Maryland Judge Decrees Pontiac G8 GT Tail Lights Illegal

[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.

[The_Blur]

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.

It doesn't matter that he ever had any other tail lamps. The court only discusses original equipment. That's the reason the automotive press is discussing the issue. It isn't unusual for aftermarket tail lamps to be ticketed, but for stock ones to be an issue would indicate that a state government is overstepping its bounds.

The reason a link to the decision is unavailable is because the court case is not "Maryland v. Jackalope." The case would include the real name of the person, and that would require us to know who that person is to find the record of it in a reasonably timely manner.

Since you are apparently the only one so concerned with the truth of this matter, why don't you do us the favor of reading all the court decisions from that day and posting the correct one?

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

It doesn't matter that he ever had any other tail lamps. The court only discusses original equipment. That's the reason the automotive press is discussing the issue. It isn't unusual for aftermarket tail lamps to be ticketed, but for stock ones to be an issue would indicate that a state government is overstepping its bounds.

The reason a link to the decision is unavailable is because the court case is not "Maryland v. Jackalope." The case would include the real name of the person, and that would require us to know who that person is to find the record of it in a reasonably timely manner.

Since you are apparently the only one so concerned with the truth of this matter, why don't you do us the favor of reading all the court decisions from that day and posting the correct one?

The only source the article names is a link to a thread that doesn't exists anymore.

I don't take that to be a credible source.

[AZCamaroFan]

I hope none of these judges see the Camaro's C-Pillar's blocking rear view. They'll tell everyone it has to be changed.

[73camarolt]

WOW i cant believe they are doing that. Kind of reminds me one time my brother was at the beach about 3 hours away from home. He was driving back to his condo with his GF and was pulled over for no front plate. He took the ticket but then on the same drive back was pulled over again and was written another ticket for no front plate. He explained that he just go a ticket and the cop said "I dont care you should have fixed it". He was not going to drive 3 hours home just for a front plate.

[Mr Twisty]

Sax is right, you guys just hanged a judge based on a story from one individual. Lynch mob.

I got a ticket in Pa. once for having amber turn signals on rear of vehicle.

..... How many of you believe that?

[Mr. Wyndham]

Wow...nice "Judging". Here's to hoping she's released from duty for being an idiot.

And if you look nice and close, you can see the reflector in the center of the tail light.
Officer McBlind, and Judge Moron make a great team defying the world!

That is...assuming this is true. It should be a matter of clicking to find the case # and verdict since it should be public record.

[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..........

[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.