My defense for upcoming ticket...
12-29-2007 | 01:52 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Teching In
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
From: The Republic of Texas, just south of the United States...
My defense for upcoming ticket... I was pulled over in Wilson County by a State Trooper who, after seeing a license plate on the front dash of my car decided to apply a personal perspective for this placement and a "defective exhaust; too loud".
The following is what I plan to use for a defense in the upcoming court appearance where I plan to request a trial by jury. I would love to hear any feedback on this and what you might have used in the defense of the same ticket.
PS: my apologies but this is really long.
Pending civil and criminal case: Private Citizen v. Reyes, Department of Public Safety
Further investigation of the law as written and applied, one can determine and successfully argue the following:
The law and statute requires a sound muffling device to be permanently installed and in working condition to be present. It does not note a required rear exit of the exhaust on the vehicle as many vehicles are equipped with side exhaust exits or alternative exits for many other types of vehicles from the manufacturer.
In accordance with this complaint or concern, it should be noted that not all vehicles are provided with the provision for a front mounted license plate from the manufacturer, Certain vehicles including but not limited to various types of Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Corvette, Camaro, Mustang, Trans Am, BMW, and Mercedes do not and are not provided with this provision.
Should a vehicle otherwise not providing a bracket for or an application for a front license plate bracket from the manufacturer be made to otherwise modify their vehicles for the sake of an individual officers perspective be made to modify, risking the reduction in monetary value of their investment due to the perspective of the officer of the law?
This is also not specifically expressed in accordance with the state statutes as it is not available for the private citizen to research or otherwise find, lending to a “hidden” statute or law that can be argued to be not enforceable due to concealment of the law or statute by the law enforcement community and those who are in its employ. In short, a law or statute must be by definition, available to the general public without hesitation for use in compliance for or defense for or by the general public for whom it is to be imposed upon.
There is no statute in existence in any way regarding a decibel level or a “rule of thumb” as this would again leave the application to the personal perspective of the officer in question or allow for application of the law to be applied unequally throughout the state of Texas. This would also allow a personal perspective to be applied in each and every case and is not enforceable by any statute existing in the state of Texas, in short, this would be an illegal application of the law by the officer or an official of the court representing the state of Texas.
An officer attempting to enforce any law or statute regarding a decibel level, the existence of an enforceable supposed restrictive sound level, or the level to equal to that of another type of motor vehicle would be found to be in violation of applying a personal perspective unless the city, county or other jurisdiction in question has passed a law prohibiting such a sound level and has made this law known to the general public.
The example that has been most effectively utilized in a court of law is this; the sound level exhibited by a “sports” car is different than that of a motorcycle, which is different than that of a performance oriented truck, which is different than that of a high performance sports car. In short, one cannot compare apples to pears, pears to oranges, and oranges to bananas and expect the same result, much less the same application of law.
The idea of a vehicle’s exhaust note or decibel level being compared to that of an acoustic guitar as being stated by one officer who is assigned with the officer in question that I am experiencing this issue with is simply absurd at best.
An officer who continues to stop a motorist who is otherwise obeying all other traffic laws as written and provided by the state of Texas is in themselves in violation of applying the law to his or her personal perspective and can be held liable for multiple criminal violations including harassment of a private citizen who is otherwise obeying all other traffic laws, an illegal traffic stop for the purpose of discovery of another or separate violation, and the criminal use of a law enforcement official‘s jurisdiction or otherwise known as false imprisonment or attempt to unlawfully secure a private citizen who has otherwise not violated the law.
The officer in question and the officer of the court should if having any question, refer to the following laws as outlined in the state of Texas codes as written and is clearly available online through the Department of Texas Safety.
"§ 547.604. MUFFLER REQUIRED. (a) A motor vehicle shall be equipped with a muffler in good working condition that continually operates to prevent excessive or unusual noise. (b) A person may not use a muffler cutout, bypass, or similar device on a motor vehicle. "
The following legal article was in regard to the location or placement of a front license plate. This was upheld by the State of Texas Supreme Court:
Another Bad Traffic Stop in Texas
Texas Transportation Code section 502.404(a) requires that a motor vehicle "display two license plates, at the 'front' and rear of the vehicle." Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 502.404(a). The code does not define the "front" of a vehicle. This is clearly posted upon the Department of Public Safety website.
