Officer asked to look under the hood, is this a "search"

[zulutango]

Yes.
Look at the postings above that quoted sections from the Act & Regs. I'm not going to go thru all that again. And you are filing a complaint because he legally inspected a defective vehicle?

Hey life....here's PK EK...he should be out looking for you

[PK-EK]

219 (1) A person must not drive or operate a motor vehicle or trailer on a highway or rent a motor vehicle or trailer unless it is equipped in all respects in compliance with this Act and the regulations.

(2) A peace officer

(a) may require a person who carries on the business of renting vehicles or who is the owner or person in charge of a vehicle

(i) to allow the peace officer to inspect a vehicle offered by the person for rental or owned by or in charge of the person, or

(ii) to move a vehicle described in subparagraph (i) to a place designated by the peace officer and to allow the vehicle to be inspected there by the peace officer, or, at the expense of the person required, to present the vehicle for inspection by a person authorized under section 217, and

so yes, i did have to allow him to check my car
but the fact that he told me to open my hood and not ask
and when i asked him if it was a search, he said no, and I had to open it for him

convo went something like this:
Please open your hood.
Is this a search? I'm not going to allow you to search my car.
No this is not a search, i'm checking your car, you have to open it for me
*then i open it for him*
did he violate my rights? LOL

[PK-EK]

Originally Posted by zulutango

Yes.
Look at the postings above that quoted sections from the Act & Regs. I'm not going to go thru all that again. And you are filing a complaint because he legally inspected a defective vehicle?

Hey life....here's PK EK...he should be out looking for you

your right, i should just let it go and pay up....
thanks for all your help
i'll know next time. AHAHAHAH


BTW i still need my answer on if he is allowed to make me go to Acura for a VI

unless i missed it

[wing_woo]

I believe the only way he can force you to go to Acura for VI is if he's the one personally going there to inspect your car.
The way that section of the MVA is written has some interpreting it as they can tell you where to go which causes the confusion.

[zulutango]

In my personal opinion, that of many Traffic Members with whom I've worked in the RCMP and Muni Forces and that of a legal consultant with whom I sought a private legal opinion...yes the Police can...there are some others here on the website, on which we are all guests, who disagree with me. I have written specific garage locations due to improper inspections being deliberately done by dishonest inspectors, as have the Muni and other RCMP Members. When the vehicle plate was run after the inspection period had passed, they were no longer listed as requiring that inspection. I assume they passed. The few that I checked the paperwork on had gone to the specified location and a proper inspection had been done. When I requested a designated station I told the vehicle owner that I was doing this because of improper inspections being done at some locations. I did not get any kickback from the inspector, did not take my work or private vehicles there and any of the Cops I knew personally who did this, did the same to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety.

[Rich Sandor]

Your justification does not make it legal. If I were running a shop and I knew that the customer was ordered to perform a VI at my shop, I could charge any amount I wanted to and the customer would have no recourse. If the customer has had a bad experience at that dealership, and never wants to give them his business again, you are essentially FORCING them to go back there. The MVA is quite clear that the officer may specify a location so that he may inspect the vehicle there himself, OR he may send the vehicle to ANY certified shop for a VI at the cost of the owner. It does NOT say the officer may specify the shop.

If your legal counsel thought otherwise, they should take a closer look at the MVA and have a look at my comments. I have consulted with three lawyers, 2 of which were at one point transport canada legal counsel, so I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air. It doesn't matter what your intentions are, the law was written that way for a reason. It doesn't matter if you claim you are not getting kickbacks, or if you claim you have no connection to the shop. Your brother may work there. Your wife's friend's husband may work there. The potential for appearance of impropriety is actually endless. Don't do it, it's not worth it. You are better off to follow up with the vehicle owner after a few months and issue another VI and a VT if it's non-compliant again, until he gets tired of getting fined and VI'd.

[wnderinguy]

Originally Posted by Rich Sandor

If the customer has had a bad experience at that dealership, and never wants to give them his business again, you are essentially FORCING them to go back there.

That would definitely be a concern for me too ,since I had a huge issue with local (Nanaimo) Mazda Dealership when looking to buy, eventually buying from the Courtenay Dealership instead.

[falcon]

All of this could have been avoided by running a gutted cat.

