Omg...chp Impound My Car....need Advice
- Thread starter lovensx
- Start date
I sent you a pm
Here is a little part of it....
Fact is I think it is ridiculous that NOS is illegal to have hooked up on your car. I understand it is illegal to stab someone but if I have a knife in my kitchen drawer isn't that just as illegal, I am not using it but I COULD stab someone with it. If the op was using the NOS different story. If it was just hooked up and he wasn't using it I don't see how it's a problem. People are starting to be inconvenienced for what I see as not really even intent to do a damn thing in the first place. When I was 18 y/o I can not think one friggen thing that was illegal to install on your car, not one!!!
sign, sign, everywhere a sign.......
I'd guess he's saying people will always drive modified cars that are not street legal if you evaluate them by the letter of the law (not by whether they have a valid inspection sticker, or have jumped through other hoops to be able to drive a car on the street).
Almost any modification, including a different corner marker light cover can render a car no longer "street-legal" if you judge by the letter of the law.
Last edited:
No, I THINK it's just really good GLUE :wink:
And if you read the Japanese characters I THINK it said it's OK for street use :biggrin:
Um.... recording someone without thier knowledge is a FEDERAL OFFENSE... i would not want to be you if you get caught..... also, it IS NOT ILLEGAL for the police to tape record you WHILE they are in the course of doing thier duties...
I don't think this is accurate. Wire-tapping without a warrent is illegal.
However, in some states, you are allowed to record calls and other interactions, even if the other party does not know or consent (one-party consent). Even video surveillance is usually allowed as long as proper signs are posted. So who's to say that if you have signs in your car stating that any activity involving this vehicle is being recorded, that a court wouldn't allow it as evidence? I'm not sure on the specific legalities of this, but if notification and signs are in place, it would be likely that a court would allow such surveillance as evidence.
In many cases and states, even if the second party does not know, but the proper signs and notifications are in place, then a court may well rule that the surveillance was legal.
yes.. you are partially right and i am partially wrong in my post.... it is a federal offence on the phone... however, it california it is illegal to record (one party consent) someone without thier knowledge.... by posting the sign as you suggest, you are then giving them notice, so they would then have knowledge.. this only applies to civilians though... it does not apply to the police because the supreme court has rulled people do not have an expectation of privacy when they are speaking to the police.... they do when they are talking to another civilian....
- Joined
- 27 April 2008
- Messages
- 25
You forgot Liberal Pinko dipsticks.
ditto, although this is debatable if you ask bush
:wink:
The funny thing is that this guy probably owned an el camino or camaro or something like that much less safe than a car with nitrous and an air filter!
Its all about perception that street racers make for themselves, if the wing wasnt quite so large on his car it might not have been a problem. I have no Idea about your appearance but Im quite sure that if you had a polo shirt with a ferrari underfoot it would have been nice car, and have a nice day sir.
Its all about perception that street racers make for themselves, if the wing wasnt quite so large on his car it might not have been a problem. I have no Idea about your appearance but Im quite sure that if you had a polo shirt with a ferrari underfoot it would have been nice car, and have a nice day sir.
It may be that, if the police are able to record you, it is also legal to record them.
I know in most states you can record someone without their consent if they are already recording you. This is useful, for instance, if you're on the line with a billing department or customer service and they tell you the call may be recorded for quality assurance. At that point, you are free to record the call without even notifying the other party. (Notifying them usually gets you disconnected, so don't.)
I know in WA state the state patrol has always-on dashcams. Thus, since they are guaranteed to be recording you, there should be no question that you are okay to record them back.
Anyone who fears mistreatment by maladjusted officers is probably well-advised to keep a running recording. Chances are good it'll never be necessary, as long as you don't act like a jackass on the road and to the officer, but if it happens to you, you'll want it.
I know in most states you can record someone without their consent if they are already recording you. This is useful, for instance, if you're on the line with a billing department or customer service and they tell you the call may be recorded for quality assurance. At that point, you are free to record the call without even notifying the other party. (Notifying them usually gets you disconnected, so don't.)
I know in WA state the state patrol has always-on dashcams. Thus, since they are guaranteed to be recording you, there should be no question that you are okay to record them back.
Anyone who fears mistreatment by maladjusted officers is probably well-advised to keep a running recording. Chances are good it'll never be necessary, as long as you don't act like a jackass on the road and to the officer, but if it happens to you, you'll want it.
Right... whats good for the goose is not good for the gander.
In NYS if one party knows the recording is being made then it's legal.
Last edited:
This should be locked, there's no more points to be made (positive or negative) good luck for the OP since in the end he is just a car enthusiast that had a misjudgment and was on the wrong place @ the wrong time (NO ONE is perfect and some people just for having a loud exhaust can be seen as "idiots" ... it's all about perspective) ... + is not like he killed a person for christ sake, he is certainly paying the price.
OScar
OScar
- Joined
- 13 October 2007
- Messages
- 180
Don't mean to beat a perhaps already dead horse here, but there is a legal difference between recording a telephone conversation and recording a personal (meaning, non-telephone) conversation.
Telephone Conversations
12 states require all party consent of a recorded telephone conversation: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington.
The other 38 states permit one party consent.
In all 50 states and under federal law, it is generally illegal to record telephone conversations outside of one party consent, with the following exceptions:
California: one party consent can be applied when one party is involved in extortion or blackmail, and
Arizona: telephone conversations with no party consent can be recorded when criminal activity is involved.
Personal Conversations
Federal law prohibits recording personal conversations, the exception being when the person making the recording is a party to the conversation or has consented to the recording (so long as the recording is not for the purpose of committing a criminal act). It is therefore permissable under federal law for a person to record personal conversations with others and then use the recording as evidence.
