State laws on warning lights?

[JohnMarcson]

If you drive through another state you need to follow their vehicle laws..... they are often different from state to state.... there is nothing to argue here.... state driving laws vary.... if you choose to drive in that state you are expected to know and follow them.


If you get cut slack because you are clearly a visitor, great... just don't demand or expect that.


A letter to a supervisor.... really?


"Dear police supervisor, your officer pulled me over and enforced a state law I was not just ignorant of, but willfully ignoring. I fully expect this officer to be reprimanded for not letting me drive around like I own the place. Back in my state I am clearly important and your state's laws don't apply to me"








People may not "take their lift off their truck" when passing through a state where it isn't legal... but they can be cited for it...... all the examples you will be able to come up with will be examples of other people breaking the law...... the best way to avoid this issue is to comply with the law..... Any "slack" you are cut is a gift.... not a right.

 

[bwoodruff]

My opinion stands. If someone is in your state regularly / frequently, or for an extended period, that is one thing. If someone is just traveling through or visiting for a couple days, really, what do you accomplish by ticketing them or making them remove equipment besides pissing them off at you and your state? You likely didn't teach them a lesson, you likely didn't encourage them to come back.


The streets are safe from people with lifted trucks for another day!


:hopeless:


I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am saying I think it is overbearing.

 

[mredd007]

mredd07, you should probably educate yourself a little more before you start giving advice on the internet. I am a cop in the state of Maryland, which is a reciprocity state. If you come driving into Maryland with Florida tags and a tinted front windshield, that is illegal in the state of Maryland. Florida might allow a tinted front window, but I am not trained on Florida laws. I am 100% legally allowed to write a citation for illegal window tint on your vehicle. You can come to court and argue the ticket if you want. It is actually very easy to do. You bring your Florida registration and a copy of the Florida law that allows you to have that tint and the citation will be dropped. HOWEVER, I am allowed to write that citation.

You gave some example of a lift on your truck... that might be legal in Iowa, but it is in violation of Maryland law. I can pull you over, I can write you a ticket. It is perfectly legal for me to write that ticket.


If you don't know what you are talking about, maybe you should keep your OPINION to yourself when someone is requesting FACT...


Thats a poor attitude... If you are in violation of the law, you need to worry more about yourself than the attitude of the officer.

thats fine that you feel that way i still disagree and do believe i know what im talking about not many people are gunna waste there time fighting an out of state ticket there are plenty of KNOWN cases documented about the subject if you cant use google ill use it for you and find them everything is open to interpretation i guess we interpret things differently

 

[JohnMarcson]

Is it good PR to ticket a volly who is visiting your state? No. Is the volly still in the wrong? Yes. I get sick of people thinking they have a right to drive. It's a privilege... that comes with the responsibility of knowing and following state laws. If I were a police officer I'd know which states bordering me used different light colors and cut those vollies some slack..... but... I'd be under no obligation to do so. Catch my attention for something else and then give me lip at the traffic stop.... you'd get cited.


It's not so much the idea of driving through a state w/ technically illegal lights... it's the attitude that it you have a right to do it and that an officer would be wrong to cite you that is getting the negative responses here.


What got me to reply to this at all was the idea that it's appropriate to send a letter to the supervisor of an officer who tickets you for breaking the law.... that attitude makes me hope you do get cited...


To me this is just another example of someone breaking the law and then blaming the officer.....

 

[Ipuvaepe]

I get sick of people thinking they have a right to drive. It's a privilege... that comes with the responsibility of knowing and following state laws.

They probably think it is because something that is required for virtually all social and economic functions, especially in the land of the free, should be a right like it is in the rest of the world.

Couple that with the fact that 50% of people are not only don't think about something before they do it, but don't think about what they're doing/they've done and thus don't learn from their mistakes unless it's forced upon them (like say, having their vehicle impounded?).

 

[JohnMarcson]

They probably think it is because something that is required for virtually all social and economic functions, especially in the land of the free, should be a right like it is in the rest of the world.

Couple that with the fact that 50% of people are not only don't think about something before they do it, but don't think about what they're doing/they've done and thus don't learn from their mistakes unless it's forced upon them (like say, having their vehicle impounded?).

I will admit that the states having vastly different vehicle laws and light colors isn't making things easier. A volly should look the same in every state..... but this is the current "state" of things....

