"Defective Exhaust" ticket...

[Wschnitz]

Wait someone actually cares?

[george graves]

5-toes, you missed the point completely.

[delamaize]

5-toes, you missed the point completely.

You act surprised, I get the impression that Toes misses the point a lot.

[thenewguy]

In the state of washington, you are not guilty until proven. If there is no evidence, it is assumed not done. So yeah, the court would have to provide evidence of your exhaust being modified. But I'm sure none was given.

[hoveringuy]

In the state of washington, you are not guilty until proven. If there is no evidence, it is assumed not done. So yeah, the court would have to provide evidence of your exhaust being modified. But I'm sure none was given.

At my last contested hearing in the Fall the judge took pains in explaining that the standards of evidence for traffic court are not the same as criminal court. He explained that for him it was not "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", but "preponderance of evidence".

He considers the written deposition of the Trooper/Officer against the sworn testimony of the defendant and then decides if the scales are tipped more towards guilty or innocent. That's it.

If you're trying to argue your way out of a speeding ticket you need to have a compelling argument because the equipment is considered accurate. For a defective exhaust I think it's a lot more loosey-goosey.

All I will say is that it's unreasonable for the Trooper to determine the soundness of my exhaust (pardon the pun..) when I'm driving next to a jersey barrier which amplifies the sound.

[Rennsport]

Does it really matter? Your car is at least 25 years old, making it exempt from this law. Sure the trooper should of known the law and shouldn't of written the infraction. The judge will dismiss the ticket if you read him the law. Honestly, I would contest it by mail, not even worth the time to go into court.

[hoveringuy]

The reason to go to court is that I can't see the officers sworn statement until I do. He may have made a case against the "unreasonably loud" part of the statute that I may need to argue against it.

[DrJosh]

"This subsection (3) does not apply to vehicles twenty-five or more years old"

That's it. But seriously it does sound like your exhaust is probably loud. Magnaflow is not known to make anything quiet.

[nando]

there are so many lifted diesel trucks around here with rich switches and no mufflers, I'm surprised he even noticed you. must have been bored.

I blip my throttle for every downshift.. if I had to worry about doing it in front of cops I'd have a lot of tickets by now! my wife always complains that she can hear my E30 coming from a mile away too. lol

[hoveringuy]

"This subsection (3) does not apply to vehicles twenty-five or more years old"

That's it. But seriously it does sound like your exhaust is probably loud. Magnaflow is not known to make anything quiet.

That's it, except for (1):

(1) Every motor vehicle shall at all times be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise, and no person shall use a muffler cut-out, bypass, or similar device upon a motor vehicle on a highway

All vehicles, no matter the age, can't have excessive or unusual noise. Not modifying an OEM exhaust only applies if the car is less than 25 years old.

[iansane]

The reason to go to court is that I can't see the officers sworn statement until I do. He may have made a case against the "unreasonably loud" part of the statute that I may need to argue against it.

Request discovery.

[AustinK425]

Yes! Good news. Just got one of these tickets as well. Here I come court.

[hoveringuy]

Ticket dismissed.

What I thought was interesting is that the Prosecutor visited with all respondants before the judge entered chambers and offered an ammended charge of Careless Driving in place of speeding! There were some folks that had 20mph over tickets reduced to Careless Driving!

[5Toes]

Funny how life works sometimes, eh

[Matt-B]

Sounds like maybe you tried to get his attention.