Lift Laws

[jk4x4wrangler]

Right, you can be ticketed for not having current registration (regardless of state) or no registration, but if the vehicle is registered, then there aren't any tickets (compliance) the out of state police can give out. Most police know this, but some still like to take their chances with the unsuspecting motorists paying the fine when they didn't have to.

100% correct, just write it and hope they are too lazy or un educated to fight it and pay the fine. At the very least "I wrote and kept the bosses off my back" right? :cheesy:

 

[BlackKnight]

"Reasonable expectation"

This is what I was going to mention. Though Not a cop myself, My Mother, 4 Cousins and 2 Uncles are, and in the past they told me that vehicles entering the state that are registered out of state can be non compliant with the local state laws provided they are "Passing Through". If they are owned by a resident of the state by registered out of state then they are in violation if they have been in the state for more than one month unless the owner can show that they are a legal resident of the other state. Student Status can modify this status as Students are not required to register in the state of their school (if out of state) provided their "legal" address is still their parent's house.

All of that stated, an officer can pull over any vehicle he wants, and in the above cases only a warning is typically issued at the most. If a vehicle is BLATANTLY illegal, and or dangerous (unsafe), they can require that they take the offending vehicle out of the state immedialy, or else tow the vehicle to their destination.

At least that is how my state works (Mass). Also there are non visable violations that can also be found. for example, In New Hampshire they do not require car instuance, and MA has it mandatory. If you drive an Uninsured vehicle into MA you may not get a ticket immediately, however if you get into an accident, or commit another violation that causes you to be pulled over and found not to have insturance, they will tow your vehicle and you will not get it back until it has insurance, even if it is not a violation in NH, MA will hold the car for Insurance.

All in all, before people get upset, Alll of this is fully specualtion, If you get a dickhead officer, he may try to screw you and could get away with it. Every state has diferent relationships with the states surrounding them and how the relationship has been could reflect greatly on your personal situation.

If you know your in violation of the local laws, make sure your not doing anything that would make you a target (stay under the speed limit, no road rage, etc) and if you are not blatently violating local laws (say a 10 inch body lift, 50 inch tires on a JK 2door etc) then you should be ok.

If you are pulled over, don't be an asswhole, doing so makes the officer an exponentially larger asswhole, and trust me you don't want to trigger asswhole mode in a police officer. Explain any lift, mods you may have with the officer. Do what I do on my lowered/modified car and get all the applicable laws together on a document and laminate it, put it your vehicle and put all of the calculations that show that your vehicle is leagle in your state to help the officer know that your consious of the laws in your own state, and that you are only driving through. If you are not a dick you will probably get a "Ok, just keep it under the speed limit and be safe" and be on your way..

 

[NFRs2000NYC]

This is what I was going to mention. Though Not a cop myself, My Mother, 4 Cousins and 2 Uncles are, and in the past they told me that vehicles entering the state that are registered out of state can be non compliant with the local state laws provided they are "Passing Through". If they are owned by a resident of the state by registered out of state then they are in violation if they have been in the state for more than one month unless the owner can show that they are a legal resident of the other state. Student Status can modify this status as Students are not required to register in the state of their school (if out of state) provided their "legal" address is still their parent's house.

All of that stated, an officer can pull over any vehicle he wants, and in the above cases only a warning is typically issued at the most. If a vehicle is BLATANTLY illegal, and or dangerous (unsafe), they can require that they take the offending vehicle out of the state immedialy, or else tow the vehicle to their destination.

At least that is how my state works (Mass). Also there are non visable violations that can also be found. for example, In New Hampshire they do not require car instuance, and MA has it mandatory. If you drive an Uninsured vehicle into MA you may not get a ticket immediately, however if you get into an accident, or commit another violation that causes you to be pulled over and found not to have insturance, they will tow your vehicle and you will not get it back until it has insurance, even if it is not a violation in NH, MA will hold the car for Insurance.

All in all, before people get upset, Alll of this is fully specualtion, If you get a dickhead officer, he may try to screw you and could get away with it. Every state has diferent relationships with the states surrounding them and how the relationship has been could reflect greatly on your personal situation.

