Maryland Judge Decrees Pontiac G8 GT Tail Lights Illegal

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Shifty 6

I find it hard to believe that he was found guilty with the stock taillights. However, stranger things have happened. I think a call the Jackie Childs is in order. If the story is in fact true, I would think this guy should find a fantastic lawyer. This actually needs to go as high as he can take it, I think the federal system would find it very interesting that a state judge is basically saying "screw you, I can do whatever I want!"

Although, if she is a member of the New Black Panther party..........

A member at G8board.com who's a lawyer has offered to take up his case for free. Should be interesting to see where this goes.

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

I am just saying I have one side of the story.

And it is not like the G8 is a new vehicle, you can't even buy a new one. And yet this is the first time we have heard of this.

I want to get the other side of the story before we jump to conclusions.

If I had to guess. He got stopped with the tinted lights on the car and switched back stock for the court date. But that is pure speculation on my part.

I tend not to trust people that will say one thing and then later start back peddling.

One thing you have to consider also is that the cop would have been here. If he had tinted tail lights on, and then presented the OEM image as his evidence, the cop would have raised the flag right there on that. But that wasn't the case.

I'm also interested to see where this goes.
- X

[Blade]

Maybe the Judge hates shitty tail-lights.

I personally can't stand those tail-lights, because honestly they look like those aftermarket lights on those ricers running around.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

A member at G8board.com who's a lawyer has offered to take up his case for free. Should be interesting to see where this goes.

I would HOPE that this would only need to go one step higher than this judge to be repealed. What an idiotic decision!

[alwinSS]

4 words.....Maryland Court of Appeals.

[adjkageagfldafsgjk]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

It doesn't matter who was there. It matters that the court ruled on the OEM tail lamps and no other tail lamps during the case. Inasmuch, the court made no decision on aftermarket tail lamps. The court ruled that OEM tail lamps for the G8 GT are not legal in the state of Maryland. I don't have to be there to read about the court decision.

Did your question imply that you have something constructive to add, or where you just needlessly stirring the pot?

But the guys tail lamps were not OEM. Seriously dude thats what he was trying to say. That guy had a tinted out set of tails that were posted, and the 'stock' set he supposedly replaced them with weren't stock. He had cracked open the lamps, swapped out the lens, put in some LEDs, and painted part of the inside a different color than factory. He did not get ticketed for a set of factory tail lamps. He had modified the set on his vehicle when ticketed. Once he changed one thing that DOT # don't mean crap and he's sol.

Lol the only evidence that MD ruled factory tails are illegal is from a post on the internet by some dude who admitted he had modified his taillights, got caught in a lie, and then proceeded to delete all the evidence he could. What source of information is claiming the judge ruled factory g8gt tails illegal? The dude who admitted to modifying his tails and is whining about being ticketed for it? Typing in bold is fun.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by adjkageagfldafsgjk

But the guys tail lamps were not OEM. Seriously dude thats what he was trying to say. That guy had a tinted out set of tails that were posted, and the 'stock' set he supposedly replaced them with weren't stock. He had cracked open the lamps, swapped out the lens, put in some LEDs, and painted part of the inside a different color than factory. He did not get ticketed for a set of factory tail lamps. He had modified the set on his vehicle when ticketed. Once he changed one thing that DOT # don't mean crap and he's sol.

Lol the only evidence that MD ruled factory tails are illegal is from a post on the internet by some dude who admitted he had modified his taillights, got caught in a lie, and then proceeded to delete all the evidence he could. What source of information is claiming the judge ruled factory g8gt tails illegal? The dude who admitted to modifying his tails and is whining about being ticketed for it? Typing in bold is fun.

Do you have any proof what-so-ever that this guy had the smoked/modified/whatever tail lights installed when he was pulled over and fined?

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

Do you have any proof what-so-ever that this guy had the smoked/modified/whatever tail lights installed when he was pulled over and fined?

No we don't.

What we also don't have proof of is that he was stopped with factory tail lights installed either.

We have one side of the story. And that side really isn't even their anymore because the guy deleted about anything to do with his tail lights.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

No we don't.

What we also don't have proof of is that he was stopped with factory tail lights installed either.

We have one side of the story. And that side really isn't even their anymore because the guy deleted about anything to do with his tail lights.

Innocent till proven guilty.... which I guess 'technically' he was, but he still has the option to appeal, and if he was telling the truth I'm sure he will.

As for the guy deleting everything, I think that would be somewhat standard practice before you go to appeal - this way ones opinion cannot be swayed by what is/isn't found on the internet. Just my 2 cents.

[n!ght r!der]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Does this mean that every Prius driver in Maryland will be fined and forced to trade in their vehicles?

Whoa. This could be a good thing.

[BigRigMike]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

Do you have any proof what-so-ever that this guy had the smoked/modified/whatever tail lights installed when he was pulled over and fined?

He admits that he changed his lights but says he was ticketed due to amount of reflective red. I haven't read all of the way through the thread but the taillights have been modified.

http://www.g8board.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35912


From the thread

"I've ordered yet another set of lights and they will be left alone, nothing done to them at all. I've ordered all new chrome trim, new wheels, installed the tag, ordered new markers and am currently trying to put the car back to stock minus the GXP parts."

It sounds like the cop could have cited him for several things but let him off easy with a $85 fine. Kind of reminds me of when someone is pulled over for speeding but gets a seatbelt ticket while they are wearing their seatbelt.