Some state laws, however, differ from federal law. In California, for example, it is a crime to record personal conversations without the consent of all parties to the conversation.
Personally, if in doubt I would not hesitate to record my personal conversations with any police officer - to include California police officers, regardless of CA state law - for the following reasons:
1) Any record of an event is better than no record at all, and
2) In the event the officer does something illegal, the chances of you being prosecuted for providing proof of said illegal police activity is rather remote.
For example, there have been many instances of third party individuals recording illegal and/or questionable police activity sans any party consent (see: YouTube), and rarely, if ever, has the person responsible for the recording been subsequently convicted of a crime. (In fact, the Internet is *filled* with all manner of no party consent personal conversation recordings...)
And finally, please note: Law enforcement officers are entitled to record conversations under both federal and state law under certain conditions (with "certain conditions" generally meaning "while in the course of official duties").
This is just another perfect example of "nobody is allowed to police the police"
Again... I guess police aren't even considered "civilians". What are they now? Some para-military group? Funny, I thought they were just people like you and I doing a job, but apparently their either better/above that.
Here's the big problem. There is nobody that polices the police. With todays technology, there is no reason that the daliy activities of a police officer shouldn't be recorded at all times, not just when the lights and sirens turn on. There should be in car camera/mic that runs at all times and is recorded on a hard drive in the trunk that is uploaded at the end of each shift. There should also be a small camera/mic on the shoulder of each officer so that their activities are recorded. All this information needs to be uploaded to an agency HIGHER that the police department for screening each day. That agency only has the power to watch over the police. They have no powers of their own. If police officers believe they are held to a higher standard, then they should be HELD to it. There are just too many accusations of poor police officers and abuse of power for some to not be true. Today's soldiers have this camera/mic technology. Let's put it on our law enforcement. I bet it would severly cut down on the number of crappy interactions / snide remarks / illegal searches. But it's a two way street. It would also protect the officer from false accusations made by people that were arrested.
Yeah. I'm aware of those.
Are you aware that I said that he was an idiot to have it "hooked up on the street"?
Are you aware that I asked what "street-legal activity" you need nos for?
Are you aware that a street and a drag strip are not the same thing?
I am aware that you always seem to enjoy calling people idiots and assuming the worst in various posts on here, and that it seems that you must really enjoy that more than anything else. Not everyone on here is a street racing hooligan, and maybe you should consider that next time.
- Joined
- 13 October 2007
- Messages
- 180
LOL.
I already knew the telephone law, but this thread made me look up the recording of personal conversations in order to discover the difference(s) between telephone vs personal recordings, if any.
As long as one person enjoyed the post - and especially a yellow-lovin' NSX owner - it was worth the time. :smile:
What is that?
- Joined
- 29 December 2006
- Messages
- 79
I call shenanigans!
I'm not an expert in California law, but the problem with the knife statement is that ignores the fact that a knife has many useful & legal purposes in addition to attacking someone (which is illegal).
Installing NOS in a car has only a few purposes: to accelerate more quickly (exhibition of speed) and to make your car look cool. I don't know anyone that installs NOS and never intends to use it or would promise to only use it at the track. Obviously, lawmakers felt that the risks outweigh the benefits, so they made it illegal. They could require a permit, so that responsible people could have it though, but that would be very hard to enforce. It would never work in our system though - maybe in Germany. :wink:
At least they didn't make it illegal to buy sports cars and probably won't, because some people buy them and drive responsibly.
I'm not an expert in California law, but the problem with the knife statement is that ignores the fact that a knife has many useful & legal purposes in addition to attacking someone (which is illegal).
Installing NOS in a car has only a few purposes: to accelerate more quickly (exhibition of speed) and to make your car look cool. I don't know anyone that installs NOS and never intends to use it or would promise to only use it at the track. Obviously, lawmakers felt that the risks outweigh the benefits, so they made it illegal. They could require a permit, so that responsible people could have it though, but that would be very hard to enforce. It would never work in our system though - maybe in Germany. :wink:
At least they didn't make it illegal to buy sports cars and probably won't, because some people buy them and drive responsibly.
Ah, my idea of heaven.
I got harassed just last week. Sure wish I could play that tape to a "higher" authority.
Cop jumps out from behind a toll booth and starts pounding on my passengers side window screaming to stop. I thought I had run someone over and he was still under the car as all I could see was his hand. I was confused as to what was going on. I roll the window down and he says "where's your seat belt" He says you seemed confused. I am thinking more like startled as you just jumped out from behind the toll booth and started banging on my car. I told him I didn't have my seat belt on and deserved a ticket for it. That wasn't good enough he really needed to Barde me. He was getting off on his whole lecture about how I HAVE to wear my seatbelt. I am thinking I said I deserve the ticket so just give me the ticket and shut the phuck up. IMO he doesn't have the right to to spout off his job is to give tickets not his opinion. When all was said and done he didn't give me a ticket.
I would love to see some change but I doubt it will get any better. In fact I have just watched it get worse over the period of my lifetime.
:
At least they didn't make it illegal to buy sports cars and probably won't, because some people buy them and drive responsibly.
Of course not you don't eat an elephant in one bite you would choke.
- Joined
- 14 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,725
Um...pardon?
As A Retired Ohio Policeman Who Is A Proud Owner Of A 91 Nsx,i Would Have Stopped You,told You What An Awsome Car You Own,take A Picture Of It And Let You Go First Thru The Construction Zone Making Everyone Else Wait.