If you know your in violation of the local laws, make sure your not doing anything that would make you a target (stay under the speed limit, no road rage, etc) and if you are not blatently violating local laws (say a 10 inch body lift, 50 inch tires on a JK 2door etc) then you should be ok.

If you are pulled over, don't be an asswhole, doing so makes the officer an exponentially larger asswhole, and trust me you don't want to trigger asswhole mode in a police officer. Explain any lift, mods you may have with the officer. Do what I do on my lowered/modified car and get all the applicable laws together on a document and laminate it, put it your vehicle and put all of the calculations that show that your vehicle is leagle in your state to help the officer know that your consious of the laws in your own state, and that you are only driving through. If you are not a dick you will probably get a "Ok, just keep it under the speed limit and be safe" and be on your way..

This is more plausible. Passing through is a very general term. If I go Jeeping in Moab, Im passing through, since I don't live in Utah, am going to leave Utah, and don't have a Utah address. This issue gets a little more complex if the person has a (for instance) Utah driver's license with a UT address but a vehicle registered out of state. This is perfectly legal, since the person can have dual residences (I have a NY driver's license but all my cars are NJ registered). As for unsafe conditions, this is plausible as well. For instance, if the vehicle has a smashed windshield, the officer is still not allowed to ticket the person, but they can demand the vehicle is no longer driven and towed away. Also if the vehicle has no headlights, if the vehicle is spewing oil all over the road, etc, those things can indeed be dangerous and be pulled off the road...however, again, they may not be ticketed, but only "kicked out."

The insurance part I won't really argue because I don't know enough about it, however, MA may be in violation of personal property rights. A car accident is a civil offense (unless it's a DUI.) If I smash your car in MA, and I have no insurance, I owe you money for the car, the injuries, etc. The state has no right to sieze my personal property from me. If a judge orders me to pay you, I owe you. If I don't pay you, you can come after me through the courts, so I fail to see how a state can get involved in this case, but again, I don't know how the insurance thing works, since all of my states require insurance. A state has no ability to determine if I can pay my own damages. Maybe I'm Donald Trump and can afford to pay for any damages I have cause.

 

[Skirmish]

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
General Laws
Part 1, Title XIV, Chapter 90, Section 7

...Every passenger motor vehicle which is equipped with tires which extend beyond the fenders or body of such vehicle and which is operated in or upon any way shall be equipped with flaps or suitable guards to reduce such spray or splash to the rear and sides...

The entire traffic code is written using words like "Every passenger motor vehicle" and "which is operated in or upon any way". There is no provision I have found that exempts visitors passing through or non residents from the MA traffic code (or any other State) while operating a motor vehicle on MA roads. A State has the right to enforce its laws within its borders. Most traffic codes are written for the safety of all drivers. If your tint restricts your vision it puts you and others in danger, exposed tires in the rain obstructs the vision of those around you. If you are driving a vehicle to Moab and your tires extend beyond fenders and mud flaps you risk getting a ticket in UT and will be responsible for paying it. It is at the discretion of the LEO to enforce the law but the law applies to everyone. As said, if you aren't being an ass you will usually get a warning but I know a guy that has been ticketed almost every year in Cedar City, UT heading to Moab. He considers the fine into his budget for the trip. If you are driving through CA without side marker lights you risk getting a ticket. If you visit Sturgis during bike week you will see bikes from all over the country being pulled over for having handle bars that are taller than the drivers shoulders.

It doesn't matter what State your vehicle is registered in, the laws apply to everyone.

 

[NFRs2000NYC]

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
General Laws
Part 1, Title XIV, Chapter 90, Section 7

...Every passenger motor vehicle which is equipped with tires which extend beyond the fenders or body of such vehicle and which is operated in or upon any way shall be equipped with flaps or suitable guards to reduce such spray or splash to the rear and sides...

