Just a few thoughts on the EPA exhaust fight in California.
There is no reason to compromise a bill that is in blatant violation of our rights!
California Constitution
Article 1, Section 13
SEC. 13. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and
searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be
seizure.
This is very similar, but more wordy than the Washington State Constitution
Article 1
SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.
Check out State v. Ladson 1999
The point is that this proposed law, whether it is based on primary or secondary enforcement, is against the CA and US constitution. That alone should give you a clue to the fight you are facing in legislature. To continue to fight the legislation with the emotional argument is a losing proposition.
1. CFR40 sec 205.169 is a commerce standard. It is a measure to provide testing parameters to the manufacturer of exhaust, and is effective up to the point of original purchase. The stamp prohibits tampering prior to sale and makes the use of exhaust that has been tampered with possibly a violation of federal law, however it does not state what federal law would be violated.
2. The manufacturer must list what type of modification would possibly be considered tampering (the regulation itself does not list what the definition of tampering is, the feds won't take that position) A statute violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if it fails to afford citizens fair warning of proscribed conduct.
3 The warning also has to carry wording to the effect of 'tampering is ok if the exhaust still meets the noise limits'. Again, the prerequisite of fair warnign is not present. It is not found in the law.
4. Testing is done at pre-described RPM. It is entirely possible that the equipment meets the requirements at 5000rpm, yet could surpass the db limit at other rpms. (similar to any vehicle; it can be driven at the speed limit, yet be able to surpass the speed limit by operator use).
It is not the presence or absence of the EPA stamp that makes the vehicle equipment in violation of this proposed statute. It is more likely operator use. LAWS are already in place in most states that provide objective enforcement. This bill would move the 'reasonable suspicion to subjective, and base the violation on a subjective observation of law enforcement. If they cannot do the test, then the citation won't stick. If this bill is enacted, the motorcyclists Due Process is violated because the automatic fine is $50 no matter what. (violations of 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th amendments)
What is Law Enforcement going to use as probable cause to search for the label? an untrained subjective guess?
BREEZE