 

[chief1562]

thats fine that you feel that way i still disagree and do believe i know what im talking about not many people are gunna waste there time fighting an out of state ticket there are plenty of KNOWN cases documented about the subject if you cant use google ill use it for you and find them everything is open to interpretation i guess we interpret things differently

If you are up this damn early in the mornig takes some online grammer course's. :hopeless:

 

[chief1562]

I will admit that the states having vastly different vehicle laws and light colors isn't making things easier. A volly should look the same in every state..... but this is the current "state" of things....

some states are looking into changing that.

 

[mcpd2025]

Unless your goal is to discourage people from traveling through your fine state, you have a poor attitude. Someone is not going to take the lift out of their truck just so they can pass through your state.

Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.

I never said I would, I simply informed him that legally I can. He gave improper information to someone seeking legal advice and I corrected his mistake. I would only discourage you from driving through my state if you are going to have that "holier than thou" attitude. Its not my fault you may be in violation of the law. Check your attitude first if you are the one in the wrong...

 

[mcpd2025]

thats fine that you feel that way i still disagree and do believe i know what im talking about not many people are gunna waste there time fighting an out of state ticket there are plenty of KNOWN cases documented about the subject if you cant use google ill use it for you and find them everything is open to interpretation i guess we interpret things differently

I'm sure the judge will love your Google defense... Bottom line, if I have probable cause that you are commiting an infraction of a specified traffic law, I am legally allowed to stop your vehicle and issue you a traffic citation. I do it frequently, and I have never found a judge that had a problem with it. Then again, nobody had the brilliant idea to have Google as their legal counsel...

 

[JohnMarcson]

some states are looking into changing that.

By the very definition of the problem "some states" changing doesn;t solve the problem... it's a start I guess

 

[bwoodruff]

Is it good PR to ticket a volly who is visiting your state? No. Is the volly still in the wrong? Yes. I get sick of people thinking they have a right to drive. It's a privilege... that comes with the responsibility of knowing and following state laws. If I were a police officer I'd know which states bordering me used different light colors and cut those vollies some slack..... but... I'd be under no obligation to do so. Catch my attention for something else and then give me lip at the traffic stop.... you'd get cited.

It's not so much the idea of driving through a state w/ technically illegal lights... it's the attitude that it you have a right to do it and that an officer would be wrong to cite you that is getting the negative responses here.


What got me to reply to this at all was the idea that it's appropriate to send a letter to the supervisor of an officer who tickets you for breaking the law.... that attitude makes me hope you do get cited...


To me this is just another example of someone breaking the law and then blaming the officer.....

What if I'm in an agency owned vehicle? Still going to ticket me? If not then why ticket the volunteer in their POV?


It is a stupid law, and it wouldn't be the first time agencies have declined to enforce stupid laws.


The way the stupid thing is written, technically an ambulance is in violation if they transport a pt. across state lines with their lights on running a code even if the nearest hospital is into the next state. Going to ticket them? If you are going to enforce a stupid law, better enforce it uniformly.


Also: I never said anything about giving anybody lip or arguing with the officer on the side of the road. Doing so doesn't do anyone any good. Deal with it after the fact.

 

[chief1562]

By the very definition of the problem "some states" changing doesn;t solve the problem... it's a start I guess

John,


You mentioned something about a revamp of state light laws?


How about of a list of the latest state laws and a place for future updates that are passed to them.


Just a suggestion?

 

[Travelin Man]

What if I'm in an agency owned vehicle? Still going to ticket me? If not then why ticket the volunteer in their POV?

The way the stupid thing is written, technically an ambulance is in violation if they transport a pt. across state lines with their lights on running a code even if the nearest hospital is into the next state. Going to ticket them? If you are going to enforce a stupid law, better enforce it uniformly.

POV's and agency-owned vehicles are covered under two different code sections.

 

[mcpd2025]

The way the stupid thing is written, technically an ambulance is in violation if they transport a pt. across state lines with their lights on running a code even if the nearest hospital is into the next state. Going to ticket them? If you are going to enforce a stupid law, better enforce it uniformly.