[bui95]

Originally Posted by PK-EK

the only thing that i can do that i feel better about is not go to Acura for a VI
being an auto apprentice i know some ppl that can help me

oh, i see the real reason for this thread now. you dont want to go to acura for the vi because you "know" people who can do it for you since you're in the auto industry.

looks like the cop already knew what kind of shady person you are so that's why they specifically wanted you to go to acura.

[SumAznGuy]

Just out of curiosity, does Richmond Acura even do VI's?

I remember reading in another thread where the poster said he was given a Box 1 and told to take it to Richmond Acura and when he did, the mechanic there said they don't do vehicle inspections.

[Amaru]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Ignorance is no excuse for the law.

He's not making excuses though. I haven't seen him trying to argue that he doesn't deserve a VI. He's just asking whether the officer was justified in performing the search.

Originally Posted by taylor192

His question is in no means helpful or constructive to our hobby. I don't want to be pulled over more often cause the police decide to do a blitz due to too many guys like him playing dumb about their mods.

First of all, this is the "Police Forum," and very few threads are "constructive to our hobby". The rules certainly don't state that this is a requirement.

Secondly, his question is completely legitimate... "does the officer have a right to open the hood and inspect my car on the side of the road?" ... perfectly legit and in line with every other thread on this board.

Finally, why are you concerned? If you have nothing to hide from the police then you won't be pulled over or harassed.

Originally Posted by Soundy

I take it back then: you're not a dork, you're a complete tool.

Based on his latest posts, I'm starting to agree with you.

Originally Posted by zulutango

In my personal opinion, that of many Traffic Members with whom I've worked in the RCMP and Muni Forces and that of a legal consultant with whom I sought a private legal opinion...yes the Police can...there are some others here on the website, on which we are all guests, who disagree with me. I have written specific garage locations due to improper inspections being deliberately done by dishonest inspectors, as have the Muni and other RCMP Members. When the vehicle plate was run after the inspection period had passed, they were no longer listed as requiring that inspection. I assume they passed. The few that I checked the paperwork on had gone to the specified location and a proper inspection had been done. When I requested a designated station I told the vehicle owner that I was doing this because of improper inspections being done at some locations. I did not get any kickback from the inspector, did not take my work or private vehicles there and any of the Cops I knew personally who did this, did the same to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety.

Your intentions are sound, but they are not within the law. Your job is to give people vehicle inspections if you deem it necessary. The Ministry of Transportation and the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles is tasked with issuing and revoking inspection certificates to garages and auto shops. They are also responsible for enforcing the inspection standards. If you think a specific shop or garage has improperly passed a vehicle, pass on the info to the MVA... I would imagine they would be very receptive to advice from the police.

It's the same as liquor licenses. The LCLB decides who can sell booze, and a police officer can't shut down a beer and wine store simply because they encountered a minor whose booze was originally purchased from that store.

I imagine this type of situation is extremely frustrating for police, and I sympathize. However, the law is written in a certain way to ensure fairness and to prevent abuse of power. We live in a free and just nation, and limitations to the rights and powers of peace officers are part and parcel of that.

(I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I majored in political science and I have a special interest in corruption and coercion... and from my learnings, this is the type of legal fine print that makes Canada one of the least corrupt nations in the world. It prevents bribery and imposes a necessary limitation on the powers of law enforcement.)

[Soundy]

^Dammit, really need a THANKS button in here...

[zulutango]

"If you think a specific shop or garage has improperly passed a vehicle, pass on the info to the MVA... I would imagine they would be very receptive to advice from the police."

I don't know if "very receptive" is the phrase. I repeatedly passed along information concerning defective inspections being done, including copies of the VI paperwork. I went to the inspection stations and pulled copies of the reports from their files and spoke to the inspectors who had signed them off. As to why a car with limo tint on both front windows had passed when coming in from Alberta..."it was in summer so the windows must have been down"...actually it was in Dcember and how did you check to see if the window winders worked? The service manager and the parts manager of that patricular dealer (one of the largest on the Island), drove vehicles that did not meet the act. Their reponse was to lay a complaint against another Member when they got a tinted window ticket. I reported them every time I drove past the lot and saw defective vehicles and every time I stopped someone driving a vehicle that was defective and had been sold by them. They had a used vehicle special where they offered to tint your windows as part of as special deal...what they did was sell you the vehicle with no tint, take it to the tinters & get it tinted, then call you to come and pick it up at the dealership. The regs prohibit offering for sale or delivering a defective vehicle over to the customer so they were still breaking the law. I also reported this but no charges were ever laid and they still inspect vehicles.

