if u dont sign a paper or have a contract that states the car will only be used on private streets, then we cant look at it 2 ways. ur logic is flawed. any person knows that unless it specifically states that this car CAN NOT be driven on public roads, CAN NOT BE tagged, unless u sign something stating that, well then its a public vehicle on public roads.

u can not sell a car in ur state, have it pass inspections and have the DOT tell u the car is legal, then go into court and have a judge tell u its illegal, when u bought it in the state LEGALLY... once again, ur logic is flawed. ur logic right now is based on the judges opinions and not the facts, what u fail to probably realize is that the judge can not rule on opinions but only facts. the facts say, he bought the car legal, then got a ticket for it being illegal? cant happen on a completly stock car, sorry. if the car comes with the protection of the us goverment dot seal, the state CAN NOT take that seal/leagalization away from the owner, sorry buddy.

 

you and everyone else except one poster seem to ignore that having seal of dot don't mean that car can be sold in the state. All it means that dot approved it and it can be sold in usa. State also have to certifie the car. Also without him poster the civil code under which he was was ticketed we have no idea what law legislators passed.

edit:most people don't read the full contract they just read the numbers of how much the car will cost, the apr and how much they will be paying for the car a month

 

It is a factory wing you can not be ticketed for it That's a bunch of crap

 

Mods, what the hell is going on here?

 

Everybody is right to a certain extent here. True, the wing has a purpose, true that is does not obstruct rear vision (not a lot anyway). True that lots of other vehicles have no rear windows at all so therefore the charge is bogus. Also true that even if the wing serves no purpose whatsoever, it does not mean it's ilegal. If everything in the car must be functional to be legal, we are all basically up **** creek.
Unfortunately, it's also true that any group of retards can get together and gets laws passed to regulate every facet of our lifes. It's very hard to get bad laws off the books that's why it's so important to not create new laws for every dumb thing under the sun.
Most unfortunate of all is the fact that judges are extremely powerful and what they say goes even if it's wrong, unfair, unlawful, evil or just plain wrong. Sure you can eventually get your rights back, but only after huge fights, expenses and time.
Unless it's really important to the person, it's probably simpler, cheaper and easier to pay the fine and put the thing behind you. I know it sucks and it's not right but it might be just too big a fight for too little a victory......

 

call help me howard, FOX 5, put it on national tv news. =]

 

Ok ... I can't seem to find the 'actual' law you were cited against. Can you Post it here?

In the mean time, I went through WI's transportation code and only came up with this:
"
305.19
(3) A trunk lid or hatchback may be temporarily secured in an
open position when transporting oversized objects that prevent
complete lid closure.

Trans 305.26 Mirrors.
(1) All motor vehicles originally
manufactured with an inside mounted rearview mirror and all
homemade and reconstructed motor vehicles registered after January
1, 1975, shall be equipped with an inside mounted rearview
mirror. All motor vehicles originally manufactured with a left outside
rearview mirror and all homemade and reconstructed motor
vehicles registered after January 1, 1975, shall be equipped with
a left outside rearview mirror.
(2) The mirrors of every motor vehicle shall be maintained in
proper working condition and in conformity with this section and
s. 347.40, Stats.
(3) No mirror may be broken, cracked, discolored, non−reflective
or otherwise reflect an inadequate image. All mirrors shall
be securely mounted on the vehicle.
(4) If the vehicle is constructed, loaded, or towing another
vehicle so as to prevent the operator’s clear view to the right rear,
adequate additional mirrors shall be installed on both sides of the
outside of the vehicle.
History: Cr. Register, February, 1996, No. 482, eff. 3−1−96.

347.40 Mirrors. (1) No person shall operate any motor
vehicle upon a highway unless such vehicle is equipped with a
mirror so located as to reflect to the operator a view of the roadway
for a distance of 200 feet to the rear of such vehicle

"

Those were the 'only' things related to a 'wing.' Could you please put down the 'code' you were cited against? Perhaps a 'real' lawyer on this board could chime in.

BTW, Don't take ANYTHING I'm saying as 'legal' advice. I'm just here offering my personal opinion.

0.02

jcnel

 

Check this out.

 

also, when applying for plates and registration in a given state, it is that states responsibility to makes sure the car they are licensing is road legal. that is why some states have emissions testings and other even have visual testing. i think if he got a valid plate from that state, they are telling him that "yes" the car sold as is, is road legal in our state. end of story. if he changed or modified the car in anyway, then he would be in effect waiving his right to say the car is road legal.

when i had a VW rabbit brought from life as a salvage car a number of years ago, i had to go to the secretary of state and get a check list. i had to get that check list signed by an officer verifying the car was road worthy and street legal. the check list included many things including side mirrors, e-brake, exhaust, lights, blinkers, bumpers, no cracked windshield etc. it never said anything about no rear wings. but then again that was michigan, where the police suburbans have limo tinted rear glass.


ylen, states can say some stuff is legal even if the federal government says it is illegal. take for example medicinal pot. legal in california, illegal everywhere else according to the federal government. the state overrode the federal law in that case.

 

and feds can prosecute anyone for breaking federal law

 

This thread reminds me of another thread...

ylen13 seems to be playing the same role as Senor whatever his name was regarding the importation and legalization of Evo 7's by Evolution Imports. Everyone complained about Senor (I can't remember his name), and called him all sorts of names...turns out he was right.

I will agree on one thing with ylen13, it doesn't matter at all what anyone thinks except for the presiding judge. It's not a matter of what's right or wrong (oftentimes), it's who presents the better argument. No, good thing there are appelate courts to counter the decisions of judges who have little common sense or good judgement.

 

What a dork!, Once again I'll say this. Cops can write you aticket for anything they want. They can say that the wing blocks rearward vision, and then it's up to our poor souls to drag our azzes to court,miss out on work and procure evidence to the contrary. A cop can write a ticket saying a dirty rear window is impeding vision. If the court won't recognize the validity of the rear wing, maybe you should try asking a local congressman for help? They have a more vested interest in the welfare of us since we vote for their butts every year!, When you appeal, make sure you bring LOTS and LOTS of pictures, documents, written statements from local authorities, and maybe look up specific statutes that work in your defense. I've used this tactit before and found that it works mostly in my favor except for really obvious violations.

 

We're not jumping on ylen, it's just that dyad 001 asked for help and we are giving it, ylen seems to just have joined the discussion to bash the wing. This in no way helps out dryad in his injustice.

 

I think this is an important point. And I think it is spot on! And furthermore, his insurance company would never insure an illeagal car either, so it must be legal.

 

This is one of those laws that gives the officers the decision to whether it is illegal or not. Just like exhaust levels. Meaning(exhaust) it is up to the officer if it is to loud or not. One might say it is, anothre say no. Going back to the wing. The officer is not driving the car so how can he say that it will hinder your vision. Everybody are of different heights. So are you tellling me if your 5'4" and it hinders your vision you have to take it off while someone that is 6'4" can leave it on? this is ridiculous