My job is not to decide what what laws I like and what laws I don't like. My job is to enforce the laws. Discretion is ultimately up to the individual officer. If a Virginia ambulance drives through Maryland to get to MedStar in DC, chances are that I will not mess with them. However, if that Virginia ambulance is blowing red lights, speeding, driving the wrong way, etc etc, I might decide to see what is going on. If I yank the ambo and find out that the daughter of the driver is having a severe medical emergency, I will probably get as many officers as possible to help shut down intersections for the ambo. If I yank it and find out its a bunch of drunk volunteers that took the ambo without permission (cause that's never happened, right?), then I would be remiss if I didn't do anything about it.


The point that you are missing throughout all of this is officer discretion and the facts at hand. If you have lights on your car that are illegal to possess in the state of Maryland, I will probably pull you over. If you are a decent guy with a legit story and there is no evidence that you are abusing your lights, I will probably have you cover up the lights and tell you to have a safe drive. If you are some shady mope who gives me an attitude and start telling me that Google says you can have the lights, then we can take the traffic stop to the next level.


As I stated before... its all about attitude. Its not my job to screw with you, its my job to enforce the law. If I think that you are receptive to a verbal warning and a request to cover/remove the lights, then thats all you get. If you are that pig headed person that "knows their rights" and wants to argue the merits of the stop and the merits of the violation, then I need to find some other way to make sure you understand the law and to make sure I am certain that you will not be in violation of the law any longer. If that means I have to sieze the light, I will. If that means I have to impound the vehicle, I will. Its a life lesson, do the right thing and act the right way and life is so much easier.

 

[bwoodruff]

POV's and agency-owned vehicles are covered under two different code sections.

I didn't see an exception for agency owned vehicles in the portion that was posted.

 

[bwoodruff]

My job is not to decide what what laws I like and what laws I don't like. My job is to enforce the laws. Discretion is ultimately up to the individual officer. If a Virginia ambulance drives through Maryland to get to MedStar in DC, chances are that I will not mess with them. However, if that Virginia ambulance is blowing red lights, speeding, driving the wrong way, etc etc, I might decide to see what is going on. If I yank the ambo and find out that the daughter of the driver is having a severe medical emergency, I will probably get as many officers as possible to help shut down intersections for the ambo. If I yank it and find out its a bunch of drunk volunteers that took the ambo without permission (cause that's never happened, right?), then I would be remiss if I didn't do anything about it.

The point that you are missing throughout all of this is officer discretion and the facts at hand. If you have lights on your car that are illegal to possess in the state of Maryland, I will probably pull you over. If you are a decent guy with a legit story and there is no evidence that you are abusing your lights, I will probably have you cover up the lights and tell you to have a safe drive. If you are some shady mope who gives me an attitude and start telling me that Google says you can have the lights, then we can take the traffic stop to the next level.


As I stated before... its all about attitude. Its not my job to screw with you, its my job to enforce the law. If I think that you are receptive to a verbal warning and a request to cover/remove the lights, then thats all you get. If you are that pig headed person that "knows their rights" and wants to argue the merits of the stop and the merits of the violation, then I need to find some other way to make sure you understand the law and to make sure I am certain that you will not be in violation of the law any longer. If that means I have to sieze the light, I will. If that means I have to impound the vehicle, I will. Its a life lesson, do the right thing and act the right way and life is so much easier.

Sure, but like I said, the attitude of the officer matters as well. If you're all mightier than thou, polishing your badge, "you're in MY state now!" attitude that isn't so cool either. Do you really want to piss off your fellow emergency responders? Yeah, maybe if there is some actual abuse going on (running the lights, being a dick to you, driving recklessly, etc). But just because you get your jollies by writing tickets?


And how is the public going to feel if they find out about it? Remember, it is them that you work for.


"Paramedic cited for crossing state line without covering emergency lighting."


"Johnny was written a traffic citation because he stopped to help out at a car crash and one of the cops saw he had emergency lights that were the right color for where he lives and works but not the right color for where he was. He didn't have them on, he just happened to have them, and they weren't covered."


Next time Johnny doesn't stop.


"Paramedic seen driving past the scene of car crash, refuses to stop and help."


Come on people, we're all in this together.


Most of the law enforcement I've dealt with in my career have been pretty down to earth kinda folks. Don't give them a bad name by giving someone a hard time just because you can.

