Uncategorized
Court deems blue glow legal in California
Court deems blue glow legal in California!Court deems glow legal in California! Shawn, the owner of Lost Coast LEDs, was recently pulled over by Officer Nielson, of the California Highway Patrol (CHP). According to Officer Nielson, Shawn’s LED lighting was illegal for a number of reasons. One was because the pattern he was displaying constituted a “flashing” pattern, in violation of the Vehicle Code. Another was because he was displaying colored lights, as opposed to the traditional red and amber to the rear and white and amber to the front. Finally, the officer stated that it was illegal for Shawn to display the color blue on his vehicle. In its ruling, the Honorable Sarah Kaber, of the Humboldt County Superior Court ruled that Shawn’s lights did not constitute “flashing” within the meaning of the law, that his lights were legal, that he was permitted to display the color blue, but that the placement of his LED light strips at the top of his vehicle gave his vehicle the appearance of an “official vehicle,” which Shawn a violation Shawn hadn’t even been accused of committing.
Needless to say, as owner of Lost Coast LEDs, Shawn couldn’t sit back and allow this to stand. Having conducted extensive research into the issue with the help of his assistants, he felt he was on firm legal footing and filed an appeal. After reading his Opening Brief, both the People of the State of California and the CHP elected not to challenge Shawn’s claims that he had not violated the law by placing LED light strips at the top of his windshield or by displaying the color blue towards the front of his vehicle with the use of these light strips. The decision of the Appellate Division was unanimous. All of the justices agreed that Shawn’s LED light strips were permitted within Section 24500 of the California Vehicle Code. This included the fact that Shawn’s light strips were visible, that they were mounted at the top of his vehicle in the same location used by law enforcement and their light strips, that the color blue was permitted to be displayed on his vehicle and to be displayed towards the front, and that his lights did not constitute “flashing” within the meaning of the law (the law defines “flashing” as activating and deactivating).
CHP’s Officer Perez incorrectly states underglow of any type illegal
According to one of our customers, Officer Perez of the CHP initiated a traffic to inform him that he was breaking the law by operating his lights while driving on a public highway. It’s possible that the officer simply failed to understand the law when he relayed this inaccurate information to the subject of his stop, but it’s more likely that he simply chose to violate the civil liberties of our customer. This, however, was before the judge’s decision had been received by the CHP.
Our customer claims that, during the stop, Officer Perez bad-mouthed Shawn to the subject of his stop by falsely claiming that Shawn had yet to prevail on a single traffic ticket issued by the CHP. This was not only in clear violation the law and the CHP’s policies, it was also slander and defamation of character, as Shawn’s win/loss record is now 3/0. The ticket issued by Officer Parks for his glow was dismissed in its entirety, the ticket issued by Officer Stazey (sic) was dismissed in its entirety, and the ticket issued by Officer Nielson was partially dismissed, with the conviction ultimately being overturned, rendering it a complete sweep.
Education is key…
Lest we forget, we’re dealing with people who are just as prone to making mistakes as the rest of us, and with tens of thousands of laws on the books, it’s just as easy for an officer to misinterpret the law as the rest of us. With that said, our job is to educate. And by “our job,” we intend to include our customers, those reading this blog, and anyone else involved in the glow community. The best way to do this is to be as up-to-date as possible on the law and how it’s interpreted. And the best way to do that is to read the materials we have compiled in this website, understand what we have read, and then relay this information to members of law enforcement long before being in a situation to be pulled over. In this manner, we are able to gauge whether we are all on the same page, or if law enforcement disagrees and needs further information.
It is the goal of Lost Coast LEDs plans to continue to educate law enforcement. The owner, Shawn, has already requested that the Appellate Division of the Humboldt County Superior Court order their ruling officially published and he has instructed the staff at Lost Coast LEDs to draft and e-mail a Cease-and-Desist letter to the CHP ordering them to immediately discontinue their practice of initiating traffic stops for mounting diffused lighting on their vehicles, provided it meets the requirements set forth in Section 24500 of the California Vehicle Code.
Officer Parks continues to violate the civil liberties of our customers…
Officer Perez is by no means the only violator when it comes to initiating traffic stops for diffused lighting. Officer Parks, also with the CHP, has a particular disdain for colored lighting and is quick to initiate a traffic stop. In fact, Officer Parks was the second officer to issue Shawn a ticket for his diffused lights, a ticket that was subsequently dismissed by the Humboldt County Superior Court due to Officer Parks’ refusal to show. (This was the second of three wins for Shawn.) Before ticketing Shawn, Officer Parks issued a ticket for colored lighting to a customer we’ll simply refer to as “Manny,” only to refuse to show up for his mandated court appearance, resulting in a complete dismissal of the charge. A short time ago, Officer Parks issued yet another one of our customers a ticket, again, for colored lights. It is our hope that he finally decides to make an appearance, as we would love nothing more than to see the judge inform him, to his face, that the lighting he claims to be illegal is, in fact, legal.
EPD’s Officer Jeremy Sollom takes it to a whole new level…
Another officer who seems to enjoy violating the civil liberties of those he’s in a position of authority over is Officer Jeremy Sollom. He initiated a traffic stop of Shawn for tinted windows and his diffused lights. During the traffic stop, he actually stated that he was well aware of the fact that the Honorable Sarah Kaber had already ruled that his lights were legal, but didn’t agree with the Court’s assessment and wanted to conduct testing on the side of the road to determine whether or not the lights were in fact in compliance. After performing his testing, Officer Sollom informed Shawn that, while it wasn’t a lawful order, he was asking him to remove his front bumper to remove his lights and relocate them an inch further back from the headlamp. He also asked Shawn to “dim” his lights some. Shawn returned to the shop, where we took measurements to see if we were indeed within 12 inches of a required lamp. (Section 24500 does not permit diffused lighting to be mounted within 12 inches of a required lamp.) As we already knew (because we conducted measurements when installing them the first time), the lights were a minimum of 12 inches away from a required lamp and Officer Sollom’s request was, rightfully, ignored. Officer Sollom has since initiated traffic stops on at least one other person to pressure them about their diffused lights. During the traffic stop, Officer Sollom also began to bad-mouth Shawn to the subject of his stop, even going so far as to share Shawn’s prior experiences with the law with this individual.
If you have been the subject of a traffic stop as a result of your glow, please contact us at (707) 854-8060. We are looking into building a case against the CHP and other members of law enforcement for violating the clearly established civil rights of the citizens of the State of California. This request to contact us applies equally to businesses selling and installing diffused lighting. After all, if your customers want the lights, but do not purchase them due to the illegal harassment of law enforcement, then your bottom line has been severely and exponentially impacted by these civil rights violations.
Remember: the court deemed blue glow to be legal, provided it meets the requirements set forth in Section 24500 of the Vehicle Code. If your lights meet these requirements, let it shine! Because nice rides were meant to be seen, especially at night!
