic device in your hand at the time, that at the distance he was it was unlikely he could tell what was in your hand anyway, and that he has no actual evidence of the infraction whatsoever.

Quick upate - Prepared my case. Officer didn't show up. Got my ticket dismissed.

[karchun]

Got a VI and 3 violation tickets from officer cain today.

Made a left onto a small street and was immediately pulled over. He said he pulled me over due to my exhaust being too loud. I was going maybe 20km/h and my exhaust probably made some burbles which is common with the bmw n55 motor. I do have an aftermarket catback exhaust. Long story short, he did a decibel test and handed me a VI accompanied with 3 violations.

[320icar]

What other violations?

From my experience modern bmw’s with aftermarket exhausts are stupidly loud, especially with pops and burbles tunes

[underscore]

And what mods. Also how the hell do you have an 11.5 year old account with zero posts.

[karchun]

1. "Unnecessary noise"
2. Not in compliance with MRD 7, probably the aftermarket exhaust
3. Non OEM front reflectors

Just an aftermarket exhuast with an OTS tune.

My point is I was in comfort mode(sport mode would have more pronounced burbles) so my burbles were faint at best. He pulls me over from probably 2 cars back after I made that left turn. I feel like that shouldn't warrant a stop. He did a decibel test on my exhaust and clocked me at 93 decibels. But he got me to do the exterior vehicle light checks and the last check were my reserve lights so my backup camera was still on. He put the mic/tripod device so close to my exhaust tips, is that even fair?

Just feel a bit victimized after reading some of these posts about this officer

[Berzerker]

Fair or not it doesn't matter. Hence the entirety of this thread. Victimized is a good word.

Berz out.

[trollface]

Originally Posted by karchun

1. "Unnecessary noise"
2. Not in compliance with MRD 7, probably the aftermarket exhaust
3. Non OEM front reflectors

Just an aftermarket exhuast with an OTS tune.

My point is I was in comfort mode(sport mode would have more pronounced burbles) so my burbles were faint at best. He pulls me over from probably 2 cars back after I made that left turn. I feel like that shouldn't warrant a stop. He did a decibel test on my exhaust and clocked me at 93 decibels. But he got me to do the exterior vehicle light checks and the last check were my reserve lights so my backup camera was still on. He put the mic/tripod device so close to my exhaust tips, is that even fair?

Just feel a bit victimized after reading some of these posts about this officer

Are your front reflectors clear/smoked and not orange? He's got you dead to rights if that's the case.

[GS8]

https://vancouver.craigslist.org/rds...988658311.html

It amazes me that a place of business can sell vehicles like this which are clearly worthy of a VI

[SSM_DC5]

Originally Posted by GS8

https://vancouver.craigslist.org/rds...988658311.html

It amazes me that a place of business can sell vehicles like this which are clearly worthy of a VI

They are not supposed to. This dealer is registered with vsabc and you'll find on their site that registered dealers must sell cars are meet the mva. If you buy this and get a VI, then proceed to go after the dealer with VSA's help. You'll have to prove that's how it was sold to you and not mods you did after the sale because dealer will just say at the time of inspection for the sale, the car met the mva.

[coneZONE]

Originally Posted by karchun

3. Non OEM front reflectors

Stuff like this just pisses me off, really. As little as it is... When they/HE cites somethjng that doesn't even exist.
It's either:
1. There are side reflectors or not;
2. The reflectors are amber or not;
3. It contains necessary SAE/DOT/JIS/E-code markings or not

Because the MVAR and inspection manual does not specify OE.
As an Authorized Inspector, those are the only things I can pick at. What gives him the right to cite false or incorrectly?

[karchun]

My reflectors are body color to match the car. He took a bunch of pictures around my car? I guess for if I tried to dispute these violations at court?

I wasn't speeding, I wasn't revving, and I wasn't doing anything illegal. But he decides to pull me over because my car was making tiny fart noises? Then pursues to find everything he thinks that is not safe or wrong with my car? And slaps me with 3 violations and a VI.

Venting a little. I just wanted to share my experience I had with this officer.

[mb_]

Do you have photos of your car as it sits?

[trollface]

Originally Posted by karchun

My reflectors are body color to match the car.

\
Is your car black>

[karchun]

Screenshot_20190929-205438_Gallery.jpg

[SpeedStars]

The non oem reflector violation seems valid in your case...I mean there's no physical reflector... Hopefully you can pass your VI after just swapping them.

[Sprayed]

Originally Posted by karchun

Attachment 30923

According to the MVA, you can not have amber reflectors IF you use a reflective marking instead. There is reflective clear coat you could use. Not sure if would classify as a "marking"

[trollface]

Well, that's straight-up no reflector. There's nothing to argue about imo.

[yray]

are reflectors required?

[thumper]

Originally Posted by yray

are reflectors required?

i think so. just look at all those JDM vehicles on the roads with those nasty stick on reflectors they are forced to have...

[underscore]

Originally Posted by GS8

It amazes me that a place of business can sell vehicles like this which are clearly worthy of a VI

Look at any Jeep dealer and you'll almost always find a massively illegal Wrangler for sale.

[Lancouver]

Originally Posted by coneZONE

Stuff like this just pisses me off, really. As little as it is... When they/HE cites somethjng that doesn't even exist.
It's either:
1. There are side reflectors or not;
2. The reflectors are amber or not;
3. It contains necessary SAE/DOT/JIS/E-code markings or not

Because the MVAR and inspection manual does not specify OE.
As an Authorized Inspector, those are the only things I can pick at. What gives him the right to cite false or incorrectly?

What happens with retrofits into DOT housings with the reflectors intact? the MVAR says you can't modify a headlight housing, but I guess that is up to the inspector to notice?

Originally Posted by karchun

Attachment 30923

Is your car lowered? I'm surprised Cain didn't write you up for ride height even though it's not slammed

[Akinari]

Can't believe this shit is still going. At this point I'll never ever be able to drive my car downtown anymore. Good thing I bought a daily

[ARMAAN]

Originally Posted by SpeedStars

The non oem reflector violation seems valid in your case...I mean there's no physical reflector... Hopefully you can pass your VI after just swapping them.

Reflective devices
4.21 (1) A vehicle must be equipped with at least one red reflector at the rear of the vehicle, either separate or incorporated into a tail lamp, that is mounted at a height of not less than 38 cm and not more than 1.83 m.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1958.
(3) Only amber reflectors may be mounted on the front or side of a vehicle.
(4) Only red reflectors may be mounted on the rear of a vehicle or on the side of the vehicle at or toward the rear of the vehicle.

Note that the MVA does not mandate the use of a reflective side marker. It says that only amber reflectors “may” be mounted on the side of a vehicle. Since the side markers are body matched and non reflective, I don’t feel that the VI is valid. If the side markers were clear and reflective, it would be a different story.

[DaJo]

Who was the smart person thinking this will all blow over? Lol