 

[mcpd2025]

Why does it feel as though I am pissing in the wind? The original intent of this thread was someone asking whether or not he could legally drive through other states while displaying emergency lighting. Some ding dong gave horribly wrong information, which I have attemted to correct. You popped in talking about cops with an attitude problem.


If you are in violation of the law, you can be stopped, cited and equipment or vehicle potentially siezed. If you act like a dick, the chances are greater that those things could happen. Remember, the officers job is to prevent and detect crime. The officers job is to be professional throughout. If you are a dick, I'm not going to coddle you, I'm going to do my job. Ultimately, a large part of the decision about how the traffic stop goes lies with the violator and his attitude.


Justify your position any way you like, but be prepared for the consequences of your decisions.


I have never written a cop or a firefighters, but every one that I have stopped had the intelligence to be respectful. Courtesy is never promised...

 

[TritonBoulder47]

Some ding dong gave horribly wrong information, which I have attemted to correct.

MY apologies for being said "ding dong"... I'll go sit in the corner... :dunce: :diggrave:

 

[mcpd2025]

MY apologies for being said "ding dong"... I'll go sit in the corner... :dunce: :diggrave:

Negative Ghostrider, I wasn't referring to you. Your advice was that he had clear lenses, he should be fine. That is 100% correct. I was referring to this gem..

I know im a few days late but you sir are wrong there is a law that states that if something is legal in your state and illegal in another they cannot ticket you for that all states have different lighting laws which is part of the reason the law was enacted as long as he doesnt use them he cannot get in trouble its like someone coming to my state which requires two license plates and your car only has one but your from out of state they cannot give you ticket for that

 

[bwoodruff]

Why does it feel as though I am pissing in the wind? The original intent of this thread was someone asking whether or not he could legally drive through other states while displaying emergency lighting. Some ding dong gave horribly wrong information, which I have attemted to correct. You popped in talking about cops with an attitude problem.

If you are in violation of the law, you can be stopped, cited and equipment or vehicle potentially siezed. If you act like a dick, the chances are greater that those things could happen. Remember, the officers job is to prevent and detect crime. The officers job is to be professional throughout. If you are a dick, I'm not going to coddle you, I'm going to do my job. Ultimately, a large part of the decision about how the traffic stop goes lies with the violator and his attitude.


Justify your position any way you like, but be prepared for the consequences of your decisions.


I have never written a cop or a firefighters, but every one that I have stopped had the intelligence to be respectful. Courtesy is never promised...

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I think either I'm not stating my position very well or you aren't reading my posts very carefully (I'm open to the idea that it is the former). All I'm saying is my opinion is that the law is stupid, I think it puts law enforcement in a bad position, and anyone enforcing it and writing someone a ticket solely based on it is in poor form. If there are other reasons to ticket someone, such as their attitude, then by all means...


If you are simply using their lighting as probable cause to pull them over, because you suspect something else is going on (i.e. impersonation) I'm okay with that too.

 

[mcpd2025]

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I think either I'm not stating my position very well or you aren't reading my posts very carefully (I'm open to the idea that it is the former). All I'm saying is my opinion is that the law is stupid, I think it puts law enforcement in a bad position, and anyone enforcing it and writing someone a ticket solely based on it is in poor form. If there are other reasons to ticket someone, such as their attitude, then by all means...

If you are simply using their lighting as probable cause to pull them over, because you suspect something else is going on (i.e. impersonation) I'm okay with that too.

I think I understand your point, but that is why we have discretion in the job. I realize that there are a lot of well intentioned volunteer firefighters in the US. I will venture a guess that the overwhelming majority of them are good honest people. That still leaves the minority of volunteers who have lights and use them illegally. In my area, only very few select volunteers can have lights in personal vehicles, so I rarely see them. What I do see is the mopes that put flashing lights in their cars and go around and use those lights for nefarious activities.


If I see some shady looking lights in a vehicle, I will pull the vehicle over. Depending on who has them, why they have them and the attitude that I get from them, I make a decision about how to go forth with my job. Maybe its a volunteer from PA that has a right to have them in his car, isn't causing any problems and is with his family on the way to a day trip in Washington DC. I tell them to have a great day, be careful where you park and make sure to see the Air and Space museum while they are down. On the other hand, maybe its the guy that has been posing as a police officer and robbing the Hispanic immigrants down in Langley Park.


