You don't need a search warrant to conduct a mechanical inspection of a motor vehicle. The Supt. of Motor Vehicles has designated Police as inspectors. This was an inspection, not a criminal code seizure. Permission is not required by an inspector at roadside. If you refuse then they have the authority to have it towed to a full Provincial inspection station and you pay for the tow and the inspection.

Do not bad mouth cops. I drive a modified car that is a blinking beacon for police to pull me over, and I have not once had a problem with an officer about the mods on my car despite being pulled over several times. I've even been let off for speeding, running a red light, and having no insurance papers.

Cops respond appropriately to attitude. The OP seems to have a chip on his shoulder and something to hide, and if that was the attitude he gave the cop, then it explains the tickets.

I've read this on a couple BC forums, yet cannot find the legislation online stating it. This would clear everything up. :thumbsup:

Interpretation and application
25.01 (1) In this Part:

"authorized person" means a person authorized by the director to inspect vehicles under section 217 of the Act

Inspections
217 (1) For the purposes of section 216, the director may

(a) authorize persons to inspect vehicles,

Equipment of motor vehicles
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

(b) must remove any inspection certificate of approval affixed to the vehicle if, in the opinion of the peace officer or a person authorized under section 217, the vehicle is unsafe for use on a highway.





Powers of peace officer
25.30 (1) If a peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a vehicle is, by reason of mechanical, structural or other defect, unsafe for use on a highway, whether or not the vehicle meets the standards prescribed under the Act, he or she may order the owner or operator of the vehicle, either immediately or within such time as is specified in the order, to do one or both of the following:

(a) remove it from the highway and keep it so removed until either

(i) repairs as may be set out in the order of the peace officer have been implemented, or

(ii) the peace officer revokes the order;

(b) surrender the vehicle licence or number plates, or both, for that vehicle to the corporation or to the peace officer


Notifications and orders
25.08 (1) Despite an inspection certificate being in force, the director or a peace officer may, on having reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a vehicle may not comply with the standards, notify the owner or operator of a vehicle to present it for inspection to a designated inspection facility within the period set out in the notification.

(2) The director or a peace officer may order the owner or operator of a vehicle, in respect of which no inspection certificate is in force, to surrender to either of them the vehicle licence or the number plates, or both, for that vehicle.

(3) The owner or operator must comply with a notification under subsection (1) and an order under subsection (2).

(4) After examining a vehicle presented to the designated inspection facility following a notification under subsection (1), an authorized person must revoke any unexpired certificate, issue an inspection report in the manner set out in section 25.13 and

(a) issue a new inspection certificate of approval under section 25.13 (2), or

(b) issue an interim inspection certificate under section 25.13 (3)

on being satisfied that the conditions for issuing those certificates have been met.

(5) A notification under subsection (1) may require the owner or operator to notify the director or peace officer of the result of the required inspec

Yes, it is. The point is, there's hardly a street-legal consumer car in the world that's built without a cat. The cop knows this... you apparently don't. Telling him you're "not sure" is just showing him that you're a :noob: :noob: :noob: :noob: :noob:

All that doesn't explicitly state the peace officer is allowed to search the vehicle for an inspection... unless I am interpreting it incorrectly.

Regardless, if i were you i'd just take the original cat shielding and put it around the test pipe, so visually it looks like you have one = WIN!

Arguing with this XtC-604 idiot is a waste of your time... he'll just insult your car next.

Karma's a bitch. Enjoy!

Trust me, I had the same thing happen to me, telling me go to a Certified Honda shop which I refused to.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._3209523_n.jpg

Only time you are required to go to an Acura or Honda Dealer is when there is a court order.

^ Buy PK's RSX! lol

Unless you're running an aftermarket steering wheel, I suggest putting back in the OEM...

But if you have an SRS light with the OEM steering wheel, better fix it, it's an instant no pass.

"allow the vehicle to be inspected there by the peace officer, "

An inspection is not a "search" in itself. You're not looking for dope in hidden compartments or the Bacon Bros hidden gun locker...you are looking for ground clearance, bald tyres or maybe even rusted frames or body parts...all pretty obvious. Things covered in the MV Act & Regs and the inspection manual.