I would issue a VI, the driver would go there and the car would be passed, I would see it again and the same illegal mods were present. I would check the inspection sheets at the dealership and the existing defects would not show on the sheet. I do not believe that every vehicle was restored to stock, passed the inspection and put back to illegal status again. How often can you remove a complete hydraulic suspension system, replace with stock for an inspection, and reinstall it again? Nothing was ever done and they are still doing the same thing today. Another dealership in centeral Island would reinstall your illegal tint up to three times when you got caught by the Cops and a VI was issued. They would remove the tint, inspect and then reinstall it. Not one single station or inspector was ever fined or closed. I was told that it was basically too much trouble to go through all the paperwork on their side, took years to accomplish and there was no political will to do so. The Cops from other Police depeartments had similar experiences and that is why they also specified certain stations under circumstances where they found defective inspections had been done.

[Soundy]

An ancient truism about a right and two wrongs comes to mind....

Just because someone else isn't playing by the rules, doesn't necessarily make it right for a cop to "bend" the rules to "address" that problem.

I don't see where this would be substantially different than a cop, say, planting a brick of coke on an otherwise-untouchable drug pusher - you KNOW he's guilty, yet he's always managed to escape justice... doesn't mean it's okay for you to skirt the law you're supposed to uphold, even if it does finally land the guy some hard time.

Oh yeah, I remember how it goes: Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left, and two Wrights made an airplane.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

looks like you got owned.... real bad

[Amaru]

Originally Posted by zulutango

"If you think a specific shop or garage has improperly passed a vehicle, pass on the info to the MVA... I would imagine they would be very receptive to advice from the police."

I don't know if "very receptive" is the phrase. I repeatedly passed along information concerning defective inspections being done, including copies of the VI paperwork. I went to the inspection stations and pulled copies of the reports from their files and spoke to the inspectors who had signed them off. As to why a car with limo tint on both front windows had passed when coming in from Alberta..."it was in summer so the windows must have been down"...actually it was in Dcember and how did you check to see if the window winders worked? The service manager and the parts manager of that patricular dealer (one of the largest on the Island), drove vehicles that did not meet the act. Their reponse was to lay a complaint against another Member when they got a tinted window ticket. I reported them every time I drove past the lot and saw defective vehicles and every time I stopped someone driving a vehicle that was defective and had been sold by them. They had a used vehicle special where they offered to tint your windows as part of as special deal...what they did was sell you the vehicle with no tint, take it to the tinters & get it tinted, then call you to come and pick it up at the dealership. The regs prohibit offering for sale or delivering a defective vehicle over to the customer so they were still breaking the law. I also reported this but no charges were ever laid and they still inspect vehicles.

I would issue a VI, the driver would go there and the car would be passed, I would see it again and the same illegal mods were present. I would check the inspection sheets at the dealership and the existing defects would not show on the sheet. I do not believe that every vehicle was restored to stock, passed the inspection and put back to illegal status again. How often can you remove a complete hydraulic suspension system, replace with stock for an inspection, and reinstall it again? Nothing was ever done and they are still doing the same thing today. Another dealership in centeral Island would reinstall your illegal tint up to three times when you got caught by the Cops and a VI was issued. They would remove the tint, inspect and then reinstall it. Not one single station or inspector was ever fined or closed. I was told that it was basically too much trouble to go through all the paperwork on their side, took years to accomplish and there was no political will to do so. The Cops from other Police depeartments had similar experiences and that is why they also specified certain stations under circumstances where they found defective inspections had been done.

Yes, that sounds like a massive pain in the ass. I can understand how frustrating that kind of red tape bullshit can be when you're just trying to do your job and punish repeat offenders.

Nonetheless, however ineffective and frustrating they may be, we have procedures in place to modify laws or alter responsibilities. I'm sure there are plenty of laws that you do not agree with personally but continue to enforce anyway... this is a similar situation. Your "boss" (aka the taxpayers, who fund your salary and that of every other public servant) does not find this to be a priority and thus we have to make due with the laws that are in place.