The law is fine, the law is appropriate. This is my argument, I've gone into enough detail about it. I'm fairly certain that I am done explaining the laws of MD and the complexities of my job when it comes to traffic enforcement.

 

[mcpd2025]

This is why those types of laws are appropriate...


http://elightbars.org/forums/f25/police-impersonator-28855/

 

[bwoodruff]

This is why those types of laws are appropriate...

http://elightbars.org/forums/f25/police-impersonator-28855/

There is already a law against impersonation. Why do you need a separate law specifically about lights?

 

[mcpd2025]

There is already a law against impersonation. Why do you need a separate law specifically about lights?

You just don't get it. How hard is it to actually catch someone in the act of impersonation? Now, how hard is it so catch some dude rolling around in a shady car with red/blue lights on the dash. Without a law making it illegal to display those red and blue lights, I can't just pull that guy over. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

 

[bwoodruff]

You just don't get it. How hard is it to actually catch someone in the act of impersonation? Now, how hard is it so catch some dude rolling around in a shady car with red/blue lights on the dash. Without a law making it illegal to display those red and blue lights, I can't just pull that guy over.

Ha, well, in this case, he called the SP so I guess it was pretty easy. But your point is well taken.

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

Pssh. If you don't like having to explain your position maybe you are in the wrong field.

 

[Travelin Man]

Pssh. If you don't like having to explain your position maybe you are in the wrong field.

Perhaps he's tired of you nit-picking everything that's posted in this thread...

 

[bwoodruff]

Perhaps he's tired of you nit-picking everything that's posted in this thread...

Why don't we let the man speak for himself? He is a big boy, I'm sure he can handle it.

 

[mcpd2025]

Perhaps he's tired of you nit-picking everything that's posted in this thread...

Couldn't have said it better myself. Rather than get annoyed at your shortsighted theories and ignorance about the realities of my profession, I'be given up on you. It's one of those things that if you get it, no explanation is needed; if you don't get it, no explanation will suffice...

 

[bwoodruff]

That's fine. My only point is I think if you give a fellow public servant a hard time just because you have the ability to makes you a jerk. Any further discussion to be had can happen in the ring as far as I'm concerned.

 

[mcpd2025]

Send me a PM if you wish to continue arguing. I'm done being polite with you.

 

[Quentin]

I wonder if any LEO seen a Whelen or Federal Signal demo car and gave them a hard time?


I meet someone at a car show that owens a private dare CVPI "bright multi color painted car with big black letters that's said D.A.R.E with a lightbar". He said he travels from show to show all over the US And never had a problem but, when he was headed to Dallas going through OK, A troop stop him. He said he sat there little over an hour, from the troop holding him up.


He said the troop wrote him a citation for impersonating an officer or something and let him on his way? This Guy put a lot of money and time in to his project to help kids out and others.


He said he started the project after losing his brother to drug abuse.

 

[Ipuvaepe]

Now, how hard is it so catch some dude rolling around in a shady car with red/blue lights on the dash. Without a law making it illegal to display those red and blue lights, I can't just pull that guy over.

There's a difference between a law barring having them in a vehicle sitting in the trunk (like some states fucked states), having them equipped, and displaying lights and you know it.

The first is bullshit, the second may be bullshit depending on the details of the law and enforcement, the third is perfectly reasonable.

 

[mcpd2025]

There's a difference between a law barring having them in a vehicle sitting in the trunk (like some states fucked states), having them equipped, and displaying lights and you know it.

The first is bullshit, the second may be bullshit depending on the details of the law and enforcement, the third is perfectly reasonable.

It isn't illegal to HAVE them in Maryland, but it is illegal to DISPLAY them in a vehicle, unless your vehicle is one of the specified exemptions and you aren't displaying a color that is prohibited for your vehicle. LED lights with clear lenses obviously aren't displaying a prohibited color if they are turned off. In and of itself, it is not illegal to possess colored lights, so long as they are not visible. I agree that its BS to make it illegal to own them, even if they aren't displayed.


If I happen to be searching your car and come across red/blue lights I will inquire as to why you have them. Worst case scenario at this point, I collect your information and share it with local agencies as a possible impersonator.


bwoodruff, after talking all that nonsense about/to me, you don't take me up on my offer?

 

[bwoodruff]

bwoodruff, after talking all that nonsense about/to me, you don't take me up on my offer?

