Can I refuse to open my hood if a cop or a CHP asks me to open it?

Sure but they will two you and look anyway.

Ken

Yeah, but they can call thier chief and ask him if they should open it. If he says yes, then you just might have to. I am not sure of the legality but it starts to get pretty serious then.

You could always just turn the car back on and take off. :D Right...

no they cant. they need a warrant

Under California law, you consent to search every time you drive. This wasn't the case in the '80s when they acutally had to ask if they could search your vehicle, but your rights are FUBAR these days.

All they need to say is that they thought you might have an opened "FORTY" under the hood there.

are you sure? Every other state I've heard of, they need to ask to search the car, or have reasonable suspiscion that something's going on.

Here's the info I got from my friend. ". . . an officer, at his discretion has the right to conduct a Safety Inspection on any vehicle he deems necessary", one of the vehicle codes he cited was 2806 of the California Vehicle Code, but supposedly there are quite of a few codes they can use. He said you could refuse, but you could also be cited for hindering a cop.

If they open it, what are they looking for?

I understand the cats for emissions, but if you have a CAI or changed the turbo or colored hoses what will happen?

Andrew: Are you sure the need a warrent?

thats what i thought was our right. this has been discussed tons of times in the bay area forum and people kept saying that they need a warrant. but of course that is ridiculous when you think about it but still, the laws are vague about when they can search your car.

en3d: they are looking for anything, ANYTHING that isnt carb legal. Ie intake, headers, TURBO :( they also get pissed off when your BOV vents to the atmosphere.

Let's face it guys, cops can do what they please, when they please. A judge will always come down on the side of law enforcement if there is ANY semblance of reasonableness to what the officer was doing (suspected an open forty was under you intercooler, etc...). It sucks, but that's the way it is. Your best bet is to be cool with the dude, if you make a stink, he's gonna make you pay...

Thanks for the clarification Andrew... Stanley is right guys, if you are nice to them, you may get less of a fine or citation.

Imprezer, I am thinking about an up-pipe.... is the up-pipe visible?

If this happens and you have a WRX, how do you go about proving that your car has a factory turbo at the time of the incident to save the hassle of going to court and such.

Guess it's time to modify that heat shield and put it back on.

cops can ask u to open ur hood and u best let them and not make a scene. they can ask u to open ur hood for numerous reasons. even by just saying he thinks u were showing signs of speed or anything he wants. He has under the law to have any suspecision he wants and if u dont' follow u can get fined for hinder a police officer.

thats sort of what i always thought until everyone kept talking about warrants and crap. i mean do cops need a warrant if they hear someone screaming in a house? No, i think not.


probable cause

They would need a warrant if they want to like start taking ur backseat out or looking under ur carpet for drugs or some stuff like that.. but not opening ur hood.

so we could get citations for exhuasts obviously, but also for intakes?

I dont know saint. My car has bee searched thoroughly without a warrent on many occations. I guess I was driving while black. Terrible crime these days.

Ken

well they can search if they see u looking stoned or something like that.. THEY BUST YOU BIG TIME FOR INTAKES! more than exhaust

I dont do drugs nor have I ever. But have spent some time face down on pavement. I got pulled over one time so funny, on my way to school (CSULB) in Lakewood in a 66Bug...for missing a front license plate and they searched the car. Put me on the curbe and threw crap all around. Driving while black. They didn't check the motor=2180cc, Fat dual 48 Webers ported to 50mm, No exhaust (stinger). They gave me that ticket for the plate to. Bastards.

Ken

so any kind of intakes are "illegal"? are there any kinds of intakes and exhausts that are legal?

Check this thread i found on StreetRacing.org (http://www.streetracing.org/boards/showthread.php?threadid=14371)

look for SgtGrant's post and SJpopo's post. They are San Jose police officers.

Legal Intakes? only 2 company makes them. Greddy and HKS.

aem is legal, hks is not, i dunno about greddy.
pj

Sorry Alex... Yes you HAVE to open it...