And another thing, why would you bring in a brochure for evidence instead of actual pictures of the car that was ticketed.

[FxsX24]

Originally Posted by BigRigMike

Kind of reminds me of when someone is pulled over for speeding but gets a seatbelt ticket while they are wearing their seatbelt.

been there done that

[Shardik2SS]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

This story made its way to Jalopnik.

If the state of Maryland wants to supercede federal law, then the state should offer a free aftermarket tail lamp that follows its law. Otherwise, I hope this goes to a federal court and gets overturned.

[TheCaptain]

Haha good old Jackalope... never gets outta trouble for long enough to get his head above water. He is on CobaltSS net as he used to own one. That guy has problems with the Maryland police on his case like you wouldn't believe...

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by BigRigMike

He admits that he changed his lights but says he was ticketed due to amount of reflective red. I haven't read all of the way through the thread but the taillights have been modified.

http://www.g8board.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35912


From the thread

"I've ordered yet another set of lights and they will be left alone, nothing done to them at all. I've ordered all new chrome trim, new wheels, installed the tag, ordered new markers and am currently trying to put the car back to stock minus the GXP parts."

It sounds like the cop could have cited him for several things but let him off easy with a $85 fine. Kind of reminds me of when someone is pulled over for speeding but gets a seatbelt ticket while they are wearing their seatbelt.

And another thing, why would you bring in a brochure for evidence instead of actual pictures of the car that was ticketed.

Ah ha, I see. And on the last part, lil shady there.

[monstertodd]

Originally Posted by BigRigMike

And another thing, why would you bring in a brochure for evidence instead of actual pictures of the car that was ticketed.

In post #10 of this thread, he says he brought in pictures of stock G8's sitting on a dealership lot and showed the judge the pictures. She still said they were not legal.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by adjkageagfldafsgjk

But the guys tail lamps were not OEM. Seriously dude thats what he was trying to say. That guy had a tinted out set of tails that were posted, and the 'stock' set he supposedly replaced them with weren't stock. He had cracked open the lamps, swapped out the lens, put in some LEDs, and painted part of the inside a different color than factory. He did not get ticketed for a set of factory tail lamps. He had modified the set on his vehicle when ticketed. Once he changed one thing that DOT # don't mean crap and he's sol.

Lol the only evidence that MD ruled factory tails are illegal is from a post on the internet by some dude who admitted he had modified his taillights, got caught in a lie, and then proceeded to delete all the evidence he could. What source of information is claiming the judge ruled factory g8gt tails illegal? The dude who admitted to modifying his tails and is whining about being ticketed for it? Typing in bold is fun.

He went with the same strategy as people with track-related warranty issues. Of course, those guys are engaging in warranty fraud. This guy did it legally. He deleted evidence that suggested he did anything illegal. He can do this under his 1st and 5th amendment rights.

He may have modified his tail lamps at one time. If you read any of the posts on this thread, you would see that most of us do not dispute this. What we dispute is the ruling on OEM tail lamps. We already know that modified tail lamps are illegal in many states. You don't need to educate us on what we already know. Focus on the court ruling, not the person in court. The ruling affects other people. This guy's behavior regarding his tail lamps does not.

Originally Posted by Sax1031

No we don't.

What we also don't have proof of is that he was stopped with factory tail lights installed either.

We have one side of the story. And that side really isn't even their anymore because the guy deleted about anything to do with his tail lights.

It doesn't matter what tail lamps he had at the time of the stop. As far as court arguments go, the point that he had OEM lamps on the car was never disputed, meaning that it was never on record that he had any other set of lamps. Even if he did have aftermarket lamps or modified lamps, the court case never mentioned it. Had the court case mentioned custom or aftermarket lamps, this would have never made the press. People get routinely ticketed for having aftermarket lenses, so it would be far too ordinary to make the automotive news.

Originally Posted by TheCaptain

Haha good old Jackalope... never gets outta trouble for long enough to get his head above water. He is on CobaltSS net as he used to own one. That guy has problems with the Maryland police on his case like you wouldn't believe...

This is starting to sound like a case of bias against him. I'm wondering if he could prove this is some sort of discrimination.

[TheCaptain]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

...
This is starting to sound like a case of bias against him. I'm wondering if he could prove this is some sort of discrimination.

I would put money on it. A lot of money from his stories that he told us.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

It doesn't matter what tail lamps he had at the time of the stop. As far as court arguments go, the point that he had OEM lamps on the car was never disputed, meaning that it was never on record that he had any other set of lamps. Even if he did have aftermarket lamps or modified lamps, the court case never mentioned it. Had the court case mentioned custom or aftermarket lamps, this would have never made the press. People get routinely ticketed for having aftermarket lenses, so it would be far too ordinary to make the automotive news.

Can you give me a link to the court case?

[FenwickHockey65]

Case was just settled. Judge reversed ruling, fine will be refunded, officer that made the traffic stop will be retrained.

[KKreme15]

Yay!! Just read through the whole thread, I love happy endings.

[98_Camaro]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Case was just settled. Judge reversed ruling, fine will be refunded, officer that made the traffic stop will be retrained.

Talk about justice!
I'm sure that was a nice bruise to her ego.

[guiLT]

If those lights are illegal, then so are these....

[nester7929]

They should remove her right to practice law. Dumb bitch.

[henchmen3]

Just a qwickie anout MD judges, one resently told me that since im in the mortgage business I should be doing ok because the economy has not effected that business yet. I asked him what planet he has been living on and yes he placed me in contempt.