Are these wheels legal?

[RodeoChippie]

From the product website:

The included software allows you to create your own images and send them to each wheel individually or all wheels at the same time as you drive! You can even pre-load up to six images into each wheel and program them to change automatically at the time intervals you select. The wheels are environmentally sealed, so you don't have to worry about going to the car wash; and they are powered by the vehicle electrical system so there are no batteries to run out or change, ever.

Sorry Sir, I don't care if the kid at the auto parts store said they are legal, they are not. Press hard, four copies :biggrin:

[Mac]

...How 'bout an idiot fee as well? :badgrin:
LOL...if the state would assess an "idiot fee" on all applicable tickets, we'd never have to talk about "budget deficits" again!!! :badgrin: Let's DEFINITELY add that assessment to anybody sitting at a green light or doing 50 in the fast lane, while jabbering on their cell phone.

...and while we're at it, I'm still waiting for CA to add "Felony Stupid" to the Penal Code.....plenty of violators to be found!

[Kojak]

Folks, spinners have been replaced by rolling billboards. Make sure you click the link towards the bottom of the webpage to "see them in action". Anybody know if these wheels violate any VCs?

http://customwheel.com/custom_wheels/product_info.php/products_id/1687

[Mac]

24003. No vehicle shall be equipped with any lamp or illuminating
device not required or permitted in this code, nor shall any lamp or
illuminating device be mounted inside a vehicle unless specifically
permitted by this code.......

[SuperTrooper]

Yeah, they're legal. I see taxi cabs equipped with them all the time, but they have advertisements on the wheels instead of cheesy graphics.

[SB 405]

Man, I sure would like to be rollin' on a set of those "Hey baby call me" wheels. :lol:

[RodeoChippie]

I would think 24003 VC as well, unless there is a specific exemption I'm unaware of.

[bcjack]

Do they meet DOT Standards?

Title 13 Standards?

When red color lighting appears on the wheels, is it visible to the front?

When white color lighting appears on the wheels, is it visible to the rear???

Does BLUE color lighting appear at any time???


Are they a fire hazard? If they are, I get a shot at them!!:biggrin:

[Mac]

They're not legal. Neither are tinted windows, blue/red windshield washer lights, neon under-car lights and a lot of other things that you see on the streets all the time.

[SuperTrooper]

I could be wrong, but 24003 won't apply because those wheels are non-illuminated... they're just plastic covers with ads printed on them. Unless they have glow in the dark paint on them or something.

[SuperTrooper]

I'm sorry, I was talking about the wheels on the taxi cabs, but yeah, the ones on the site are definitely illegal.

[KingFrankSam]

Even those illuminated valve stem caps are illegal. They would be great for a patrol car though...

[carcop]

What next? Gotta hand it to the designers, pretty cool. Illegal, but cool! I personnaly wouldn't cite them if they were flying the American Flag. Start the pimp crap and "press hard four copies ..... and one for your passenger just because:biggrin:"

[Radar]

An old story, but it makes me laugh every time... :lol:

http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=2850039

[pupdog]

$10? I can see a measly $10 for something like a headlight being out (when I got one many years ago, I had no idea my headlight was out until the officer tol me!). But for something put on the vehicle on purpose? How 'bout an idiot fee as well? :badgrin: Those things are so distracting!

[SuperTrooper]

$10 fine? Oh yeah, that'll really make people think twice. The original Sprewell "spinners" cost $4,000 per wheel, back in the day.

[bcjack]

Mac:

Let's start sloooow...How about MISDMEANOR STUPID, just to get everyone oriented to the fact that being stupid is no longer acceptable and is now against the law. We can amend the law later, as we educate the educateable (Is that a word) stupid people. :confused:

[bcjack]

24003 CVC = $99 fine.


http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/05JCBail.pdf

[RodeoChippie]

24003 CVC = $99 fine.


http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/05JCBail.pdf
Only if its not marked as dismissable on the citation.

[bcjack]

True...I forgot about the Dismissal Box...It is hell getting old...

