Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
CA vehicle smog checkpoints
92 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark Bole
Jun 26, 2013, 1:54:31 PM6/26/13
to
News article in today's [May 13, 2013] daily metro newspaper (Bay Area
News Group) states that California Bureau of Automotive Repair is
stepping up random roadside smog checks.
This seems pretty outrageous. If I approach such a set-up while driving
and there is no indication that it is a DUI checkpoint, what is the best
way to preserve my rights? I really don't even want to talk with a cop,
nor do I want to be needlessly delayed.
Excerpts from the article:
"Tests are set up in cities around the state almost every day, mainly in
urbanized areas with the poorest air quality and ZIP codes with more
than 1,000 vehicles."
[...]
"Although the tests are not meant to punish drivers, officials
acknowledge that the specter of seeing law enforcement directing traffic
and pulling drivers over can be intimidating.
�There were a lot of drivers that were scared,� CHP Officer Erik
Martinez said. �I spent a lot of time trying to calm them down.�
�They certainly don�t make it seem like it�s voluntary, said Mark
Cutino, of Brentwood. �There were no warning markers, nothing like that
at all. It just seemed intimidating.�"
--
Mark Bole, EA
Enrolled Agents - America's Tax Experts
http://markboletax.com
News Group) states that California Bureau of Automotive Repair is
stepping up random roadside smog checks.
This seems pretty outrageous. If I approach such a set-up while driving
and there is no indication that it is a DUI checkpoint, what is the best
way to preserve my rights? I really don't even want to talk with a cop,
nor do I want to be needlessly delayed.
Excerpts from the article:
"Tests are set up in cities around the state almost every day, mainly in
urbanized areas with the poorest air quality and ZIP codes with more
than 1,000 vehicles."
[...]
"Although the tests are not meant to punish drivers, officials
acknowledge that the specter of seeing law enforcement directing traffic
and pulling drivers over can be intimidating.
�There were a lot of drivers that were scared,� CHP Officer Erik
Martinez said. �I spent a lot of time trying to calm them down.�
�They certainly don�t make it seem like it�s voluntary, said Mark
Cutino, of Brentwood. �There were no warning markers, nothing like that
at all. It just seemed intimidating.�"
--
Mark Bole, EA
Enrolled Agents - America's Tax Experts
http://markboletax.com
Mark A
Jun 27, 2013, 5:05:05 PM6/27/13
to
You seem to be confusing a voluntary smog checkpoint and a voluntary DUI checkpoint. I thought I
recall reading the same article, and I don't think it had anything to do with smog checks. Am I missing
something?
nos...@isp.com
Jun 28, 2013, 1:43:57 PM6/28/13
to
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Mark Bole <ma...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> News [reports say] that California Bureau of Automotive Repair
> is stepping up random roadside smog checks [which have been
> going on to one degree or another since the mid-1980s].
> This seems pretty outrageous.
Why? More to the point for law related purposes, what IF ANY
provisions of Calif. state law and/or of federal law have been or
would be violated by random checks whether vehicle drivers on public
roads in the state are in compliance with emission standards? And
what IF ANY is the factual and legal basis for your apparent
implication that submitting to a roadside test IF your vehicle if
flagged down for one would not be voluntary
> If I approach such a set-up while driving and there is no
> indication that it is a DUI checkpoint, what is the best
> way to preserve my rights?
Other than what you go on to say about not wanting to speak with
police officers (who may but who might not be the state authorized
agents who conduct the stops to which you refer), unless/until you
answer the above interjected question no one can know what rights of
yours would not be preserved despite the increased random stops in
question.
> I really don't even want to talk with a cop, . . .
. . . then don't, bearing in mind that in the absence of very
unusual/special circumstances, you don't have to and that, if you wish
to invoke your 5th/14th amendments federal constitutional rights
against compelled self-incrimination, you may say so in response to a
state law enforcement or other officer . . .
> nor do I want to be needlessly delayed . . . .
. . . except that unless/until you've answered the above interjected
questions in a factually credible manner, you have not yet said
that/how it would be realistic to presume, as you apparently do, that
you would be delayed needlessly if you are stopped then reasonably
clearly and credibly communicate reasons why you ought not be delayed
and permitted immediately to continue towards your destination.
Your use here of the "needlessly" qualifier meanwhile begs the
question whether there is or is not a legitimate need to conduct on a
random basis what is claimed to be a no more than +/- 10 to 15 minute
stop which state authorities who are conferred with the authority to
enforce the state's vehicle and also environmental related laws
contend is an inspection or test to which vehicle drivers in the state
ought be deemed to have consented to as a condition of being permitted
to operate a motor vehicle on public roads in the state.
> News [reports say] that California Bureau of Automotive Repair
> is stepping up random roadside smog checks [which have been
> going on to one degree or another since the mid-1980s].
> This seems pretty outrageous.
Why? More to the point for law related purposes, what IF ANY
provisions of Calif. state law and/or of federal law have been or
would be violated by random checks whether vehicle drivers on public
roads in the state are in compliance with emission standards? And
what IF ANY is the factual and legal basis for your apparent
implication that submitting to a roadside test IF your vehicle if
flagged down for one would not be voluntary
> If I approach such a set-up while driving and there is no
> indication that it is a DUI checkpoint, what is the best
> way to preserve my rights?
police officers (who may but who might not be the state authorized
agents who conduct the stops to which you refer), unless/until you
answer the above interjected question no one can know what rights of
yours would not be preserved despite the increased random stops in
question.
> I really don't even want to talk with a cop, . . .
. . . then don't, bearing in mind that in the absence of very
unusual/special circumstances, you don't have to and that, if you wish
to invoke your 5th/14th amendments federal constitutional rights
against compelled self-incrimination, you may say so in response to a
state law enforcement or other officer . . .
> nor do I want to be needlessly delayed . . . .
. . . except that unless/until you've answered the above interjected
questions in a factually credible manner, you have not yet said
that/how it would be realistic to presume, as you apparently do, that
you would be delayed needlessly if you are stopped then reasonably
clearly and credibly communicate reasons why you ought not be delayed
and permitted immediately to continue towards your destination.
Your use here of the "needlessly" qualifier meanwhile begs the
question whether there is or is not a legitimate need to conduct on a
random basis what is claimed to be a no more than +/- 10 to 15 minute
stop which state authorities who are conferred with the authority to
enforce the state's vehicle and also environmental related laws
contend is an inspection or test to which vehicle drivers in the state
ought be deemed to have consented to as a condition of being permitted
to operate a motor vehicle on public roads in the state.
0 new messages