Just signed back on. PM incoming.

 

[ejwa]

Is it good PR to ticket a volly who is visiting your state? No. Is the volly still in the wrong? Yes. I get sick of people thinking they have a right to drive. It's a privilege... that comes with the responsibility of knowing and following state laws. If I were a police officer I'd know which states bordering me used different light colors and cut those vollies some slack..... but... I'd be under no obligation to do so. Catch my attention for something else and then give me lip at the traffic stop.... you'd get cited.

It's not so much the idea of driving through a state w/ technically illegal lights... it's the attitude that it you have a right to do it and that an officer would be wrong to cite you that is getting the negative responses here.


What got me to reply to this at all was the idea that it's appropriate to send a letter to the supervisor of an officer who tickets you for breaking the law.... that attitude makes me hope you do get cited...


To me this is just another example of someone breaking the law and then blaming the officer.....

One thing I have wondered is how much grace there is when a vol ff travels from one state to another when on an emergency call. For example, I know of a vol ff whose department's jurisdiction is on the state line with another state. In his home state, ff can run in POVs with red lights and siren and have full right of way from oncoming traffic. Blue lights are for law enforcement use only. But in the neighboring state, ff can only use blue lights and no siren and they can not break any speed limits and such. Red lights are for law enfrocement, I asked him about this and he told me that the local county and city governements in the neighboring state would allow him to travel with lights and siren as long as it is with in a certain distance from the home state and if he travels back to the home state on a call. The local fire jurisdictions on both sides of the state line also have mutural aid aggreements where the ff from both sides can travel to the other side of the state line with out fear of prosecution while responding to a call using their original lights.


After reading the post here I also came up with this example. If some states allow you to have mounted lights as a long as you don't turn them on, you are ok. But other states make it illegal simply for possesion. So, what happens when a sheriff or other local police agency drives into another state where the lights are illegal, to extradite a prisoner back to their home state? Does the local police cite the visiting police for having in their possesion emergency lights or having the wrong color lights? I have seen out of state police escort a prisoner back while they are wearing full uniform and gun belt and marked police cars. Seems to me there needs to be a base line of common sence. Yes abuse can happen but if the authorized ff or leo is performing their job in good faith, there should be some exceptions.

 

[todaresq]

One thing I have wondered is how much grace there is when a vol ff travels from one state to another when on an emergency call. For example, I know of a vol ff whose department's jurisdiction is on the state line with another state. In his home state, ff can run in POVs with red lights and siren and have full right of way from oncoming traffic. Blue lights are for law enforcement use only. But in the neighboring state, ff can only use blue lights and no siren and they can not break any speed limits and such. Red lights are for law enfrocement, I asked him about this and he told me that the local county and city governements in the neighboring state would allow him to travel with lights and siren as long as it is with in a certain distance from the home state and if he travels back to the home state on a call. The local fire jurisdictions on both sides of the state line also have mutural aid aggreements where the ff from both sides can travel to the other side of the state line with out fear of prosecution while responding to a call using their original lights.

After reading the post here I also came up with this example. If some states allow you to have mounted lights as a long as you don't turn them on, you are ok. But other states make it illegal simply for possesion. So, what happens when a sheriff or other local police agency drives into another state where the lights are illegal, to extradite a prisoner back to their home state? Does the local police cite the visiting police for having in their possesion emergency lights or having the wrong color lights? I have seen out of state police escort a prisoner back while they are wearing full uniform and gun belt and marked police cars. Seems to me there needs to be a base line of common sence. Yes abuse can happen but if the authorized ff or leo is performing their job in good faith, there should be some exceptions.

Thankfully, NY mentions that vehicles in the state, rendering emergency services can have lights activated... and that one can have lights affixed/equipped on any vehicle even if from out of state/country, as long as the lights comply with laws in the registered location...


7. The provisions of this subdivision forty-one shall not be applicable to vehicles from other states or from the Dominion of Canada which have entered this state to render police, fire or civil defense aid, or ambulance service, while such vehicles are here or are returning to their home stations if the lights on such vehicles comply with the laws of their home states or the Dominion of Canada and are displayed in this state in the same manner permitted by their home states or the Dominion of Canada, nor shall the provisions of this subdivision forty-one be deemed to amend, supersede or in any manner affect the provisions of the New York state defense emergency act as now in force or as it may be amended from time to time.