46011 CVC allows the court to charge a "Transaction Fee" of $10 per "Transaction" when dismissed per 40610 CVC.

[Mac]

I never check the 40610(b)VC box for "Ricky Racer" equipment violations. As far as I'm concerned, they're deliberate modifications and most of the ricers know that they're illegal (for example, ever seen them quickly switch off their neon under-car lights when they see a black and white?). Dismissible violations, in my mind, are intended for things such as a burned out headlight/taillight, turn signal, etc. where they owner may have not even known about it.

[Nonsequitur]

I never check the 40610(b)VC box for "Ricky Racer" equipment violations. As far as I'm concerned, they're deliberate modifications and most of the ricers know that they're illegal (for example, ever seen them quickly switch off their neon under-car lights when they see a black and white?). Dismissible violations, in my mind, are intended for things such as a burned out headlight/taillight, turn signal, etc. where they owner may have not even known about it.

Now wait a minute, you can not arbitrarily decide to be a non-correctable violation unless one of the 3 criteria of 40610(b)VC are met.

(1) Evidence of fraud or persistent neglect.
(2) The violation presents an immediate safety hazard.
(3) The violator does not agree to, or cannot, promptly correct the violation.

Per 40303.5 VC and 40522 VC The officer shall permit the arrested person to execute a notice containing a promise to correct the violation, and the violation to be dismissed by the court (minus the court transaction fee $10).

Shoot it was a CHP officer that taught me that. Unless you justify it as (1) because they "should" have known?

[Mac]

#1 applies, and in many cases it could be argued that #2 applies also. I'm not taking the law into my own hands here.

[Nonsequitur]

#1 applies, and in many cases it could be argued that #2 applies also. I'm not taking the law into my own hands here.
Very, very, narrowly and I don't see how #2 applies, but if you are getting away with it. Who am I to judge? *shrug*

[not5150]

#1 applies, and in many cases it could be argued that #2 applies also. I'm not taking the law into my own hands here.
Very, very, narrowly and I don't see how #2 applies, but if you are getting away with it. Who am I to judge? *shrug*

Ah, but I think you are judging aren't you??

[Nonsequitur]

#1 applies, and in many cases it could be argued that #2 applies also. I'm not taking the law into my own hands here.
Very, very, narrowly and I don't see how #2 applies, but if you are getting away with it. Who am I to judge? *shrug*

Ah, but I think you are judging aren't you??

Nope, just being letter of the law, which is unusual for me... :biggrin:

The thing is even a lot of Officers I work with tend to not know that it isn't the Officer's choice to arbitrarily decide. I don't have that much time to do much traffic stuff, so I asked and asked until I had the general agreement. The part that sealed the deal, after getting great information from supervisors in my Department, was talking to the CHP members that agreed with the info I had already been given.

[Nonsequitur]

#1 applies, and in many cases it could be argued that #2 applies also. I'm not taking the law into my own hands here.
Very, very, narrowly and I don't see how #2 applies, but if you are getting away with it. Who am I to judge? *shrug*

Ah, but I think you are judging aren't you??

Better yet if you are a CA LEO let me know what your supervisors say on the matter. :smile:

I never stop learning, so more information is always appreciated!

[dw]

#1 applies, and in many cases it could be argued that #2 applies also. I'm not taking the law into my own hands here.

I agree 100% with Mac. I always make those non-correctable. The intent of the law was to give people a break when there was a mechanical violation they were unaware of, or just occurred. To, for example, remove factory lighting and replace with something illegal is a conscious act and falls under #1. I think both "fraud" (replacement with equipment that does not meet State and Federal requirements) and "persistent neglect" (failure to maintain your vehicle as required by law on a continuous basis). Also, as Mac said, in some cases the violation may present an immediate safety hazard (blinding/glaring lights, dangerously low vehicle).

EDIT: As BoySergeant pointed out correctly in a conversation, often the courts will make a violation correctable even when the not-correctable box has been checked. The driver then gets the courtesy notice signed-off and away he/she goes.

[Fish'nChip]

You've got to be careful with all the lighting rules but just because it is non-standard equipment doesn't mean it's illegal.

24003. No vehicle shall be equipped with any lamp or illuminating
device not required or permitted in this code, nor shall any lamp or
illuminating device be mounted inside a vehicle unless specifically
permitted by this code.

but the next section covers a lot of aftermarket lighting...

