Thanks,

I went and looked up 347.40 and it said:

"347.40 - ANNOT.pdf icon
History: 1975 c. 84; 1987 a. 235.

347.40 - ANNOT.pdf icon
Cross Reference: See also ss. Trans 305.26 and 305.44, Wis. adm. code."

So I looked up 305.26 and it said:
"Trans 305.26pdf icon
Trans 305.26 Mirrors.
Trans 305.26(1)pdf icon
(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.

Trans 305.26(2)pdf icon
(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.

Trans 305.26(3)pdf icon
(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.

Trans 305.26(4)pdf icon
(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. <-- the EVO def. has this.

Trans 305.26 - ANNOT.pdf icon
History: Cr. Register, February, 1996, No. 482, eff. 3-1-96."

and finally 305.44 says:
"Trans 305.44pdf icon
Trans 305.44 Mirrors. Every motorcycle shall be equipped with at least one mirror meeting the requirements of s. 347.40, Stats., and s. Trans 305.26.

Trans 305.44 - ANNOT.pdf icon
History: Cr. Register, February, 1996, No. 482, eff. 3-1-96."

So ... what that says to me is this ...

I think the EVO meets the requirements in 347.40. Perhaps if our EVO owner in court didn't address this principle, the 'judge' probably had the 'legal' discression to rule that the EVO doesn't meet 346.88 3c's requirements. So .. he probably ruled without looking up the other 'linked' laws.

Remember this is purely my opinion in this matter.

As it stands, he has a really good chance of winning in appeals, just by looking up the 'other' laws, making a really good written argument and then presenting it 'again' in court. Close ALL the loops in the way this law is worded.

For what its worth, this is a really vague law. Something that cops and judges LOVE to rule on because it works in their favor with little work.

I'm sorry that the situation turned out as it did. I wish the very best to our EVO fellow EVO owner in this matter.

Cheers,

jcnel.

 

Well this is my first good news. My lawyer who is an avid car nut, obtained the DOT registration for legalization for the EVO. He is talikng with the DA today, and will be giving me a call when he finds out whats going to be going on.

When we were talking about this case he asked me if I was pulled over for "Driving too fast for conditions," or "Visually tracking." Well the obvious answer was no. He said that police like to use these 2 excuses in ALL departments just to get up close to you to try and find something ticket worthty.

Now on to some of the past posts

DrEvo: I've had my fair share of the cop looking the other way, just because he works with my dad. Kinda of a nice little pet to have in the City of Milwaukee.

ylen13: Ummm, yeah. Go find another forum to troll on. You hope I lose?********************************************* ************.

But why I think I was pulled over in the first place is because the cop saw this coming down the road:


Then he saw:

 

To sum up my life. It is a textbook case of Murphy's law, "Whatever can go wrong will go wrong"

Thank god I bought a new car!

 

Resizing Is Your Friend!

 

Yes, I know. For that I am sorry.

 

hey man.. good luck.. thats about all I can say. I'd fight it if I were you, but it'll be very expensive probably.. any way with whatever you decide.. good luck

 

post results of what happens, I will be suprised if you win

 

Here we have a thing called 7 on your side and its a news station and if you call in and tell them about something like this they will look into it and make abig thing on the news about it. If you have any places that do that near you, you should do it! You and your car will get to be on TV!

Desten

 

Have you checked with your lawyer to see if your entitled to any punitive damages over all of this?

 

Aaaaah ... make ... it .... stooop! Geez, did you have to quote the pics?

l8r)

 

^^ No punitive damages can be gained by a court system.. Just a simple adjudication being withheld..

Dude, that is the most rediculous thing I have ever read!! I can't believe the judge went with the officers decision... Obviously the judge is not very educated, otherwise he would realize that the federal government has to approve all of these options prior to being for sale in the United States of America!! DUH!! And!! If the wing was such an obstruction, how is it that you saw the officer behind you in the first place??!!! Because it wasn't obstructing your vision after all now!! Dude, sorry about the anguish you're going through!!

 

Wisconsin cops suck.... I want to know why the hell he nailed you for the legal wing rather than the illegal lack of front plate (that's the one I got busted for).

Then the best one, a Mukwonago cop tried to ticket my stepdad for having an illegal hoodscoop on his STi (it is stock) but left the catless exhaust well alone....

Let us know how this turns out..... It would be a grave injustice if you don't get this overturned.

 

Can you imagine the look of the Judges face when the case gets slapped on his face. Take pictures lol!

 

He was ticketed for breaking state civil code. So dot have nothing to do here. We all know that dot approved, the issue here is dose the wing violate state law

 

i have the small wing