• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

State Referee Citation in California (VC 27156(b))

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

bbar

Junior Member
What is the name of your State? California.

I was cited for Modified Emissions under VC 27156(b) (here's a link: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27156.htm) and I was wondering if there are any ways, at all, to contest something like this. Otherwise, I will have to take my car to the State Referee to be inspected.

On my citation the officer wrote down the wrong city. I have heard rumors of people getting out of traffic tickets because the officer failed to fill out the citation correctly. Is this true in California and would a judge see this as reasonable defense? In the officer's defense though, there are two other nearby cities where this incident happened and I could see how he would be likely to write down the wrong city. But he did, in fact, write down the wrong city. Anyway, any help would be appreciated.

Thanks a lot.
 


bbar

Junior Member
Curt581,

What makes you think writing down the wrong city on a citation suddenly makes your car's emissions equipment legal?
First off, let me take the time to thank you for the very insightful response. I do not believe, nor did I ever claim that since the officer wrote down the wrong city on my citation, my car is now magically emissions legal. The fact is, the U.S. court system follows procedures. Moreover, sometimes when procedures are not followed, convictions are reversed, fines must be dropped (or lowered), cases are dismissed, etc… Consider as an example the case Kyllo v. United States. Kyllo was (illegally) growing marijuana in his home and was therefore charged accordingly. However, since a warrant was obtained illegally to search his house (they “searched” his house before they got a search warrant, as it turned out) all charges had to be dropped. This is one of thousands of cases in which we see defendants acting in an illegal manner, but due to procedural errors, they get off. That doesn’t mean (and this is what your logic would suggest): since Kyllo’s warrant was obtained illegally, he wasn’t doing anything illegal. Here’s a link: http://sol.lp.findlaw.com/2000/kyllo.html. Have fun.

A better idea would be to return your vehicle's equipment to it's legal factory set-up, then get it properly inspected. Otherwise, you'll just continue to get tickets.
Again, very insightful. Thank you so much. So from this comment I can take away that I can return my vehicle to a factory setup, and therefore pass a state referee inspection. If you have any specific examples, or anything, at all, that will help me NOT have to go to the state referee, please post in this thread. Also, if you have any examples, or ideas, of how to contest a citation like this, please post in this thread. Otherwise, if you insist on sending me garbage, please email me at [email protected] so we can keep this thread clean incase someone else has a question of this nature.
 

bbar

Junior Member
:rolleyes:

Guess you told me what's what, huh?

My apologies. Why don't you tell me what it is you'd like to hear? That your half-baked loophole is correct?

Okay, then. Yes. The judge will automatically dismiss the ticket, based on the officer writing down the incorrect information.

Happy now?
Oh come on. Instead of posting a simple “No, that defense will not work because…,” or “A way to contest something like that would be to…,” you post something completely incoherent like, “Why do you think you car is emissions legal just because the officer wrote the wrong city on the citation?”

Thank you for taking the time to answer one of my questions. Seriously. It seems ridiculous to me that a ticket could be dismissed because an officer made a mistake in filling out the citation, but I have heard of people getting out of worse, for less. That’s why I started this thread – because I don’t know the answer.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
bbar said:
I was wondering if there are any ways, at all, to contest something like this.
You can always try ... but first, you need to come up wit ha lawful defense.

On my citation the officer wrote down the wrong city. I have heard rumors of people getting out of traffic tickets because the officer failed to fill out the citation correctly. Is this true in California and would a judge see this as reasonable defense?
The issue is not so much the city, but the county in which the violation occurred. If you were stopped in San Francisco but the officer for some reason wrote that you were stopped in Santa Barbara, this could be embarassing and might lead to a dismissal if the jurisdiction of the violation could not be established. If the city listed is in the same county that the violation occurred, the issue is moot as the jurisdiction of the court will be the same.

- Carl
 

bbar

Junior Member
Thanks for the response Carl; what you said makes sense. Unfortunately for me all three cities are in Los Angeles County. Thanks again.
 

The Occultist

Senior Member
Just for fun, let's think about it this way: if you show up to court and somehow magically get it dismissed for those reasons, then all they have to do is follow you to your car, or go to your home (since they know where you live) and fill out a new citation, with all the correct information on it.
Also, don't try claiming double jeopardy. The first citation was for being unlawful at that time and place, and the new citation is for a different time/place, therefore, a different crime.