This should end all further posts really... Discussion may still exist but alas most legal vehicle questions can be answered with a simple cruise to the California Department of Motor Vehicles (http://www.dmv.ca.gov) website. In particular take a look at the Vehicle code, both PDF (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vcpdftoc.htm) and HTML (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vc.htm) formats.

As mentioned above I looked into section 2800. Really didn't need to go past the general provision (VC Section 2800 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d02/vc2800.htm)) to find the following quote:

Obedience to Traffic Officers
2800. (a) It is unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order, signal, or direction of any peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, when that peace officer is in uniform and is performing duties under any of the provisions of this code, or to refuse to submit to any lawful inspection under this code.

Now of course anyone (lawyers in particular) will tell you written code is always open for discussion... BUT (always a but...) lets continue to section 2806 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d02/vc2806.htm) as mentioned...


Vehicle and Equipment Inspection
2806. Any regularly employed and salaried police officer or deputy sheriff having reasonable cause to believe that any vehicle or combination of vehicles is not equipped as required by this code or is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person, may require the driver to stop and submit the vehicle or combination of vehicles to an inspection and such tests as may be appropriate to determine the safety to persons and compliance with the code.

So it appears that any discussion brought by section 2800 is quashed in section 2806...

Good Luck to any of you telling the officer "No..."

Mike
#25

forget this, drive with the hood off and see what they say then!

See! Don't try it. You'll be worse off than if you just let them look. Even if you are inviolation.

Ken

Always remember to think LAWYER...

After you get your ticket go to the DMV site and look up what he cited you for... i.e. I was cited for 27156.b (listed here (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27156.htm)):

(b) No person shall operate or leave standing upon any highway any motor vehicle which is required to be equipped with a motor vehicle pollution control device under Part 5 (commencing with Section 43000) of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code or any other certified motor vehicle pollution control device required by any other state law or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to that law, or required to be equipped with a motor vehicle pollution control device pursuant to the National Emission Standards Act (42 U.S.C. Secs. 1857f-1 to 1857f-7, inclusive) and the standards and regulations adopted pursuant to that federal act, unless the motor vehicle is equipped with the required motor vehicle pollution control device which is correctly installed and in operating condition. No person shall disconnect, modify, or alter any such required device.

This allowed me to fight the ticket and had I not slept through the court date the judge had already told me he would dismiss it... Ya see nowhere in there (including the referenced health bla bla bla) does it specify what pollution control devices are. It is a violation of certain CARB regs, but he cited me for a VC violation, NOT CARB violation! ;)

Just remember to ALWAYS find the loophole!!! :p

Mike
#25

props to you mike!!:cool:

i gotta check out the dmv site.

WTG Mike! That's how to stick it to Da Man. :D :D

Originally posted by ndmorespd
Sorry Alex... Yes you HAVE to open it...

This should end all further posts really... Discussion may still exist but alas most legal vehicle questions can be answered with a simple cruise to the California Department of Motor Vehicles (http://www.dmv.ca.gov) website. In particular take a look at the Vehicle code, both PDF (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vcpdftoc.htm) and HTML (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vc.htm) formats.

As mentioned above I looked into section 2800. Really didn't need to go past the general provision (VC Section 2800 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d02/vc2800.htm)) to find the following quote:


Now of course anyone (lawyers in particular) will tell you written code is always open for discussion... BUT (always a but...) lets continue to section 2806 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d02/vc2806.htm) as mentioned...



So it appears that any discussion brought by section 2800 is quashed in section 2806...

Good Luck to any of you telling the officer "No..."

Mike
#25

But they still need to have a reasonable reason to suspect those violations. What would the reasonable cause be? Just looking or sounding a certain way would not be reasonable cause, would it???

I think if they heard BOV sounds, turbo spool up, or loud intake then they have reasonable cause. i think its BS if they just see you and pull your ass over. that would piss me off.