In State v. Losoya, 128 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. App. - Austin 2004, pet. ref'd) the Court of Appeals decided an issue very similar to that of my callers. In Losoya, the police testified they had noticed a pickup did not have a license plate mounted on the front bumper. Instead, the plate was wedged between the dashboard and windshield. As a result, the police stopped the vehicle believing a traffic violation had occurred. At the suppression hearing the police officer added he could see the license plate in the truck's front window.
The court found the term "front" ambiguous and looked to other factors to determine the meaning of the code section. The court said:
"While a place to display the license plate is usually found on the front bumper, the statute does not expressly require the use of this location. The display of the plate in some other place or manner is not inconsistent with the language or purpose of the statute. The officers testified that they could see the license plate in the windshield. We conclude that Losoya's display of his front license plate in the manner shown here did not violate section 502.404(a) as to give the officers grounds to reasonably suspect a violation of that statute."
(End of article)
For the officer of the law or officer of the court to impose any restriction or penalty to the motorist is an application of personal perspective, rather than the law or statute as written, and therefore illegal in application.
To imply a personal perspective of the law is to selectively enforce the law as written and amended, and to continue to stop a motorist for this implied infraction is to constitute illegal enforcement of a law and or statute and illegal confinement (when a motorist is pulled over by an officer of the law, legally one is considered to be in custody) by an officer of the law.
Such application is illegal and in violation of the civil rights of the said motorist, if no other violation of the law cannot be found for the initial traffic stop. The officer of the law must provide evidence, when requested during an investigation, of application of the law equally to all other motorists, utilizing all other types of vehicles, without regard to the type of vehicle utilized, without regard to equal enforcement to all vehicles, without regard to the motorists himself, and without regard to the personal perspective of the officer in question.
The only questions for the officer of the court to consider and that should be or should have been considered by the officer of the law when initiating a traffic stop are as follows:
Was a license plate facing forward on the vehicle as the law or statute requires? Yes
Does the vehicle have a working muffler system installed on the car that reduces the level of the exhaust note? Yes
Was there any other valid reason for the traffic stop to be initiated by the officer of the law in question? No
Was the operator of the motor vehicle in compliance with or comply with all or other laws and or statutes when the traffic stop was initiated? Yes
Was the operator of the motor vehicle illegally detained for the purpose of this traffic stop? Yes
Were the civil rights of the operator of the motor vehicle in question violated by the officer in question? Yes
Was the vehicle provided with a provisions for a unique front bracket by the manufacturer upon delivery by the original purchaser? No
Was the vehicle delivered by the manufacturer without a front license plate upon purchase? Yes
These statements and questions should be and are to be considered, and will be utilized in a pending case for the defendant versus the officer in question. The defendant, a private citizen will be pursuing disciplinary action and criminal civil rights violations against the officer in question regardless of the outcome or decision by the officer of the court.
The following is what I plan to use for a defense in the upcoming court appearance where I plan to request a trial by jury. I would love to hear any feedback on this and what you might have used in the defense of the same ticket.
PS: my apologies but this is really long.
Pending civil and criminal case: Private Citizen v. Reyes, Department of Public Safety
Further investigation of the law as written and applied, one can determine and successfully argue the following:
The law and statute requires a sound muffling device to be permanently installed and in working condition to be present. It does not note a required rear exit of the exhaust on the vehicle as many vehicles are equipped with side exhaust exits or alternative exits for many other types of vehicles from the manufacturer.
In accordance with this complaint or concern, it should be noted that not all vehicles are provided with the provision for a front mounted license plate from the manufacturer, Certain vehicles including but not limited to various types of Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Corvette, Camaro, Mustang, Trans Am, BMW, and Mercedes do not and are not provided with this provision.
Should a vehicle otherwise not providing a bracket for or an application for a front license plate bracket from the manufacturer be made to otherwise modify their vehicles for the sake of an individual officers perspective be made to modify, risking the reduction in monetary value of their investment due to the perspective of the officer of the law?
This is also not specifically expressed in accordance with the state statutes as it is not available for the private citizen to research or otherwise find, lending to a “hidden” statute or law that can be argued to be not enforceable due to concealment of the law or statute by the law enforcement community and those who are in its employ. In short, a law or statute must be by definition, available to the general public without hesitation for use in compliance for or defense for or by the general public for whom it is to be imposed upon.
There is no statute in existence in any way regarding a decibel level or a “rule of thumb” as this would again leave the application to the personal perspective of the officer in question or allow for application of the law to be applied unequally throughout the state of Texas. This would also allow a personal perspective to be applied in each and every case and is not enforceable by any statute existing in the state of Texas, in short, this would be an illegal application of the law by the officer or an official of the court representing the state of Texas.
