Originally Posted by JD¹³ (Post 8938050)

This is an easy win in traffic court. I had the same bullshit ticket issued while I was looking through my wallet at a stop light (to ensure I had my RPAL) and I was pulled over 100m later by IRSU posted down the road saying an officer at the intersection saw me with a phone in my hand. I specifically asked where the officer was standing and recorded the answer.

First, dispute the ticket. When you get a court date with all the info mail the officer / detachment with an evidence disclosure request. Sounds like at best you'll get a shitty hand written note like I did saying to the effect of "white Dodge Ram using electronic device". No photos, no description of the phone, nothing. In other words no evidence other than his word. Keep your 'verbatim' copy of the exchange and do not lose it.

In your case he has already admitted to not seeing you on your phone and has issued you a COMPLETELY SPECULATIVE INFRACTION. After my officer tried to tell the judge he saw me using my phone (I took my wallet from my centre console, looked through it for 5 seconds, put it back) I told the judge I'm not calling the officer a liar, simply that he is mistaken. I explained what I was doing with my wallet. I then asked the officer who was standing at the intersection (both he and the issuer had to show up) if he was in fact standing at position X, which he confirmed. I then calmly proved the officer was a liar by telling the judge the officer was standing in front of me to the right as I was the third vehicle from the intersection and that it was physically impossible for him to see through the front of my vehicle/dash, let alone see in to my lap as my 3" lifted offroad edition truck brings the bottom of my passenger windows up to about 5'7" off the ground. I said the officer has zero evidence of this infraction and issued me a completely speculative ticket simply because I was looking down momentarily.

Judge tossed it without hearing another word from the officer. If yours comes back with him simply saying he saw it: I would tell the judge that you've provided a logical explanation for what the officer saw, that the officer admitted to not actually seeing an electronic device in your hand at the time, that at the distance he was it was unlikely he could tell what was in your hand anyway, and that he has no actual evidence of the infraction whatsoever.

Originally Posted by karchun (Post 8961147)

1. "Unnecessary noise"
2. Not in compliance with MRD 7, probably the aftermarket exhaust
3. Non OEM front reflectors

Just an aftermarket exhuast with an OTS tune.

My point is I was in comfort mode(sport mode would have more pronounced burbles) so my burbles were faint at best. He pulls me over from probably 2 cars back after I made that left turn. I feel like that shouldn't warrant a stop. He did a decibel test on my exhaust and clocked me at 93 decibels. But he got me to do the exterior vehicle light checks and the last check were my reserve lights so my backup camera was still on. He put the mic/tripod device so close to my exhaust tips, is that even fair?

Just feel a bit victimized after reading some of these posts about this officer

Originally Posted by GS8 (Post 8961244)

https://images.craigslist.org/00U0U_...Z_1200x900.jpg

https://vancouver.craigslist.org/rds...988658311.html

It amazes me that a place of business can sell vehicles like this which are clearly worthy of a VI

Originally Posted by karchun (Post 8961147)

3. Non OEM front reflectors

Originally Posted by karchun (Post 8961259)

My reflectors are body color to match the car.

Originally Posted by karchun (Post 8961295)

Originally Posted by yray (Post 8961331)

are reflectors required?

Originally Posted by GS8 (Post 8961244)

It amazes me that a place of business can sell vehicles like this which are clearly worthy of a VI

Originally Posted by coneZONE (Post 8961252)

Stuff like this just pisses me off, really. As little as it is... When they/HE cites somethjng that doesn't even exist.
It's either:
1. There are side reflectors or not;
2. The reflectors are amber or not;
3. It contains necessary SAE/DOT/JIS/E-code markings or not

Because the MVAR and inspection manual does not specify OE.
As an Authorized Inspector, those are the only things I can pick at. What gives him the right to cite false or incorrectly?

Originally Posted by karchun (Post 8961295)

Originally Posted by SpeedStars (Post 8961298)

The non oem reflector violation seems valid in your case...I mean there's no physical reflector... Hopefully you can pass your VI after just swapping them.