Of course it needs to be warranted for a complaint!!!! I am NOT telling people to file frivolous complaints.
Since there are talks about ppl with stock vehicles that are being VIed. If it happens to me then I would:
Take photos on scene for the infraction(s), STFU and accept the VI, write own notes right after being served, get car inspected AND assuming the car passes by not changing anything, take photos of the infraction(s) immediately after inspection, make a legitimate complaint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brąv3_51r_ƦοβϊИ
I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.
The complaints need to be warranted. If there is no clear basis for a complaint, then it's worthless.
If VPD is issuing notices with orders that state you must go to a dealer or other nonsense like that, that's an issue a judge should weigh in on.
The problem here is that we have laws that are unclear or unreasonable, and we have the police making up their own laws.
For example, having a car with "visible camber" or being ordered to have the vehicle dealer inspected when there is no dealer that does inspections. These guys are using the rules in ways that were never intended.
The only way to really get this straightened out is through a judicial review. This is what the lawyer in the CTV story was explaining. Once a Judge weighs in, that actually becomes part of the law.
For example, if a Judge ruled that you can take your car to any designated inspection facility despite being ordered to the dealer, the police would have to abide by that. If they didn't, that would be a very clear basis for a complaint and the VPD would need to take it seriously or they could face legal consequences.
|