An officer attempting to enforce any law or statute regarding a decibel level, the existence of an enforceable supposed restrictive sound level, or the level to equal to that of another type of motor vehicle would be found to be in violation of applying a personal perspective unless the city, county or other jurisdiction in question has passed a law prohibiting such a sound level and has made this law known to the general public.
The example that has been most effectively utilized in a court of law is this; the sound level exhibited by a “sports” car is different than that of a motorcycle, which is different than that of a performance oriented truck, which is different than that of a high performance sports car. In short, one cannot compare apples to pears, pears to oranges, and oranges to bananas and expect the same result, much less the same application of law.
The idea of a vehicle’s exhaust note or decibel level being compared to that of an acoustic guitar as being stated by one officer who is assigned with the officer in question that I am experiencing this issue with is simply absurd at best.
An officer who continues to stop a motorist who is otherwise obeying all other traffic laws as written and provided by the state of Texas is in themselves in violation of applying the law to his or her personal perspective and can be held liable for multiple criminal violations including harassment of a private citizen who is otherwise obeying all other traffic laws, an illegal traffic stop for the purpose of discovery of another or separate violation, and the criminal use of a law enforcement official‘s jurisdiction or otherwise known as false imprisonment or attempt to unlawfully secure a private citizen who has otherwise not violated the law.
The officer in question and the officer of the court should if having any question, refer to the following laws as outlined in the state of Texas codes as written and is clearly available online through the Department of Texas Safety.
"§ 547.604. MUFFLER REQUIRED. (a) A motor vehicle shall be equipped with a muffler in good working condition that continually operates to prevent excessive or unusual noise. (b) A person may not use a muffler cutout, bypass, or similar device on a motor vehicle. "
The following legal article was in regard to the location or placement of a front license plate. This was upheld by the State of Texas Supreme Court:
Another Bad Traffic Stop in Texas
Texas Transportation Code section 502.404(a) requires that a motor vehicle "display two license plates, at the 'front' and rear of the vehicle." Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 502.404(a). The code does not define the "front" of a vehicle. This is clearly posted upon the Department of Public Safety website.
In State v. Losoya, 128 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. App. - Austin 2004, pet. ref'd) the Court of Appeals decided an issue very similar to that of my callers. In Losoya, the police testified they had noticed a pickup did not have a license plate mounted on the front bumper. Instead, the plate was wedged between the dashboard and windshield. As a result, the police stopped the vehicle believing a traffic violation had occurred. At the suppression hearing the police officer added he could see the license plate in the truck's front window.
The court found the term "front" ambiguous and looked to other factors to determine the meaning of the code section. The court said:
"While a place to display the license plate is usually found on the front bumper, the statute does not expressly require the use of this location. The display of the plate in some other place or manner is not inconsistent with the language or purpose of the statute. The officers testified that they could see the license plate in the windshield. We conclude that Losoya's display of his front license plate in the manner shown here did not violate section 502.404(a) as to give the officers grounds to reasonably suspect a violation of that statute."
(End of article)
For the officer of the law or officer of the court to impose any restriction or penalty to the motorist is an application of personal perspective, rather than the law or statute as written, and therefore illegal in application.
To imply a personal perspective of the law is to selectively enforce the law as written and amended, and to continue to stop a motorist for this implied infraction is to constitute illegal enforcement of a law and or statute and illegal confinement (when a motorist is pulled over by an officer of the law, legally one is considered to be in custody) by an officer of the law.
Such application is illegal and in violation of the civil rights of the said motorist, if no other violation of the law cannot be found for the initial traffic stop. The officer of the law must provide evidence, when requested during an investigation, of application of the law equally to all other motorists, utilizing all other types of vehicles, without regard to the type of vehicle utilized, without regard to equal enforcement to all vehicles, without regard to the motorists himself, and without regard to the personal perspective of the officer in question.
