ManglerYJ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
- Location
- Lexington, NC
I don't mean to stir the pot, and I know it's your job to know - but this seems like a real stretch to apply to this situation.
This statute is about devices made to be smoke screens, and explicitly states "... any unusual amount of smoke, gas or other substance not necessary to the actual propulsion, care and keep of said vehicle,..."
Since an auto engine is not designed to emit smoke, and in this case it results only from the fuel which is intended for propulsion (one could just argue that it's a really inefficient engine), I don't see how the charge would stick.
I'd be curious if there ware any cases where it worked.
Of course there is the approach of just using it as leverage for a plea to a lesser crime... the "keep the douchebags off the road" theme...
I'm all for throwing the book at these douches - lets just do it right.
Did you watch the video in the original post? The vehicle will NOT do that stock. Period. They have to be modified in order to produce that much smoke. In order to modify it to do that, it takes specific parts (ie. devices made to be smoke screens). There is NO other purpose in "rolling coal" than to produce smoke. The vehicle does not produce more power as a result of the smoke, so you can't say that it's a performance modification, etc.
What it will probably amount to, however, is something similar to a "defective equipment" ticket, where if the modifications are removed (and can be proven with a receipt, etc), then the ticket may go away.