If you make your car compliant before your trial and supply proof of such to the judge, the judge very well might reduce your fines, if not dismiss the ticket. Can't promise either:D
 

redat9

Junior Member
Wow... No one wants to help the guy... Nice FREE ADVICE .. this place should be called (Good Advice)

I was reading through the Vehicle Code, I havent found anything yet, but there has to be a way, I will keep looking and if you see anything let me know

Here it is

VC 27156 Uncertified Vehicles and Devices



PROHIBITION AGAINST UNCERTIFIED VEHICLES AND DEVICES

27156. (a) No person shall operate or leave

standing upon any highway any motor vehicle which is a gross
polluter, as defined in Section 39032.5 of the Health and Safety
Code.
(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.
(c) No person shall install, sell, offer for sale,
or advertise any device, apparatus, or Mechanism intended for use
with, or as a part of, any required motor vehicle pollution

control device or system which alters or modifies the original
design or performance of any such motor vehicle pollution control
device or system.
(d) If the court finds that a person has willfully

violated this section, the court shall impose the maximum fine
that may be imposed in the case, and no part of the fine may be
suspended.
(e) "Willfully," as used in this section, has the

same meaning as the meaning of that word prescribed in Section 7
of the Penal Code.
(f) No person shall operate a vehicle after notice
by a traffic officer that the vehicle is not equipped with the

required certified motor vehicle pollution control device
correctly installed in operating condition, except as may be
necessary to return the vehicle to the residence or place of

business of the owner or driver or to a garage, until the vehicle
has been properly equipped with such a device.
(g) The notice to appear issued or complaint filed
for a violation of this section shall require that the person to

whom the notice to appear is issued or against whom the complaint
is filed produce proof of correction pursuant to Section 40150 or
proof of exemption pursuant to Section 4000.1 or 4000.2
.
(h) This section shall not apply to an alteration,
modification, or modifying device, apparatus, or mechanism found
by resolution of the State Air Resources Board to do either of the

following:
(1) Not to reduce the effectiveness of any required
motor vehicle pollution control device.
(2) To result in emissions from any such modified

or altered vehicle which are at levels which comply with existing
state or federal standards for that model year of the vehicle
being modified or converted.
(i) This section applies to motor vehicles of the

United States or its agencies, to the extent authorized by federal
law.
(Amended by Stats. 1994, Ch. 27, Sec. 62.)

References at the time of publication (see page iii):


Regulations: 13, CCR, sections 1900, 1903, 2030, 2031, 2151,
2152, 2200-2207, 2221, 2222, 2225

27156.1. The installation, prior to January 1,

1974, of an auxiliary gasoline fuel tank for use on a 1973 or
earlier model year motor vehicle, which vehicle is required,
pursuant to Part 5 (commencing with Section 43000) of Division 26

of the Health and Safety Code or the National Emission Standards
Act (42 U.S.C., Secs. 1857f-1 to 1857f-7, inclusive), to be
equipped with a fuel system evaporative loss control device, shall

not be deemed a violation of Section 27156 of this code. As used
in this section, the term "auxiliary gasoline fuel tank," has the
same meaning as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 43834 of the

Health and Safety Code.
(Amended by Stats. 1975, Ch. 957.)

27156.2. Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any publicly owned authorized emergency vehicle operated by a

peace officer, as defined in Section 830 of the Penal Code, any
authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165 and used
for fighting fires or responding to emergency fire calls pursuant

to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) or pursuant to subdivision (c)
or (d) of that section, and any publicly owned authorized
emergency vehicle used by an emergency medical technician-

paramedic, as defined in Section 1797.84 of the Health and Safety
Code, is exempt from requirements imposed pursuant to California
law and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto for motor vehicle

pollution control devices.
(Added by Stats. 1981, Ch. 595, Sec. 1.)

27156.3. Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any motor vehicle of mosquito abatement, vector control, or

pest abatement districts or agencies, any authorized emergency
vehicle as defined in Section 165, except subdivision (f) thereof,
and any ambulance used by a private entity under contract with a

public agency, is exempt from requirements imposed pursuant to
California law and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto for
motor vehicle pollution control devices.
(Added by renumbering Section
27156.2 (as added by
Stats. 1981, Ch. 669) by Stats. 1982, Ch. 466, Sec. 116.)
 

The Occultist

Senior Member
Wow... No one wants to help the guy... Nice FREE ADVICE .. this place should be called (Good Advice)
Help this guy do what, exactly? His car was not up to code, which is legally required, and he got caught. You're suggesting that the right thing to do is to let this guy get away with breaking the law due to a clerical error. Everybody has provided input. The OP can do with it what he wants.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
redat9 said:
Wow... No one wants to help the guy... Nice FREE ADVICE ..
He asked for defense to the charge ... we don't know that he has one. If the engine is put on the little machine to test it and it fails, then it fails. It's pretty simple ... it's like being pregnant - you are, or you're not.

- Carl
 

bbar

Junior Member
redat9,

If I figure anything out, I'll post it in this thread. I'm going to try to get some stuff sorted out by next week. Thanks for your response.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top