25400. (a) Any vehicle may be equipped with a lamp or device on the
exterior of the vehicle that emits a diffused nonglaring light of
not more than 0.05 candela per square inch of area.
(b) Any diffused nonglaring light shall not display red to the
front, but may display other colors. A diffused nonglaring light
shall not resemble nor be installed within 12 inches or in such
position as to interfere with the visibility or effectiveness of any
required lamp, reflector, or other device upon the vehicle.
(c) A diffused nonglaring lamp or device, other than a display
sign authorized by subdivision (d), shall be limited in size to an
area of 720 square inches and where any lease, rental, or donation is
involved the installation of the lamp or device shall be limited to
those vehicles operated either primarily within business or
residential districts or municipalities, or between business
districts, residential districts, and municipalities in close
proximity.
(d) An internally illuminated sign emitting not more than 0.25
candela per square inch and possessing copy which does not contain a
white background may be displayed on each side, but not on the front
or rear, of a trolley coach or of a bus being operated in urban or
suburban service as described in Section 35107 of this code.

There is no section prohibiting the neon or black lights down on the ground. Have you ever seen a purple light behind the cab of a truck when a trailer is attached?

What is the difference? Is it just because the person is a "racer" make it wrong? Trust me, I don't like it either but sometimes there is nothing you can do.

How about the neon license plate frames? You can't have them on the rear because 24601 requires it to be white light but what if you put it on the front plate? Per recent case law then they are ok unless you can prove otherwise. The only issues is that the light needs to be non-glaring (meaning you can't see a filament, behind a translucent cover or a neon lamp) and it is not over .05 candela. I don't know about you but I don't have a meter to measure lamp brightness!

Just be careful with a lot of these equipment sections. Remember...there are always exceptions!

Here is the case:

People v. Hernandez (2003) , Cal.App.4th Supp.
Appellate Division, Superior Court, County of Santa Clara
[No. ACR4497. June 27, 2003.]

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

(Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. CC124649, Randolf J. Rice, Judge.)

(Opinion by Barrett, J., with Cunningham, P. J., and Bernardini, J., concurring.)

COUNSEL

George Kennedy, District Attorney, K.C. Lopez and Cindy Cole, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Scott Ewbank for Defendant and Appellant.

OPINION

BARRETT, J.-


INTRODUCTION
On September 23, 2001, Officer Kurtis Powell of the California Highway Patrol observed a Chevy Blazer with a front license plate frame that was ringed with a neon purple light. Believing that this constituted a violation of the Vehicle Code, Officer Powell made a car stop and, in the course of his investigation, discovered that defendant had been driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Defendant brought a motion to suppress in the trial court, claiming that the officer lacked a {Slip Opn. Page 2} reasonable basis for believing the neon purple light around the license plate frame was unlawful. Agreeing with Officer Powell that the light emitting from defendant's neon license plate frame could only be white or amber, fn. 1 the trial court denied the motion. We reverse.


PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In a complaint filed on September 26, 2001, defendant was charged in count 1 with a violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subd.(a) fn. 2 (driving while under the influence of alcohol), and in count 2 with a violation of section 23152, subd.(b)(driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 or more). The complaint also alleged that defendant had suffered two prior convictions for driving under the influence.

Following the denial of his suppression motion, defendant pled guilty to count 2 and admitted the allegations of two prior convictions.

On appeal, defendant's attorney submitted a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [158 Cal.Rptr. 839], requiring this court to independently review the record for arguable issues. After our review, we directed the parties to brief the issue of {Slip Opn. Page 3} whether the purple neon light emitting from defendant's front license plate frame was a proper basis for the traffic stop.


DISCUSSION
At the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, Officer Powell testified he made the stop "[f]or unlawful lighting to the front.... Amber and white are the only two authorized lights that's [sic] permitted to the front of the vehicle." Relying on section 25950, the trial court found that any light other than white or yellow was illegal and denied the suppression motion.

A. The Standard of Review.

"The standard of appellate review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is well established. We defer to the trial court's factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence. In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment." (People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362 [45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 425].)

