Utah and Mud Flaps - Page 3

Zeta · 08-04-2010, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellularSTEVE

So if you are just passing through and your vehicle is registered in a different state you have to comply? This makes no sense to me. If you register the vehicle in Utah, I can understand that.

So if you are from a state that does not issue a front license plate, and you come to CA, the CHP can ticket you? I don't think so.

steve

You're missing the point: they pull you over for "violations" like this to stick their snouts inside to see if there is anything illegal going on. The UHP in Southern Utah exacts enormous publicity for catching drug/immigrant transporters. How many innocent travelers are pulled over to achieve this impressive record would be shocking.

BTW, don't record your encounters with these guys if you know what's good for you: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... fpo-direct

Z

RustyBadger · 08-04-2010, 11:15 PM

I'm not a lawyer, but… when it comes to law enforcement, a crack is a good as a canyon. "Probable cause" is the crack to pull you over, and most of us know that doesn't take much. All states have statutory provisions for vehicle safety, and unless specifically stated as "exempt," out of state vehicles are subject to those safety requirements. It just makes sense that safety requirements would not have blanket exemptions.

Enforcement, or lack thereof, is another matter. Smaller items may go "unnoticed," but 10,000lb whales rolling in on 35" tires and sprouting the latest off-road bling SCREAM notice me to John E. Law - especially outta-towners.

Here is a little something from Utah statutes (41-6a-1630. Standards applicable to vehicles.) that cover the items mentioned in this thread:

"(2) (a) In doubtful or unusual cases, or to meet specific industrial requirements, personnel of the Utah Highway Patrol shall inspect the vehicle to determine:
**** (i) the road worthiness and safe condition of the vehicle; and
**** (ii) whether it complies with Sections 41-6a-1629 through 41-6a-1633."

I suspect that the "personnel of the Utah Highway Patrol shall inspect the vehicle" is all the harpoon necessary to take down the unsuspecting whale.

Again, I'm not a lawyer. --- The Rusty Badger

SteveInLA · 08-09-2010, 01:57 PM

I am still thinking about removable mud flaps and today found this: http://www.central4wd.com/inventorydeta ... der|103036

Does anyone have any experience with this product on Sportsmobiles?

Steve in L.A.

dowgars · 08-09-2010, 02:57 PM

Steve: I go through Utah during hunting season and have even been warned about my tinted windows (on a Yukon) by UHP. I'm glad this mud flap discussion came up as I'm about to start this season with the SMB. I just ordered the hitch mounted removables previously mentioned from Autoanything. I agree they arn't too good looking but I didn't want to add any screw holes to my van. Also the space between the tire and the exhaust pipe doesn't look adequate.

TwoVans · 08-09-2010, 06:31 PM

This thread got me thinking about some removable mud flaps that Teraflex makes for Jeeps. I suspect they may work for us as well. Here's a link to a picture:

http://www.4wdandsportutility.com/tech/ ... to_08.html

**BroncoHauler** · 08-09-2010, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jessenej

This thread got me thinking about some removable mud flaps that Teraflex makes for Jeeps. I suspect they may work for us as well. Here's a link to a picture:

http://www.4wdandsportutility.com/tech/ ... to_08.html

Believe those are the same ones as Steve in LA posted.

Had some on my FJ60 that used a piano style hinge with a removable center pin, that would allow them to be removed for off roading. But then you still have the problem of where to mount the permanent portion of the mount. I do like the ones you guys have posted.

Herb

TwinStick · 08-09-2010, 07:57 PM

This whole law enforcement thing scares me to death. Sooo they can videotape us during a traffic stop, but we can not videotape them ? Hmmmm, this just breeds unjust deeds BY law enforcement. Do as I say, not as I do ? Sounds more & more like an oppressed society to me. Another 20 years of this crap & I wont even want to live in the USA at all. Did you know some states laws say that you can not alter the manufacturers bumper heights of frame heights at all, 0, non, notta, zip ?

http://www.liftlaws.com/

EMrider · 08-09-2010, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinStick

This whole law enforcement thing scares me to death. Sooo they can videotape us during a traffic stop, but we can not videotape them ? Hmmmm, this just breeds unjust deeds BY law enforcement. Do as I say, not as I do ? Sounds more & more like an oppressed society to me. Another 20 years of this crap & I wont even want to live in the USA at all. Did you know some states laws say that you can not alter the manufacturers bumper heights of frame heights at all, 0, non, notta, zip ?

http://www.liftlaws.com/

The law is quite clear and has been tested in court. You can video an LEO while on duty because they are public servants and on duty LEOs do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

What is debatable, however, is whether or not you can then post your video on youtube for the world to see. Not sure if there is clear case law here.

That said, there are your rights and then there is your ability and willingness to defend your rights. Just because something is legal does not mean some hack DA won't try and drum up a charge against you. The DA frequently brings bogus charges against people because they know the person being charged will get scared and fold rather than fight in court. Fear is one of their basic and most effective legal strategies. In many cases, they need this leverage. But occasionally, as seems to be the case with this guy on a motorbike, they abuse this power in hope of getting the case against the LEO dropped.
R

**BroncoHauler** · 08-09-2010, 10:35 PM

From what I heard, not necessarily from an authoritative source, is that the issue with the motorcyclist who posted the video is that it included an audio recording. I can't for the life of me understand why that would make a difference, but that's what I heard. I feel sorry for that guy, but I think he has tremendous leverage in what I would hope to be a rock sold civil case against the cop and the law enforcement agency he works for. That cop is lucky the guy was on a motorcycle, and not driving a car and carrying a weapon. Somebody starts forcing me to the side of the road and waving a weapon (without identifying themselves as a law enforcement officer), I'm assuming the worst and will take that driver and his vehicle out with my own vehicle if necessary.

So, how about them mudflaps?

Herb

spomo1 · 08-09-2010, 11:05 PM

The legal justification for arresting the "Video shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized. - Gizmod