The entire traffic code is written using words like "Every passenger motor vehicle" and "which is operated in or upon any way". There is no provision I have found that exempts visitors passing through or non residents from the MA traffic code (or any other State) while operating a motor vehicle on MA roads. A State has the right to enforce its laws within its borders. Most traffic codes are written for the safety of all drivers. If your tint restricts your vision it puts you and others in danger, exposed tires in the rain obstructs the vision of those around you. If you are driving a vehicle to Moab and your tires extend beyond fenders and mud flaps you risk getting a ticket in UT and will be responsible for paying it. It is at the discretion of the LEO to enforce the law but the law applies to everyone. As said, if you aren't being an ass you will usually get a warning but I know a guy that has been ticketed almost every year in Cedar City, UT heading to Moab. He considers the fine into his budget for the trip. If you are driving through CA without side marker lights you risk getting a ticket. If you visit Sturgis during bike week you will see bikes from all over the country being pulled over for having handle bars that are taller than the drivers shoulders.

It doesn't matter what State your vehicle is registered in, the laws apply to everyone.

Not quite. "Every motor vehicle" implies every motor vehicle registered in the state of MA. This is a MA law which only applies to MA vehicles. Furthermore, I already stated that MA (and UT) fender laws DIRECTLY conflict with PA law.

(e) Fender flares. A vehicle may be equipped with fender flares not to exceed 3 inches.

So, taking your example...if you have beefy 37s on there and have wider bushwacker flares to make your rig MA compliant, you are now illegal in PA. If you have only 3" flares, you are PA compliant but MA illegal.

Like I said, it's your money. If you wish to pay out of state compliance tickets, by all means.

Here is another use of the word "all or any"

Any person who inherits a rifle, shotgun or handgun is required to obtain a FID or license to carry within 180 days if he intends to retain possession of the firearm.

This is an MA gun law. Clearly this "Any" applies to MA residents and not those of Alaska or Vermont for instance.

Now, going back to my original statement, FOPA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act ) protects those who have a legal right to own a firearm in their home state to transport it to another location (and back) through a gun unfriendly state, FOMA allows a citizen to travel freely throughout the country provided they have a legally owned and registered vehicle in their home state.

 

[Skirmish]

Wrong. There is no "imply" in traffic code. There are however definitions. MA defines a motor vehicle for us.

Part 1, Title XIV, Chapter 90, Section 1 Definitions

“Motor vehicles”, all vehicles constructed and designed for propulsion by power other than muscular power including such vehicles when pulled or towed by another motor vehicle, except railroad and railway cars, vehicles operated by the system known as trolley motor or trackless trolley under chapter one hundred and sixty-three or section ten of chapter five hundred and forty-four of the acts of nineteen hundred and forty-seven, vehicles running only upon rails or tracks, vehicles used for other purposes than the transportation of property and incapable of being driven at a speed exceeding twelve miles per hour and which are used exclusively for the building, repair and maintenance of highways or designed especially for use elsewhere than on the travelled part of ways, wheelchairs owned and operated by invalids and vehicles which are operated or guided by a person on foot; provided, however, that the exception for trackless trolleys provided herein shall not apply to sections seventeen, twenty-one, twenty-four, twenty-four I, twenty-five and twenty-six. The definition of “Motor vehicles” shall not include motorized bicycles. In doubtful cases, the registrar may determine whether or not any particular vehicle is a motor vehicle as herein defined. If he determines that it should be so classified, he may require that it be registered under this chapter, but such determination shall not be admissible as evidence in any action at law arising out of the use or operation of such vehicle previous to such determination.

At no point does the definition exempt out of state vehicles.

Your argument for PA doesn't hold water either since they also require fenders to cover the tires completely the difference being they only require it for inspection. It wouldn't matter anyway since you are not driving on PA roads at the same time as MA roads.

Pennsylvania Code
175.80. Inspection procedure
(ix) A tire’s tread extends beyond the outer edge of the wheel housing inclusive of fender flares.


Your gun law argument is incorrect as well. It is illegal to bring a hand gun into NYC.

If you wish to run the risk of a ticket, please continue breaking laws in the States you visit.

 

[NFRs2000NYC]

Wrong. There is no "imply" in traffic code. There are however definitions. MA defines a motor vehicle for us.