And Peace officer is another name for Police officer.

thanks, I see it now:

Issuing a VI all relies on the initial assessment of non compliance; reasonable and probable grounds.

MVA s219 (1) would not apply until an vehicle has been determined non-compliant through observation or reasonable suspicion. Otherwise, an officer would be able to order VI's and tow car's willy nilly.

If an officer fails to establish reasonable and probable grounds before issuing a order, or doing an invasive inspection at roadside where he then finds non-compliance, then at trial, evidence discovered would be disregarded no?

If they observe, based on their experience, that a vehicle is to low, exhaust to big etc. then they have grounds. But they cannot force you to open your hood and conduct an invasive fishing expedition for problems and issue VI's when they find them (unless an external observation of the vehicle provides grounds).

If they tow you anyways and conduct a VI elsewhere and come up with something, without probable cause, again I don't believe it would be admissible.




In the OP's case, I believe it was justified by him being unsure, and the absence of an cat underneath (though I would argue, as authorized inspectors, the onus should be on the PO to be aware of particular vehicle's constructions)

Does a road side inspection allow the officer to search the interior of the car? Or just the engine bay.

That would depend on the issue. If you're running unsafe seats and belts, which would be visible through the windows, then that would be reasonable grounds to look through the interior.

What would have to be cleared up would be if the PO found anything criminal during an inspection, ie drugs, could the PO then charge you? or would it be inadmissible?

Yeah, let's not forget... there are always lawyers out there who will find ways that the police ignored your rights.

How criminals get the right to break the law is beyond me. The justice system in this country is seriously flawed.

There is a justice system in Canada?

Touché!

An officer decides to put that little check on one of the little boxes on the VI notice, you are screwed and have to go. VI's are something you cannot dispute or ignore.

All the officer needs is to "believe" the car in question doesn't meet some MVA requirement, they can issue the VI.

And if the VI finds the car in compliance with all MVA requirements, the owner cannot go after the police to cover the cost of the VI, towing, time lost. And even after the VI, an officer who "believes" the car is not in complaince can issue another VI. Hence why a lot of people stay away from Ditchmond.

I would imagine this would be inadmissible in court unless the police procured a search warrant. I remember reading about a case that was thrown out because the officers had found a large quantity of cocaine and seized it without having proper warrants.

Our justice system is not flawed. These types of shortcomings are inherent to any country that values freedom and the right to privacy. They are designed to prevent a "police state" atmosphere where abuse of power and improper incarceration are the norm.

There's a fine line that needs to be drawn between basic civil rights and a functioning judicial system. What we've got in place in Canada at the moment is as close as you'll get to this in any freedom-loving country. Most of the time, innocent people enjoy basic freedoms and police officers are still able to lock up criminals.

Sure, but there are a ton of shops that have been certified to perform VI inspections. I had mine done at a small family-run shop at Main and 6th. It took all of ten minutes and was not thorough at all.

Sure, I don't have any qualms with the first officer giving me a VI. I knew I was gambling by driving around with front window tint, and I didn't complain at all about the first VI.

However, when I'm given a VI by one officer and the ticket specifically says I have 30 days to have it performed... why would I be given another one a week later? The cop argued that 30 days was "too long" and I should have had it performed already. How is that fair?

Analogy:

Landlord, Apr 1: "Hey buddy, you're evicted. You've got 30 days to get out."

Landlord, Apr 8: "Hey buddy, I evicted you. Get out in the next 7 days."

Absolutely. Do a search on Google, you should find a list of things they'll check. It's pretty extensive. I've had friends fail for things like low tire tread and burnt out license plate bulb.

I don't condone doing this, but I know that an easy fix for the SRS light is to open up your gauge cluster and put a piece of electrical tape over the bulb.

giving a box 1 for no cat is ridiculous. that is for major immediate safety issues only.

canada has a legal system, not a justice system...