B. The Basis for a Detention

A detention "may be undertaken by the police 'if there is an articulable suspicion that a person has {Slip Opn. Page 4} committed or is about to commit a crime.'" (In re James D. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 903, 911 [239 Cal. Rptr. 663], quoting Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 784 [195 Cal. Rptr. 671].)

For traffic infractions, a police officer may lawfully stop a motorist "if the facts and circumstances known to the officer support at least a reasonable suspicion that the driver has violated the Vehicle Code or some other law." (People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 926 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 785].)

C. There Was Insufficient Evidence to Support a Reasonable Suspicion That the Purple Neon Light Around the License Plate Was Unlawful.

As stated earlier, the trial court relied on section 25950 in denying defendant's motion to suppress. Section 25950, subd. (a) provides, in relevant part, that "the emitted light from all lamps and the reflected light from all reflectors, visible from the front of a vehicle, shall be white or yellow...." Section 25950, however, is not applicable to all lights visible from the front of a vehicle. Indeed, "a lamp or device on the exterior of the vehicle that emits a diffused nonglaring light of not more than 0.05 candela per square inch of area ... shall not display red to the front, but may display other colors," provided it does "not resemble nor be installed within 12 inches or in such position as to {Slip Opn. Page 5} interfere with the visibility or effectiveness of any required lamp, reflector, or other device upon the vehicle." (? 25400,italics added.)

Thus, a light that is not white or yellow is not necessarily unlawful, because it may nevertheless be authorized under section 25400 as long as the conditions set forth therein are met. Here, however, there was no evidence whatsoever addressing whether or not the ring of purple neon light around defendant's license plate was unlawful under section 25400. For example, there was no evidence about how bright the purple neon light was, or whether or not the light was diffused or nonglaring fn. 3 . (See People v. Butler (1988 ) 202 Cal.App.3d 602, 607 [248 Cal.Rptr. 887] [stop is unlawful if based solely on observation that car has tinted windows, as not all tinted glass is illegal. Additional articulable facts are required].) Therefore, the People failed to meet their burden in showing that the officer had a reasonable suspicion that the purple neon light around defendant's front license plate light was unlawful. fn. 4 (See People v. {Slip Opn. Page 6} Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 130 [83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275] [The People retain the burden of proving that the warrantless search or seizure was reasonable under the circumstances].)

D. Officer Powell's Mistake of Law Cannot Be the Basis for the Car Stop

The People argue that even if, in actuality, the neon light around defendant's license frame did not violate the Vehicle Code, Officer Powell nevertheless articulated a reasonable, albeit erroneous, good faith belief that a vehicle violation had occurred. The People's assertion is incorrect. "'If an officer simply does not know the law, and makes a stop based upon objective facts that cannot constitute a violation, his suspicions cannot be reasonable.'" (In re Justin K. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 695, 700 [120 Cal.Rptr.2d 546], quoting U.S. v. Mariscal (9th Cir. 2002) 285 F.3d 1127, 1130.)

In People v. White (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 636, 643-44 [132 Cal.Rptr.2d 371], the officer mistakenly believed that having a single Arizona license plate affixed to the car violated the Vehicle Code. However, section 5202 incorporates out-of-state requirements into California law, and Arizona law requires only one license plate for motor vehicles. {Slip Opn. Page 7} Finding that the officer's mistake of law vitiated the basis for the stop, the court wrote: "Though we assume the officer acted in good faith, there is no good faith exception to the exclusionary rule for police who enforce a legal standard that does not exist. Creating a good faith exception here would run counter to the exclusionary rule's goal by removing an incentive for the police to know the law we entrust them to enforce." (Id. at p. 644.)

Here, the officer's stated legal basis for the stop, that all front lights were unlawful unless either white or yellow, was simply erroneous. In the absence of articulable facts that the neon light around defendant's front license plate frame was unlawful under the Vehicle Code, the detention cannot be sustained.


DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed.

Cunningham, P. J., and Bernardini, J., concurred.

?FN 1. "Yellow" and "amber" were used interchangeably in the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress.

?FN 2. All statutory references cited herein are to the California Vehicle Code.