Part 1, Title XIV, Chapter 90, Section 1 Definitions

“Motor vehicles”, all vehicles constructed and designed for propulsion by power other than muscular power including such vehicles when pulled or towed by another motor vehicle, except railroad and railway cars, vehicles operated by the system known as trolley motor or trackless trolley under chapter one hundred and sixty-three or section ten of chapter five hundred and forty-four of the acts of nineteen hundred and forty-seven, vehicles running only upon rails or tracks, vehicles used for other purposes than the transportation of property and incapable of being driven at a speed exceeding twelve miles per hour and which are used exclusively for the building, repair and maintenance of highways or designed especially for use elsewhere than on the travelled part of ways, wheelchairs owned and operated by invalids and vehicles which are operated or guided by a person on foot; provided, however, that the exception for trackless trolleys provided herein shall not apply to sections seventeen, twenty-one, twenty-four, twenty-four I, twenty-five and twenty-six. The definition of “Motor vehicles” shall not include motorized bicycles. In doubtful cases, the registrar may determine whether or not any particular vehicle is a motor vehicle as herein defined. If he determines that it should be so classified, he may require that it be registered under this chapter, but such determination shall not be admissible as evidence in any action at law arising out of the use or operation of such vehicle previous to such determination.

At no point does the definition exempt out of state vehicles.

Your argument for PA doesn't hold water either since they also require fenders to cover the tires completely the difference being they only require it for inspection. It wouldn't matter anyway since you are not driving on PA roads at the same time as MA roads.

Pennsylvania Code
175.80. Inspection procedure
(ix) A tire’s tread extends beyond the outer edge of the wheel housing inclusive of fender flares.


Your gun law argument is incorrect as well. It is illegal to bring a hand gun into NYC.

If you wish to run the risk of a ticket, please continue breaking laws in the States you visit.

Alright man, this is obviously getting nowhere. If you are a police officer, I strongly suggest you brush up on federal laws and interstate laws. You can bring a handgun THROUGH NYC and MA, although their laws "prohibit it." Federal law trumps state law. I "break laws" in many states I visit, however, there is nothing they can do about it. We went wheeling with a group of 10 Jeeps in NJ just last weekend, and the cop was cracking down on front plates, but couldn't do anything with the people from NY and IL in our group. You cannot have power over one compliance law and not another.

 

[Skirmish]

That cop obviously didn't understand the law because you are not required to have both plates unless they are issued. Some States, NV for instance, you are only required to run a front plate if the front bumper has provisions for it.

Show me the code that requires you to run both plates on every motor vehicle operating on the road in NJ or your argument is invalid.

 

[NFRs2000NYC]

That cop obviously didn't understand the law because you are not required to have both plates unless they are issued. Some States, NV for instance, you are only required to run a front plate if the front bumper has provisions for it.

Show me the code that requires you to run both plates on every motor vehicle operating on the road in NJ or your argument is invalid.

I don't understand why you are so hung up the word "every." A state cannot pass a law, ANY LAW, that encompasses the entire nation. A state cannot make a law ie fender flares, requiring "All vehicles must have fender flares" and have it apply to someone from a state ie Arizona which doesn't require them at all. Im finding it difficult to see where your disconnect is.

 

[Skirmish]

A State can pass a law that is enforceable within that State's boundaries. Sure, the can't ticket you in AZ for a law in MA but if you drive on MA roads you must comply to all their codes. It really isn't difficult to understand.

 

[NFRs2000NYC]

A State can pass a law that is enforceable within that State's boundaries. Sure, the can't ticket you in AZ for a law in MA but if you drive on MA roads you must comply to all their codes. It really isn't difficult to understand.

You cannot cherry pick compliance tickets. Tints are legal in Florida so I can drive anywhere in the US, including where they are illegal and be perfectly fine. A vehicle must conform to the laws of the state it is registered in, not the state that it's in. If you interpret the law differently, more power to you but I'd love to see a compliance ticket stick to an out of state vehicle. I have never see it stick, and between my friends and I, we've had our fair share.

 

[Skirmish]

I am not cherry picking compliance laws. There is a difference between codes that govern what is legal to operate on the road, what is required to pass inspection for a registered vehicle and what is required of a vehicle registered in that State. Laws are written to avoid individual interpretation. If it doesn't state that non residents are exempt then every vehicle clearly means every vehicle.

You want to cherry pick a seat belt law as not being a "compliance law" even though it is written in the same set of laws laying out what is required equipment to operate on a road. If your argument were true a motorcycle driving through NV would require a DOT approved helmet.

