Ticket for Defective Brake Lights, Exhaust

Hey I got this the other day going from my insurance office to class.

The officer asked if I raced my car after he pulled me over numerous times, pointing at my harnesses I had in the back. I was wearing the standard seatbelt when he pulled up. I said no.

Anyway, he said my brake lights didnt work. The running lights were on, but the fuse that makes them brighter had broke. I fixed the fuse when I got to my class with a spare.

He asked what was up with my exhaust. I said it was disconnected. But that did not effect its functionality. I had put on bottle mufflers under the belly of the car. It works fine, in my opinion. But there was a section under the car that was disconnected.


Here is what I got. If someone could check over and if you see anything you would bring to the judges attention that would be great.

http://imageshack.us/a/img407/6820/revenueticket.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img221/6739/discoveryrequest.jpg


Look at the Exhaust citation the law is on of self-incrimination sort of deal and then the description is "Exhaust in working order" So I can say why are you fining me for a working exhaust right? Also my Tail lamps were not defective. So that is untrue. The fuse was fixed within the hour.

Anyway yeah, is the discovery number look like the right one? And what would you say.

Thanks.

The fact that your "running lights" were on does NOT mean that your brake lights were working. Are you saying that your brake lights WERE working at the time of the stop, and the officer made it up?

Also, the code section cited requires that you possess an exhaust in working order. You admitted that it was disconnected, hence the logical conclusion is that it was not in working order.

From the Puyallup municipal code:

10.58.030 Exhaust system and muffler in good working order required.
Every motor vehicle operated upon the public highways shall at all times be equipped with an exhaust system and a muffler in good working order and constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise. (Ord. 1937 § 2(2), 1982).

You can try to prove that the failure of the exhaust being connected somehow still allows it to work properly, but I suspect that will be a tough claim to make.

I would not EVEN try to play the semantic game with regards to how the narrative of the offense was written. The court won't play that game, and what will concern them is the code section, not the shorthand pre-formatted into the officer's computerized cite machine.

At the time he pulled you over those violations had occurred. If your brake lights did not becomes brighter when you stepped on the brake then they were faulty and contrary to your belief a disconnected muffler does affect how it functions as it isn't working. You may think it works fine but reason they have that law is to make sure you don't gas yourself. Ticket does look pricey thou but seeing as your 19 i'm sure the fines will pale compared to your insurance cost increase. You should just plead guilty you have very little chance of winning any arguement on that ticket.

I don't see why my insurance would go up. Isn't this a case of equipment malfunctions.

I'm saying the tail lights did work. A fuse was blown an this kept them from brake illuminating. It could have happened to anyone not to mention I fexed it promptly.

The exhaust goes beyond the rear axle and disconnected from the stock muffler because I'm trying out a new kind.

I don't feel pleading guilty is the best option.

Is there an option to say the problems were in accurate/ corrected?

Also is the discovery number correct?

You managed to miss all my questions. I'm homeless I gave the officer an address to a friends house. I really can't afford it.

- - - Updated - - -

In addition. I've heard weaker arguments to successfully dismiss a speeding ticket.

Does anyone have some positive comments arguments to add?

Quote:

---

Quoting Toaster

---

I don't see why my insurance would go up. Isn't this a case of equipment malfunctions.

---

That's a question you might have to ask your insurance company.

Quote:

---

I'm saying the tail lights did work. A fuse was blown an this kept them from brake illuminating. It could have happened to anyone not to mention I fexed it promptly.

---

Here is the section:

RCW 46.37.050
Tail lamps.

(1) After January 1, 1964, every motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, and pole trailer, and any other vehicle which is being drawn at the end of a combination of vehicles, shall be equipped with at least two tail lamps mounted on the rear, which, when lighted as required in RCW 46.37.020, shall emit a red light plainly visible from a distance of one thousand feet to the rear, except that passenger cars manufactured or assembled prior to January 1, 1939, shall have at least one tail lamp. On a combination of vehicles only the tail lamps on the rearmost vehicle need actually be seen from the distance specified. On vehicles equipped with more than one tail lamp, the lamps shall be mounted on the same level and as widely spaced laterally as practicable.

(2) Every tail lamp upon every vehicle shall be located at a height of not more than seventy-two inches nor less than fifteen inches.

(3) Either a tail lamp or a separate lamp shall be so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate and render it clearly legible from a distance of fifty feet to the rear. Any tail lamp or tail lamps, together with any separate lamp or lamps for illuminating the rear registration plate, shall be so wired as to be lighted whenever the head lamps or auxiliary driving lamps are lighted.

So, if the officer testifies that your lights were functioning but your brake light was not, you MIGHT get a pass on this one ... if that is how the state interprets this section not to include the brake lights.

Quote:

---

The exhaust goes beyond the rear axle and disconnected from the stock muffler because I'm trying out a new kind.

---

Then you might want to consider paying a mechanic to examine the configuration you had and attending court to testify on your behalf as to the function of the system and the fact that it met the legal requirements of the Washington code.

And if you cannot afford a fine, how are you able to afford a new type of muffler or exhaust system?

I will teach you one other mistake you are going to make before you make it. It will save you 8 times the cost of your tickets. That engine will be good for about 10 serious passes down the track before requiring a complete overhaul.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

So, if the officer testifies that your lights were functioning but your brake light was not, you MIGHT get a pass on this one ... if that is how the state interprets this section not to include the brake lights.

So I should just explain to them it was a fuse and that the tail lights were functional?

Do I need to subpoena the officer?


Then you might want to consider paying a mechanic to examine the configuration you had and attending court to testify on your behalf as to the function of the system and the fact that it met the legal requirements of the Washington code.

Why must I pay a mechanic? I am a mechanic, I've built multiple cars and work on them as a job from time to time. Why would his word be valued over mine?

And if you cannot afford a fine, how are you able to afford a new type of muffler or exhaust system?

I don't. I have parts lying around and I cut them with a saw and weld them together. It costs me $0.00

---

Can someone verify the discovery number please before I take it in, then I will post the results.


Thanks All.

The problem with do-it-yourself vehicle maintenance projects is that they tend to lack credibility as your position will be considered biased. And while I do not know the status of the law in WA, in my state the parts you use on your exhaust have to meet certain specifications. I doubt that your homemade device has been inspected or certified as meeting any state standards ... if they exist.

But, nothing prevents you from making your arguments to the court and letting the court decide whether they are sufficient.

Why can't you answer my question I asked 3 times.

You're telling me obvious things I could've figured out on my own rather than helping me with the questions I am asking. And telling me what you assume the court will think of my word.

Last time I was here I was greeted by extremely helpful people such as Barry and Speedy Gonzalez. So far I've just got an opinion to give up and someone telling me that my word as the defendant isn't sufficient.

Obviously my words will be biased. That's because theyre my words, and so would any other mechanic I
paid to inspect it.

I'm asking about the number on the discovery paper.

What number? The case number? How should we know? The statute you cite in your request?

Maybe if you put your STATE in the title of your thread, the WA folks could see it to help out. They don't have time to read every thread to see if it involves their area of expertise.

Lose the attitude. You actually asked several questions in your thread, some of which were answered. The one you really want the answer to looks like it was just thrown in as an afterthought.

I'll be nice and see if I can point the WA folks your way.