so i have headlight covers on my car and have been stopped for having them on during the day. at night i remove them because they block too much light. as i was googling i found a pdf of wisconsin state statutes. the statute reads "No such lamp shall have any type of decorative covering that restricts the amount of light emitted when the lamp is in use." so from the way this law is worded it sound to me like it is legal to have the covers on as long as the lights are not being used (during daytime hours). my question is should i carry this pdf with me and show the officer who pulls me over what the law exactly reads? i feel that it shouldnt be a problem but then also feel that the cop may be a dick and think im a smartass and still give me a ticket.
showing a LEO the state statutes???
- Thread starter Napp E Roots
- Start date
The side of the road is not the appropriate place to argue with a police officer. Police officers are not finders of fact. That is why we have courts and judges. Most likely the LEO will either not listen to you and write the ticket anyway. If one does, take it to court, and present your opinion to the judge.
Getting stopped is the risk you take for being a tool running headlight covers.
Getting stopped is the risk you take for being a tool running headlight covers.
The only law's that I know of that apply are 347.10 which you stated above and then Transportation 305.11. Both of these, especially Trans 305.11 seem to indicate that it's only when they are in use. As long as they're head lamp covers, and only head lamp covers I *think* you will be fine. I would print out a copy of the two applicable sections, the "Full text", and have it with you.
Attitude will go a long way in how the officer acts, if you jump all over them for stopping you, chances are you are going to get it back. If you are understanding and don't throw attitude, you should be okay.
Attitude will go a long way in how the officer acts, if you jump all over them for stopping you, chances are you are going to get it back. If you are understanding and don't throw attitude, you should be okay.
As previously noted if they block out your turn signals your argument is no good. Also, what happens when it starts to rain during the day and headlights are required? So, your interpretation that "not being used" means "daylight times" is not accurate.
I got a ticket in South Dakota for handlebar height on my motorcycle. The fine was $20 to be paid on the side of the road.
The problem is the bars were legal. The South Dakota law stated the grips had to be at or below the shoulders of the rider. The officer did not know that, he just thought they looked too tall and wrote the ticket.
I think there are far too many laws for anyone to have them all perfectly committed to memory. Why not help and print out the ones that are pertinent to you?
The problem is the bars were legal. The South Dakota law stated the grips had to be at or below the shoulders of the rider. The officer did not know that, he just thought they looked too tall and wrote the ticket.
I think there are far too many laws for anyone to have them all perfectly committed to memory. Why not help and print out the ones that are pertinent to you?
I would never take cash from someone, as it's just opening the door to false allegations but some of the State Troopers in my area are set up to run credit cards. Man that must be nice to ticket and collect. Although, it's optional at that point and is a convience for the operator not really a requirement to avoid jail.
CSD
Banned
Great reply Jeff. OP, if you're issued a summons, bring whatever paperwork you have to court; not the side of the road. And why do you need headlight covers in the first place? It sounds like you have some maturing to do.
oke:
I interpret this much differently. The way I read it is "if your covers restrict the amount of light emitted when the lights are on, you can't have them when your lights are off either". If I were a cop and you showed me that .pdf you would get the ticket anyway.
. the wording is ambiguous at best. the wording "clearly eliminates" nothing.
That is the statute, but what about the case law that defines it. As noted above, the law is read two different ways by two different members. That is why a ticket is only an allegation. The officer alleges something you did was a violation of a statute and if you dont agree, you take it to court and let the judge decide. The thing is these arent new statutes and there are previous court decisions that define the ambiguity.
Because it is not reasonable to assume one will get out of their car and remove the headlight covers everytime their headlights are needed it is plausible to assume the violation.
Because it is not reasonable to assume one will get out of their car and remove the headlight covers everytime their headlights are needed it is plausible to assume the violation.
So its not an officers job requirement to know the law? If the officer's job is to cite/arrest citizens for breaking the law, seems like pretty simple logic that youd have to know the law in order to perform your job duties correctly.
And as far as going to court, sure the judge may throw out the ticket but then who is going to reimburse the driver for having to miss work all because the officer didnt know the law?
The officer in this incident didn't know the law?
Screw the courts and the law and all that.....Tell me more about the cutie pie in your sig!! LOL
/threadjack...
Well in all actuality the guy wasnt pulled over during the day. His question was in regard to the covers being used during the day when the lights werent on.
Now in regard to your particular question, we really dont know if an officer will know this statute or not until the situation arises that he is pulled over during the day for the covers.
My whole rant really revolves around a flaw in the system which doesnt reimburse people if they are able to successfully prove they are innocent of the said offense. The officer isnt responsible for figuring out if a person is guilty of said offense or not. When it comes to matters like the above mentioned, his only responsibility is to cite/arrest people for what he feels is against the law. And in this matter, if an officer doesnt know that during the day you can have the covers when the lights arent in use, he can wrongfully issue a ticket when in fact the driver did nothing wrong. It doesnt hurt the officer if he wrongfully issues a citation but it does affect the driver because he has to go through the hassle of taking off of work and then proving he is innocent(even though thats "supposed" to be the DA's job). If he succeeds, he gets a friggin, "Mr. headlight guy you are free to go".
Thats great and all but what about what my time is worth? The system could care less about that because thats not their problem. And thats where the flaw is. If the state gets paid when citizens do something wrong then its only fair that the citizen should be reimbursed if an employee of the state gets something wrong right?
A court never determines if an individual is innocent. Only if they are guilty.
Exactly. A finding of "not guilty" is not the same as innocent.
Case in point, OJ's first trial...
Users who are viewing this thread