8. The provisions of this subdivision shall not be applicable to the driver of a vehicle from another state or foreign jurisdiction which vehicle has colored lights affixed but not revolving, rotating, flashing, oscillating or constantly moving if the lights on such vehicle comply with the laws of the state or home foreign jurisdiction in which the vehicle is registered.


NYS GTSC - Vehicle & Traffic Law - Section 375 (41)


This to me, by no means makes pulling over suspicious vehicles wrong to do in NY... I think if a vehicle looks suspicious in NY and is potentially an impersonator, check it out. However, to ticket for the lights or arrest someone for impersonation just for having what is legal where registered... reminds me of NJ where it is illegal to carry hollow points, and out of state LEO's have been arrested for carrying HP ammunition.


A friend that is a retired PA trooper said he once went to pick up a subject from a Jersey barracks that was holding the person on a PA warrant. When my friend entered the building, the OIC there asked what ammo he was carrying. Knowing what the NJ officer was looking for, he responded with, "For me to know and a warrant to find out." That response was due to a previous case where a couple of NYPD officers on their way to work were arrested for having hollow points in their duty pieces. Of course, the off-duty officers could have been jerks to the NJ officer... I wasn't there, so no clue.


Again, I agree the law is the law... if certain lights are illegal to have affixed, it is illegal... however, laws can be changed. :thumbsup:

 

[FireMedic129]

My job is not to decide what what laws I like and what laws I don't like. My job is to enforce the laws. Discretion is ultimately up to the individual officer. If a Virginia ambulance drives through Maryland to get to MedStar in DC, chances are that I will not mess with them. However, if that Virginia ambulance is blowing red lights, speeding, driving the wrong way, etc etc, I might decide to see what is going on. If I yank the ambo and find out that the daughter of the driver is having a severe medical emergency, I will probably get as many officers as possible to help shut down intersections for the ambo. If I yank it and find out its a bunch of drunk volunteers that took the ambo without permission (cause that's never happened, right?), then I would be remiss if I didn't do anything about it.

The point that you are missing throughout all of this is officer discretion and the facts at hand. If you have lights on your car that are illegal to possess in the state of Maryland, I will probably pull you over. If you are a decent guy with a legit story and there is no evidence that you are abusing your lights, I will probably have you cover up the lights and tell you to have a safe drive. If you are some shady mope who gives me an attitude and start telling me that Google says you can have the lights, then we can take the traffic stop to the next level.


As I stated before... its all about attitude. Its not my job to screw with you, its my job to enforce the law. If I think that you are receptive to a verbal warning and a request to cover/remove the lights, then thats all you get. If you are that pig headed person that "knows their rights" and wants to argue the merits of the stop and the merits of the violation, then I need to find some other way to make sure you understand the law and to make sure I am certain that you will not be in violation of the law any longer. If that means I have to seize the light, I will. If that means I have to impound the vehicle, I will. Its a life lesson, do the right thing and act the right way and life is so much easier.

The highlighted part of this post is the only part I have a problem with. I do not see how a person that has a good understanding of their constitutional rights can be called "Pig Headed". Those rights are given to us for our protection as US Citizens, including protection from over zealous LEO's who infringe on those rights (cause that's never happened, right?) I know that most LEO's are decent officers that want to make a difference in their community, but can you say they all are??


In your years as a LEO how many times have you seen a ticket or arrest thrown out of court on a "Technicality"? What you see as a "technicality" i see as failure on the LEO's/ Prosecutor's part to make sure that any law enforcement action brought against somebody is done in a way that does not violate that persons rights afforded to them by our US Constitution, Bill Of Rights, and or state laws. The way "Finding another way to make them understand" sounds to me is "where the hell does this guy get off telling me that he knows his rights and question my authority, I'll teach him a lesson". I feel safe to say that most of the time the officer will get away with it and the violator will suck it up and deal with it, however sometimes that way of thinking has cost officers their jobs.


In case you haven't realized I am one of those "pig headed" people that has an above average understanding of the rights afforded me on both a state and federal level and I have voiced that understanding at times I felt appropriate.