?FN 3. As an interesting aside, the neon light at issue may well be a diffused, nonglaring light as described in section 25400. (See website postings at < [as of June 27, 2003]; and < [as of June 27, 2003] [on-line retailer's postings claiming that its neon tubes are nonglaring and diffused in compliance with California law].) As these postings are not proper evidence before us, we have not taken them into consideration for purposes of this decision.

?FN 4. Furthermore, there was no evidence regarding whether the light was "installed within 12 inches or in such position as to interfere with the visibility or effectiveness of any required lamp, reflector, or other device upon the vehicle." (? 25400, subd. (b).) It should be noted that, unlike a rear license plate, there is no law requiring that a front license plate be illuminated by a white light. (See ? 24601.)


Sorry for the long post!

:biggrin: FnC

[dw]

You've got to be careful with all the lighting rules but just because it is non-standard equipment doesn't mean it's illegal.

Great case, although it looks like the court didn't actually rule on whether the lighting was legal under 25400(a)... I'd also bet that the neon frame emits far more than 0.05 candela per square inch, but I'll have to look into that. I believe 25400(a) is more geared towards taxi-type signage. Where did you get the text from?

There are many things that I'd like to write tickets for that are technically legal. There are still many violations that are not. I still see red windshield washer nozzles around... The other day in the rain saw a guy with wig-wags and corner strobes on his raised pickup... Lack of rear-reflectors in aftermarket tail-lights is a big one and definitely an immediate safety hazard.

Check out http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/streetlegal.html

[decon]

i got to get me some of them dubs

[not5150]

"I don't know about you but I don't have a meter to measure lamp brightness!"

Ahh... but my company does. We do laptop testing and have to measure how bright the screens are. It would be nice to find out.

It's interesting to see what the import racing crowd is doing these days. Go to any of the Hot Import Nights/Dub shows and you will see neon lights, 21 inch LCD screens and other stuff mounted on cars. At a previous show, I even saw a Monterery Park PD car that was souped up.

[PGM95Z]

Hi, I am new here but found it interesting that there is a CHP forum.. Curious as to how many actual CHP officers are on here.. Anywho, on the subject of the wheel lights I found the following on the vehicle code...

24003. No vehicle shall be equipped with any lamp or illuminating
device not required or permitted in this code, nor shall any lamp or
illuminating device be mounted inside a vehicle unless specifically
permitted by this code.......
24003. No vehicle shall be equipped with any lamp or illuminating
device not required or permitted in this code, nor shall any lamp or
illuminating device be mounted inside a vehicle unless specifically
permitted by this code. This section does not apply to:
(a) Interior lamps such as door, brake and instrument lamps, and
map, dash, and dome lamps designed and used for the purpose of
illuminating the interior of the vehicle.
(b) Lamps needed in the operation or utilization of those vehicles
mentioned in Section 25801, or vehicles used by public utilities in
the repair or maintenance of their service, or used only for the
illumination of cargo space of a vehicle while loading or unloading.

(c) Warning lamps mounted inside an authorized emergency vehicle
and meeting requirements established by the department.


But, this is included in the vehicle code, so I think you are wrong..:

25102. In addition to the lamps otherwise permitted by this
chapter, any motor vehicle may be equipped with lamps on the sides
thereof, visible from the side of the vehicle but not from the front
or rear thereof, which lamps, together with mountings or receptacles,
shall be set into depressions or recesses in the body of the vehicle
and shall not protrude beyond or outside the body of the vehicle.
The light source in each of the lamps shall not exceed two
candlepower and shall emit diffused light of any color, except that
the color red is permitted only on authorized emergency vehicles.


25951. Any lighted lamp or device upon a motor vehicle other than
headlamps, spotlamps, signal lamps, or auxiliary driving lamps,
warning lamps which projects a beam of light of an intensity greater
than 300 candlepower shall be so directed that no part of the beam
will strike the level of the roadway at a distance of more than 75
feet from the vehicle.

[Mac]

25102 applies to clearance sidemarker lamps. Wheel lights would not be "set into depressions or recesses in the body of the vehicle". Wheels are not part of the body, nor are there depressions or recesses intended for lights.