The only questions for the officer of the court to consider and that should be or should have been considered by the officer of the law when initiating a traffic stop are as follows:
Was a license plate facing forward on the vehicle as the law or statute requires? Yes
Does the vehicle have a working muffler system installed on the car that reduces the level of the exhaust note? Yes
Was there any other valid reason for the traffic stop to be initiated by the officer of the law in question? No
Was the operator of the motor vehicle in compliance with or comply with all or other laws and or statutes when the traffic stop was initiated? Yes
Was the operator of the motor vehicle illegally detained for the purpose of this traffic stop? Yes
Were the civil rights of the operator of the motor vehicle in question violated by the officer in question? Yes
Was the vehicle provided with a provisions for a unique front bracket by the manufacturer upon delivery by the original purchaser? No
Was the vehicle delivered by the manufacturer without a front license plate upon purchase? Yes
These statements and questions should be and are to be considered, and will be utilized in a pending case for the defendant versus the officer in question. The defendant, a private citizen will be pursuing disciplinary action and criminal civil rights violations against the officer in question regardless of the outcome or decision by the officer of the court.
Last edited by Nedermeyer; 12-29-2007 at 02:16 PM.
12-29-2007 | 02:22 PM
#4
Damn, you werent kidding when you said it was long to read but it was interesting. Let us know how it turns out. This might be a cornerstone in half of our defenses in the future.
12-29-2007 | 02:26 PM
#6
Thread Starter
Teching In
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
From: The Republic of Texas, just south of the United States...
I was stopped on Hwy 181 in Floresville, doing 40 mph in a 40 mph zone in 4th gear. The trooper is Corporal Reyes.
My intention is to ask for a trial by jury, speak with his superiors regarding his very unprofessional demeanor when dealing with the general public, and am determining if there are significant support to file charges against him for civil rights violations.
Any knowledge of this officer?
My intention is to ask for a trial by jury, speak with his superiors regarding his very unprofessional demeanor when dealing with the general public, and am determining if there are significant support to file charges against him for civil rights violations.
Any knowledge of this officer?
Trending Topics
12-29-2007 | 02:33 PM
#9
Thread Starter
Teching In
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
From: The Republic of Texas, just south of the United States...
Cliff notes: pulled behind in an HEB parking lot, trooper was a complete ***, issued warning. Told me to get it fixed. I told him it isn't broke have a nice evening.
Three weeks later, pulled over by the same trooper, had a license plate on the dash, trooper was verbally abusive, wrote a ticket told me to tell it to the judge, I replied be glad to. See you there.
Began researching, have found lots that support the case.
Am in Houston right now, will be meeting with the troopers superiors regarding grievance and action regarding his behavior, tone, and verbal abuse during the traffic stop and to let them know that a case will be filed against him.
In short, if he ***** with me, I will be happy to **** with him back....I got nothing to lose and all the time in the world.
Three weeks later, pulled over by the same trooper, had a license plate on the dash, trooper was verbally abusive, wrote a ticket told me to tell it to the judge, I replied be glad to. See you there.
Began researching, have found lots that support the case.
Am in Houston right now, will be meeting with the troopers superiors regarding grievance and action regarding his behavior, tone, and verbal abuse during the traffic stop and to let them know that a case will be filed against him.
In short, if he ***** with me, I will be happy to **** with him back....I got nothing to lose and all the time in the world.
12-29-2007 | 02:35 PM
#12
Launching!
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
From: Karnes City, Texas
I was stopped on Hwy 181 in Floresville, doing 40 mph in a 40 mph zone in 4th gear. The trooper is Corporal Reyes.
My intention is to ask for a trial by jury, speak with his superiors regarding his very unprofessional demeanor when dealing with the general public, and am determining if there are significant support to file charges against him for civil rights violations.
Any knowledge of this officer?
My intention is to ask for a trial by jury, speak with his superiors regarding his very unprofessional demeanor when dealing with the general public, and am determining if there are significant support to file charges against him for civil rights violations.
Any knowledge of this officer?
12-29-2007 | 02:41 PM
#14
TECH Apprentice
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
From: Tomball, Tx
12-29-2007 | 02:51 PM
#16
TECH Apprentice
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
From: Tomball, Tx
He probably didn't become a police officer to support anyone but himself/family/pay the bills and wave misused, uninformed and misdirected power around in peoples faces like he is above the law. He probably had a rough childhood and feels like he has to treat others like crap now. If your statements about what he said are true I hope you take him to the cleaners.
And for the record I do not harbor any bad feelings to law enforcement. But if someone represents any enforcement agency they should reflect well on the organization and know the law they were hired to defend, not act high and mighty with apparent disgust for the civilian population because they hide their immaturity behind a badge.
And for the record I do not harbor any bad feelings to law enforcement. But if someone represents any enforcement agency they should reflect well on the organization and know the law they were hired to defend, not act high and mighty with apparent disgust for the civilian population because they hide their immaturity behind a badge.
12-29-2007 | 03:24 PM
#20