 

[Dkellam]

Actually you are wrong... I've driven through VA numerous times with my full BLUE edge on the roof of my Avalanche and have had ZERO problems... Also, I regularly drive to NC with my truck and the cops there have no problems either... As long as your vehicle is legal as defined by your own states lighting laws, they really can't do much do you...

To the OP, since your set-up is all clear lensed, you would have ANY problems...

As long as you have out of state plates you should be fine with the blue lightbar on top, especially if you have EMS plates. That being said, it is at the discretion of the officer.

 

[mcpd2025]

The highlighted part of this post is the only part I have a problem with. I do not see how a person that has a good understanding of their constitutional rights can be called "Pig Headed". Those rights are given to us for our protection as US Citizens, including protection from over zealous LEO's who infringe on those rights (cause that's never happened, right?) I know that most LEO's are decent officers that want to make a difference in their community, but can you say they all are??

For some reason I never saw this when it was originally posted. Let me try to explain because I think I may not have worded it the best way.


I don't really have a power trip, this is a job to me. If I pull you over for something relatively minor I usually give people the opportunity to admit their mistake. Its one of my pet peeves... I want people to take responsibility for their mistakes. If you run a stop sign and admit it and tell me you'll never do it again, you'll probably get a warning. If you run a stop sign and want to argue whether or not you ran it, I will gladly write you a citation and bring the video to court and let a judge decide. My job is to prevent future traffic infractions. If you admit your mistake and convince me that it won't happen again, I have done my job. If you want to sit on the side of the road and argue the definition of "stop", I am more than happy to let a judge explain it to you. Its not an issue of "RESPECT MY AUTHORITY", its an issue of doing my job to enforce the law and educate the offender. If you won't take the opportunity to learn from a warning, you'll learn from paying a citation or talking to a judge.


When I am referring to an idiot who "knows their rights", I am talking about one of those people that doesn't know their rights but stubbornly thinks they do. For example, as I stated before, in Maryland it is illegal to display prohibited colors like red and blue. Johnny Knucklehead has a red and blue strobe light on his dash but it isn't turned on. I pull Johnny Knucklehead over and tell him it is illegal to display red and blue. Johnny THINKS that he knows his rights and THINKS that I am not allowed to stop him cause the lights weren't turned on, they aren't the newest technology, I didn't have jurisdiction to pull him over, etc etc. Johnny decides he wants to have an argument with me because he thinks he knows what he is talking about. Thats why I put it in qoutes, because it is meant with sarcasm (which I realize doesn't translate well in the written word).


I don't mind when someone talks that knows what they are talking about when it comes to their rights, and I don't mind people asking me questions when they don't know their rights. Its annoying when someone doesn't know their rights and wants to claim that I am violating them. Some personal favorites;


-Wrote a guy a speeding ticket, he fought it in court. His argument was that since I was parked in a church parking lot to shoot laser, it was not a valid stop. He was under the impression that churches are somehow sovereign states and therefore the stop was invalid. He paid the ticket and court costs after a judge heard the story.


-Arrested a drunk driver and searched the car incident to arrest. Ended up finding something illegal in the car, can't remember what it was now. She, a recent grad from UNC LAW SCHOOL argued that I never asked permission to search, so it was an illegal search and she was going to beat the criminal charges AND sue the department. She paid the tickets and was convicted of the criminal charges plus court costs after the judge watched my in car video.


-We have a county code that requires you to identify yourself to a police officer who was reasonable cause to stop you pursuant to a suspicious situation. I stopped 2 guys who matched the description of a robbery that occurred recently. I just wanted to confirm their identities and perhaps snap a picture to send up to the detectives to help them close the robbery. One guy gave the required information but refused to allow me to take a picture... we will call him Bill. The second guy told me that he didn't have to tell me anything, cause I didn't have a reason to stop him. Lets call him Steve. I got the information from Bill and released him. I sent Bill's name to our detectives, they tracked down a mugshot for Bill and used it in a photo array. The victim thought he might be involved, but wasn't confident enough for an arrest warrant to issue. Steve refused to tell me his name cause he thought he "knew his rights". Steve was arrested, photographed and fingerprinted. Steve had never been arrested before, so his prints weren't on file. After he was printed, detectives were able to close out multiple robberies and stolen vehicles. Bet you he wished he didn't "know his rights", because without those fingerprints he never would have been convicted and would probably be a free man. As it stands, he is currently serving a multiyear stint in prison.