Always investigate for yourself what is legal or not. weather it be tints, lights, exhaust ect.

Many aftermarket folks will sell you stuff and tell you it's legal when it's not. This is most dominate for Tints.

Most aftermarket items come with disclaimers. Be very carefull and be wise. Go to your local DMV and get the legal specs for what ever it is that your going to buy and bring the documentation with you when you purchase your products. Compare the DMV specs to the specs given yby the manufacturer. Thats the only way you'll know for sure. Products are mass made and shipped Nation Wide so whats legal in one state may not be legal in others. Hence the disclaimer.

Don't just go by what they tell you at the store, check it for yourself.

ScionCop

 

BOTA, you continue to baffle me with your non-relevant replies. nobody mentioned PIAA and your quoting code was simply not helpfull to the question asked.
i don't know where you come from with your 'answers' to the questions, but they are vague and misleading at best. (your advise to contact the DA's office for a ticket has provided countless hours of humor in my dept.)

if you want a bit of advice BOTA, you should state where you 'expertise' comes from if you want to be a creditable source. (lawer, judge, security, corrections or did you just sleep at a holiday inn)

the thread was started by scioncop, as a way for people to ask the cop on the street that actually issues the summons, his opinon.

now, on to the lights.

the halo or amgel eyes are fine as a DRL but the color is a no go.

eddie, please take another look at the photos.
in the first one you see the light pattern for the neons. now look at the second one the light pattern is way bigger. i think the camera played a trick by compensating for looking directly into the light source, and the lights are not that bright.
if the color was not an issue, i think it might be ok. ultimatly i would have to see it in person in order to rule out photo tricks.
but the blue color instanly get you a personal invite to meet a judge.

and, that plate is to funny.

XbManiac, welcome brother.

 

Hmmm....

So your saying if it is plain white not blue "no problem". It's possible.

I think that the 1st photo was like a Day time running mode and the second pic was actually turned on. It could be also a photo trick / illusion like you mentioned.

Funny I didn't read the plate till you said it was funny. Got me luaghing now. I want one for my cruiser. Don't think the Cheif would like that though.

ScionCop

 

Sorry, didn't mean to baffle you, dgHotLava. I mentioned PIAA lights only as an example of aftermarket lights that can have similar properties. I thought that was pretty clear. The original poster didn't mention the brand of light, you see.

Also, to clear up how quotes are coded. If you notice when someone quotes a post there is text inserted that indicated who is being quoted such as "scion wrote:". If you use quote tags independantly, you're left with the simple text of "Quote:" I used quote tags to show that the text that I posted was a quote from PIAA's web site. In the future, to avoid confusing anyone, I will just use quotation marks unless I'm quoting another post. Is that okay with you?

I don't know why you would find it funny that someone would contact the DA's office for a plea bargain. You see, in New York State, the DA has the authority to plea bargain any case before a local criminal court which is where traffic offenses are heard. Must be things are different in New Jersey, but that's what's great about this thread. The give and take. I'm glad I could give you some chucks, anyway.

Hope this helps de-baffle you, friend.

 

I got a parking ticket. I'm going to see the Chief justice about this tomorrow or better yet I'll go straight to the Mayor, no screw that I'm going to see the Governor.


HA HA HA!!!! Sorry I couldn't help myself.

District Attorney ? I don't care where you live. DA's don't handle MV tickets. Yes technically they have the governing authority but any DA getting involved in that is doing a personal favor or something way out of the ordinary is going on.

MV Tickets are handled by the Traffic court prosecuters and clerks Office. Yes even in NY.

Bota146 don't you get it yet. You need to pick up the phone. You still haven't said what you are. Enlighten us please.

ScionCop

 

again BOTA, you missed the point.

piaa does not have a 'halo' style lamp.
so how was this relevant to zoomby's question of 'is it illegal to have halos on while driving'

the comment of quotes was not about tags.
it was about how you like to throw out referances like 'Section 375 subdivision 4(b) '
"All lamps ...shall be so arranged, adjusted and operated, as to avoid dangerous glare or dazzle." psst....the halos don't violate this


then you threw in your swift comment of.
----- now, where is the bit on color?

and if you read code you quoted it mentions nothing about halo's. it talks about glare and dazzle.
it also goes on to say
S 375.4.c 'No lamp shall be used on a motor vehicle having a light source
greater than thirty-two candle power.'

32 candle power is about 402.ish lumens
now the typical bosch h4 low beam (55 watts) puts out 1000 lumens. so every car on the road is violating this.

so, again i am baffeled by your quoting code (laws, statuates...).


so to repeat,
b]5. Make your posts relevant and helpful. [/b]
your post was not helpfull as it did not answer the question of halos.
my answer is: i don't see a problem with halos. 'they are not bright as to cause glare or dazzle' (my new fav. saying) and so long as the color is legal, go for it.

 

Dghotlava...

I just got word that Bota146 is in jail and he's a jail house lawyer. His Rec time is over so we'll have to wait till tomorrow for his reply. Thats if hes not ____ing off the gaurds and getting hosed down by then.

By the way XBManiac is a sister of the brotherhood. She might not be logging in that much. She just checked out the thread after I talked to her about it. She has a stock Xb.

ScionCop

 

is doing 120mph on rt 91 south safe and/or legal? just thought i'd ask....

Jeff (residet smart ___)

 

not my neck of the woods but, i'd say it's fine as long as you don't get caught or hurt.

to bota, a simple google search has found some articles about take-home police cars. i remember you calling this bull____ so here is a link...
http://www.nwitimes.com/articles/200...cc001295d0.txt
in it was mentioned that"The take-home policy was in lieu of a raise"
so there is your answer. someone who says they can use google to find answers did not even have the brains to check it out before calling bull____.

oh, take home cars is not that rare of an idea.