 

[NFRs2000NYC]

I am not cherry picking compliance laws. There is a difference between codes that govern what is legal to operate on the road, what is required to pass inspection for a registered vehicle and what is required of a vehicle registered in that State. Laws are written to avoid individual interpretation. If it doesn't state that non residents are exempt then every vehicle clearly means every vehicle.

You want to cherry pick a seat belt law as not being a "compliance law" even though it is written in the same set of laws laying out what is required equipment to operate on a road. If your argument were true a motorcycle driving through NV would require a DOT approved helmet.

Cmon man. You know full well that both seatbelt laws and helmet laws are not attached to a vehicle but the operator. As for the DOT comment...that would be as you said, if NV does not require you to wear a helmet to ride a bike but Utah does, when you cross the state line you must wear one, since the helmet law isn't "attached" to the vehicle. Similarly radar detectors which may be legal in one state do not get protected in a state which deems them illegal.

 

[Skirmish]

Regardless of what it is attached to it is written in the same traffic laws and there is nothing in that code that says these laws apply to everyone where as some laws only apply to residents.

If it were legal to exempt yourself from certain laws because of your State registration it would be legal to exempt yourself from all of them that are legal in your State.

Don't ask a LEO, ask an attorney or a traffic court judge.

 

[NFRs2000NYC]

Regardless of what it is attached to it is written in the same traffic laws and there is nothing in that code that says these laws apply to everyone where as some laws only apply to residents.

If it were legal to exempt yourself from certain laws because of your State registration it would be legal to exempt yourself from all of them that are legal in your State.

Don't ask a LEO, ask an attorney or a traffic court judge.

Fair enough. I'll try to gather a little more evidence supporting my side of the argument. Kudos to you sir for having an honest, intelligent, and well thought out respectful debate. It's a rarity nowadays on forums. Have a great weekend! :beer:

 

[Shaved Ice]

A helmet is not part of a motor vehicle's equipment so your example is not valid.

Some states require a vehicle made after a certain year to have functionsl seat belts. Some only require seat belts if the vehicle had them at time of manufacture. The same applies to motocycle blinkers. Some states allow LED lights, so do not. The list goes on and on.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using WAYALIFE mobile app

 

[Skirmish]

It is nice when things are kept civil and polite. If you are ever in Vegas, hit me up and I'll show you where we play. Great rock crawling out here. You have a great weekend too.

 

[Skirmish]

A helmet is not part of a motor vehicle's equipment so your example is not valid.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using WAYALIFE mobile app

A helmet is a required piece of equipment to operate a motorcycle on NV roads as is a mirror in a motor vehicle that allows you to see a minimum 200 ft behind you. They are written in the same traffic code laws.

 

[Shaved Ice]

I agree with how nice it is when things remain civil. I realize an officer can ticket for pretty much whatever he wants roadside. Its up to the judge to determine if it sticks. Most out of staters won't return for court, so the state makes more revenue. I am not implying that is the officer's intent going in, but it is an assumed fact.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using WAYALIFE mobile app

 

[Skirmish]

I found the law in NJ regarding plates FYI. It says if two marks are issued they must be displayed front and rear, if one mark is issued it must be rear. The cop was wrong to issue a ticket if everyone from a single plate State had a valid rear plate.



39:3-33.
Markers; requirements concerning; display of fictitious or wrong numbers, etc.; punishment
The owner of an automobile which is driven on the public highways of this State shall display not less than 12 inches nor more than 48 inches from the ground in a horizontal position, and in such a way as not to swing, an identification mark or marks to be furnished by the division; provided, that if two marks are issued they shall be displayed on the front and rear of the vehicle; and provided, further, that if only one mark is issued it shall be displayed on the rear of the vehicle; and provided, further, that the rear identification mark may be displayed more than 48 inches from the ground on tank trucks, trailers and other commercial vehicles carrying inflammable liquids and on sanitation vehicles which are used to collect, transport and dispose of garbage, solid wastes and refuse. Motorcycles shall also display an identification mark or marks; provided, that if two marks are issued they shall be displayed on the front and rear of the motorcycle; and provided, further, that if only one mark is issued it shall be displayed on the rear of the motorcycle.