Question for the LEO's

[Saleen781]

coppell will write you for anything, right or wrong. it's how they make their money. it's a BS ticket, was the cops name Jeff troutman?

[BMCSean]

Looks like you black out headlights and taillights of all the cars you own lol.

Yeah I geuss so , the 96 had GTS covers (removable) and the fox came with them......

[Grimpala]

There's just no need for this shit.


And those fusion taillights do look a little dark.

[ceyko]

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/392939...edan-4d/page-1

I'd never even notice it if I were a cop.

[Machx2]

That was it.


Here is a link for the photos, sorry for the fail.

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/392939...edan-4d/page-1

Looks like you black out headlights and taillights of all the cars you own lol.

[Osiris]

That's a bullshit ticket. The burden to prove the tail lights don't meet the standard should be on the officer, not the guy that got the ticket.


Can u post a pic of the car?

It's a legit citation. Red reflectors are required on the rear of the vehicle on both sides. The light also has to be visible at 1,000 ft.

I don't know about anything having to do with altering the lenses. Unless it is a new law and I didn't get the memo? Maybe a city ordinance? Whats the citation for?

See my above post

OP: Those tail lights are illegal, in my opinion.


Sec. 547.325. Reflectors REQUIRED. (a) Except as provided by Subchapter F, a motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, or pole trailer shall be equipped with at least two red reflectors on the rear of the vehicle. A red reflector may be included as a part of a taillamp.
(b) A reflector shall be:
(1) mounted at a height from 15 to 60 inches; and
(2) visible at night at all distances:
(A) from 100 to 600 feet when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlamps; or
(B) from 100 to 350 feet when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps if the vehicle was manufactured or assembled before January 1, 1972.

[BMCSean]

Was the reason for the traffic stop the taillights or something else?

That was it.


Here is a link for the photos, sorry for the fail.

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3929391/2009-ford-fusion-sel-sedan-4d/page-1

[Osiris]

I write this ticket all the time.

Sec. 547.303. COLOR REQUIREMENTS. (a) Unless expressly provided otherwise, a lighting device or reflector mounted on the rear of a vehicle must be or reflect red.

Sec. 547.322. TAILLAMPS REQUIRED. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole trailer, or vehicle that is towed at the end of a combination of vehicles shall be equipped with at least two taillamps.
(b) A passenger car or truck that was manufactured or assembled before the model year 1960 shall be equipped with at least one taillamp.
(c) Taillamps shall be mounted on the rear of the vehicle:
(1) at a height from 15 to 72 inches; and
(2) at the same level and spaced as widely apart as practicable if a vehicle is equipped with more than one lamp.
(d) A taillamp shall emit a red light plainly visible at a distance of 1,000 feet from the rear of the vehicle.
(e) If vehicles are traveling in combination, only the taillamps on the rearmost vehicle are required to emit a light for the distance specified in Subsection (d).
(f) A taillamp or a separate lamp shall be constructed and mounted to emit a white light that:
(1) illuminates the rear license plate; and
(2) makes the plate clearly legible at a distance of 50 feet from the rear.
(g) A taillamp, including a separate lamp used to illuminate a rear license plate, must emit a light when a headlamp or auxiliary driving lamp is lighted.

[GE]

Daily driver/kid hauler/gas is expensive jerkoff

I still have a fox body too!

lol. Play on playah!

[92lxstang]

Was the reason for the traffic stop the taillights or something else?

[BMCSean]

That's a bullshit ticket. The burden to prove the tail lights don't meet the standard should be on the officer, not the guy that got the ticket.


Can u post a pic of the car?

I just took them but suck at the internet and don't know how to post them.

I don't know about anything having to do with altering the lenses. Unless it is a new law and I didn't get the memo? Maybe a city ordinance? Whats the citation for?

It says:

150E5 Blacked out taillamps- mrr

Man Card revoked for having a Ford Fusion.

Daily driver/kid hauler/gas is expensive jerkoff

I still have a fox body too!

[Machx2]

That's a bullshit ticket. The burden to prove the tail lights don't meet the standard should be on the officer, not the guy that got the ticket.


Can u post a pic of the car?

I agree. Unless it is crazy dark tinted ones. I've seen one that I swear the guy used paint on his tail lights. Could barely see it.

[GE]

Man Card revoked for having a Ford Fusion.

[Machx2]

Right, but I can't find what he was talking about the altering of lenses being illegal?

I don't know about anything having to do with altering the lenses. Unless it is a new law and I didn't get the memo? Maybe a city ordinance? Whats the citation for?

[03trubluGT]

That's a bullshit ticket. The burden to prove the tail lights don't meet the standard should be on the officer, not the guy that got the ticket.


Can u post a pic of the car?