 

As it stated in the article:

"It's a perk (for the officers), but everybody benefits," he said. "We need to be consistent with the industry standard, or these guys will go elsewhere."

Does this mean that it's contractual? I doubt it if they're taking them away from some officers. I was not debating the existance of take home cars, just that someone would:

A) Have their bargaining unit negotiate for them

AND

b) Pay for them out of their salary.

And I did ask for Eddie to provide any example of this. You know, a contract? And still haven't seen one. You guys seem to think this is common place so it should be easy to direct me to an agency that has a contract that specifys take home cars for officers and where they pay for them.

That's what Eddie said, and I refute that statement.



Great find on the article, though.

 

No one said anything about parking offenses. I was refering to traffic violations, most likely moving violations since there's not much of a reduction possible for non-moving violations (or non-point carrying violations).

As far as your opinion on using the DA's office for a reduction of charges, I have to disagree, Ed. In the county where I live, it is customary for the issuing officer to prosecute the ticket. He can offer a plea bargain or accept an offer from the defendant at the time of trial. Also, the District Attorney's office will often arrange prior to trial for a plea bargain, saving the officer and defendant a trip to court. I know this from personal experience.

If you're going to refute this statement, please provide facts as opposed to inuendo.

 

they got them instead of a raise!
to me that is paying for it!

and who do you think negotiates for their raises? (it the f.o.p. / p.b.a. or some other colective bargaining unit)

boy, you really are a thick-headed dumbass, you can't even figure that one out.

 

that's cool. so long as she knows the secrect handshake

 

I almost fell off of my chair when I read that

 

You make some good points, dg. What you may not have understood was that I was quoting the law to show that it did not denote a color. And the section that you posted referencing 32 candle power does not deal with headlamps. I think I included a link to the State Assembly's web site in one of my prior posts so the entire text is available for you there. If you can't find the link, let me know, I'll repost it for you.

I understand that the PIAA headlights that I spoke of are not the same lights. But, like I said, I had read something about them and thought it germain to the question. The law states "dangerous glare or dazzle" is prohibited, and halo lights could fall into this category. So I think this is relevant.

Perhaps someone else will read this thread that is considering any type of aftermarket headlight and will find the information I posted relevant. I hope so.

Thanks for your patience and allowing me to clarify.

 

If you re-read the article, it says:

"The perk had been added by an earlier commission, Wilson said, to acknowledge the extra, unpaid time officers spend in the community."

...and...

"The take-home policy was in lieu of a raise, and I'm losing money now," Tokach said. "The policy is good for morale. We didn't get a raise last year; probably not one this year. ... You can't always be number-driven. There's a lot of hidden value."

It does say that take home cars are a "policy" and a "perk", not a negotiated item. That's not to say that you're wrong, but you are making an inference not based in facts.

It does say that the policy is in lieu of a raise. Which could be construed as the agency decided to let officers take their cars home due to the fact that they did not get a raise (for whatever reason).

Here's a link to a news article regarding the Lowell Police Department's contract with it's officers:

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/in...0426271890.xml

Doesn't mention anything about take home cars. Admittedly, every piece of compensation wouldn't be included in the article, but something like take home cars probably would. That's a pretty big item.

Also, the fact that some officers are now being denied take home cars lends credence to the argument that this "policy" is not contractual.

 

Bota146......

I never replied to your question about contracts because I just got tired of your ignorant self. I figured you would stop with your nonsense but I was wrong.

"Everything a Police Officer gets" is on a contract. Pay, Uniforms, equipment (including a Cruiser), Vacation, sick, Holiday Time Ect. "It's all under contract" I never felt a need to show you anything. Why?Who are you? What are you?

Bota146 Please stop with your posting and arguing. You still haven't told us what your credentials are so untill you do please stop posting. Yes this is a public forum and no I'm not going to private messaging to appease you. Problem with you is that you choose to answer questions that were never directed to you, atleast you could of had the "Courtesy" of waiting for me to reply and then add some input like everybody else has done.

You think that I feel threatened? Not true. How am I going to feel threatened by someone who really has no clue beyond reading books of how the Law really works.

Untill you step up and tell us what your credentials are please stop answering questions that are directed to Law Enforcement Officials. If you think your so hot then why don't you start your own thread. Let's see how long it will last. I bet it would get bumped to the last page in a month.

I can see your a very stubborn person because your still here even though many people have flipped you off and asked you many times to stop with your postings. Maybe FoxScion can do something about this. I will be sending him a message about you.

When I started this thread I posted a "general" BIO about myself so that all would know what kind of person they were talking to. So did Dghotlava.

Bota146 post your credentials or stop posting here. The End

Ps. I ran your plate and know who you are. Trust I know your not worth sweating over.

ScionCop

 

if the person was looking to save the trip to court he could do a trial by written declaration.
in a modern city, the DA does not get into the matters of plea bargaining.

and to asume what 'you know from personal experience' is standard everywhere is absurd.
my knowledge comes from a place where they run 7 courts a day, 5 days a week plus 1 court runs on Saturday.
thus said, i have a good idea of the judicial system.

 

LOL Me, too! That was a good one!

 

You're absolutely right. I was just trying to add some insight from a different point of view. Please forgive my arrogance and in the future please know that what I say is not universal. I should have mentioned this earlier, but to be honest I thought I had.

But couldn't the same be said for you? Since not all areas are urban, requiring "7 courts a day, 5 days a week plus 1 court runs on Saturday" that your opinions are also not standard everywhere?

Just some food for thought.