I agree with Soundy and his Wright brothers explanation. Two wrongs don't make a right, and in situations like that it might be best just to ensure that your actions are in line with the law and hope that others will do the same.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Amaru

I agree with Soundy and his Wright brothers explanation. Two wrongs don't make a right, and in situations like that it might be best just to ensure that your actions are in line with the law and hope that others will do the same.

Originally Posted by Soundy

I don't see where this would be substantially different than a cop, say, planting a brick of coke on an otherwise-untouchable drug pusher - you KNOW he's guilty, yet he's always managed to escape justice... doesn't mean it's okay for you to skirt the law you're supposed to uphold, even if it does finally land the guy some hard time.

Originally Posted by zulutango

In my personal opinion, that of many Traffic Members with whom I've worked in the RCMP and Muni Forces and that of a legal consultant with whom I sought a private legal opinion...yes the Police can...

The drug pusher probably has a lawyer who'll tell him what he's doing is "in line with the law" as well... still doesn't make it right.

[sebberry]

I wonder if breaking the rules in the very same act a police officer is trying to enforce has anything to do with much of the resentment many people feel towards traffic officers.

[wnderinguy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I wonder if breaking the rules in the very same act a police officer is trying to enforce has anything to do with much of the resentment many people feel towards traffic officers.

Technically not breaking any rules,but he might as well be telling the person who is getting the VI to stand on one leg and cluck like a chicken,both are about as enforceable.

[SumAznGuy]

Maybe OP should file a police complaint against the police officer who issues him the VI to see if it is or isn't constitutional for the officer to write down which shop for the OP to take his car to.

[Soundy]

Well really though... what's going to happen if you take it to another shop and get it passed? Does the cop then have the power to unilaterally declare that inspection invalid? Sure he could be a dick and just write you up another one - "Hmmm, I think your tires are rubbing... here's a box 1, have a nice day."

[wnderinguy]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Well really though... what's going to happen if you take it to another shop and get it passed? Does the cop then have the power to unilaterally declare that inspection invalid? Sure he could be a dick and just write you up another one - "Hmmm, I think your tires are rubbing... here's a box 1, have a nice day."

I wonder what legit Inspection Facilities would think of people being "sent " to other facilities ,bypassing their opportunity to earn $$$.

[SumAznGuy]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Well really though... what's going to happen if you take it to another shop and get it passed? Does the cop then have the power to unilaterally declare that inspection invalid? Sure he could be a dick and just write you up another one - "Hmmm, I think your tires are rubbing... here's a box 1, have a nice day."

That's a very good question.

Zulu, care to answer this one? Would you go and stalk that person till you see him and then issue him another box 1 with a note of which inspection facility to go to?

[zulutango]

That is a hypothetical question as I don't know the full circumstances...only those as related by the OP. In general terms...I would not stalk the vehicle or go out of my way to find it, but if I did I would run the plates to see if the order was outstanding. If the vehicle had passed the inspection and there were no visible defects then I would have no reason to check it. If there were, then I would check it like any other vehicle with visible defects. IF it had defects and the driver produced an inspection form showing that it had passed...but the original defects remained unrepaired, I would do the following : Seize the inspection form as evidence, issue another VI and talk to the inpector who had signed off on it. I would ask him to explain how the vehicle had passed. If there was no satisfactory explanation then I would issue him a VT under the regs for performing a defective inspection and pass copies of all the paperwork on to MVB.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

That is a hypothetical question as I don't know the full circumstances...only those as related by the OP. In general terms...I would not stalk the vehicle or go out of my way to find it, but if I did I would run the plates to see if the order was outstanding. If the vehicle had passed the inspection and there were no visible defects then I would have no reason to check it. If there were, then I would check it like any other vehicle with visible defects. IF it had defects and the driver produced an inspection form showing that it had passed...but the original defects remained unrepaired, I would do the following : Seize the inspection form as evidence, issue another VI and talk to the inpector who had signed off on it. I would ask him to explain how the vehicle had passed. If there was no satisfactory explanation then I would issue him a VT under the regs for performing a defective inspection and pass copies of all the paperwork on to MVB.

Menawhile the person who you issued the second VI to is on the hook for paying for them both, and possibly risks getting the car towed if the cop is really pissed off by the situation.

I wonder if any of the shops that the officers recommend have ever botched an inspection?

You have to ask yourself, is all this really necessary for something that might be a minor flaw?