Search Warrants and All

[Dan Stryffeler]

Most of the trouble that I have heard of (probably rumors) were around cars based on either a Corvette chassis or Corvette engine/tranny since these would be the parts most likely to be stolen. Believe me, I'm not trying to slam any manufacturers that use these parts or trying to disuade anyone from buying this type of kit. The point is, get receipts for everything you buy and have the big ones notarized.

There is also another issue here... I have seen Cobra's registered as 65 Mustangs (or similiar). Not necessarily illegal, but if you have an accident, your insurance company probably won't pay the claim.

I agree with the earlier post, get it done right - either talk to the main DMV branch - or - visit their website... it probably has the info you need. Watch out for the "we can work around the nudge, nudge - wink, wink" kinda stuff.

- Dan

[Cal Metal]

DV was nice enough to email me explaining what was going on. I am too dumb to figure this issue out from the posts on the forum. Mark IV brought up an issue that I was unaware of, though, and this is my question. Are people actually changing the VIN or creating VINs through places like Titles Unlimited? Are CSX numbers being used as opposed to the original MSOs designations when registering replicas through TU?

I might have a case that may or may not be on point. Let me know. There was a case in California where someone did change his replica VIN to a CSX number and subsequently totalled the car. Whether he registered the car as a CSX, I am not quite sure but it would have made sense to do so. He did change the VIN plate that is affixed to his car with a CSX number and informed the insurance company that it was an original car. Both people received massive, extensive, debilitating injuries as a result of the accident. The insurance company had a stated value of around $200K on the car. The first thing the insurance company or accident investigator did was to contact the previous owner to inquire about the value of the car, what price was paid for the car and whether it was worth $200K. They also obtained a copy of the Registry and contaced the owner of a CSX that had the same VIN as the replica, and wanted to know if he still owned the car, or whether it had been destroyed, stolen, etc. He indicated that he "was looking at the car in his garage as they spoke".

Classic case of fraud, no question. I just wondered if this is what has been going on re: TU.

[Mulv]

The topic is washed titles and all of the rest of the posts are peripheral to that. I ,too was with the group when the two calls came to the owners of the Cobras in question. Both of these cars are in fact Superformance cars with Ford engines. They are not Corvettes or Mustangs or whatever. Speculation is a waste of time as Mike suggested in a previous post, so I will not indulge in it.
I will say that if your car was titled by T.U. that you may have some trouble just over the horizon. I think also that doubting the validity of this thread is just wishful thinking on the part of the uninformed. Blaming the state for enforcing the law is an indication of low intelligence or unbelievable arrogance. The problem with the cars, as anyone who owns one should be aware, is that they do not meet any of the Federal safety and emission standards of the last 35 years or so. The fact that we choose not to worry about such things is neither here nor there. California has a method available to register the cars, it is wise to take advantage of it. Screaming and yelling and attacking the messenger changes nothing.
Don't be shocked to find out that there are plenty of stolen classic cars that have been retitled by these people. That could be the thrust of this, however we shall have to wait and see.

regards
Stephen "mulv"

[Mark IV]

...Cal has a good point, any "change" can be seen as an attempt to defraud even if that is not the intent.

If your state assigns a 1965 model year to the car because it duplicates a 1965-COOL!!! If your state makes the car a "2003" because that is the year of the MSO from Superformance, FFR, JoeBlow Replicas, etc. YOUR CAR IS 2003!!! No amount of jiggery-pokery will make it a 1965 car. If your state uses the engine as the year of mfr, once again cool! It is trying to subvent these regulations that cause the trouble.

It is a Federal offense to change or remove a VIN. Changing your "ABC1234" to "CSX9999" would be a violation of this. even though you had no intention of defrauding, no intent to sell the car ever and had proof of purchase for every nut, bolt and washer on the car tyou have violated Federal Motor Vehicle law. The "benefit" of a cooler, more original type VIN IS NOT WORTH THE RISK!!!!

DV has previously posted good advice NOT use a service such as TU as the risks are not worth it. It has been previously suggested that some of the DMV, Feds or other powers that be may be monitoring this forum. Word to the wise.....

All "real", "replica", "original" agruments pale in the shadow of having your car siezed or worse....Bottom line, as was posted before; talk to your head DMV and go by the rules.

Rick

[StephenC]

Since a number of posts have questioned why four or five officers need to be involved in a search warrant, I thought I might shed some light on why this happens. Again, most people simply lack real knowledge about how and why certain things happen in law enforcement. Please consider the following.

The first priority when assessing a law enforcement mission is safety - safety of the officers involved and certainly the safety of civilians who may be present at the scene. Serving search warrants, even those related to the most mundane crimes is, at best, a crapshoot. Understandably, few things anger people more or quicker than having their homes or property searched. We have a constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches. That is why search warrants are very specific, they are not “fishing” expeditions. It is also why a judge must sign warrants to make them valid. My experience showed judges are very reluctant to sign search warrants and you better be ready to answer some hard questions when you stand before the bench. This is how it should be.

As an officer, when you walk up to that door and announce your intention to search, you never know if you will be met with reluctant cooperation or full-blown resistance. You better be ready for the worse case scenario or someone’s going to get hurt. It becomes imperative that the officers involved in the search gain control of the situation as quickly as possible and retain control until they leave the premises. You never know how many people you will be dealing with, their mental state or the current inventory of the family arsenal. Also, persons present can not be allowed to wander around or leave while the search is being conducted.

As a First Lieutenant I always considered four or five officers a minimum to conduct a search. In some cases, there is full SWAT involvement, it just depends on the situation and the crime being investigated. The initial show of force discourages a possible foolish act. After that at least two officers would conduct the actual search (get in, seize what you’re looking for, and get out as fast as possible), while two officers secured the inside premises (watch those present), and, if available, one officer to secure the outside of the premises. Is it a waste of manpower if it turns out there will be no resistance? Yes. Is it a waste of manpower if it keeps someone from getting hurt? You be the judge. By the way, it would not be unusual for one or maybe two officers to leave the scene once it was determined there was a very low threat level.

Thanks for taking the time to read this info. I apologize for not limiting my posts to Cobras, but if there is an on-going investigation of replicas in California, it’s probably because of one or two shady dealers, title washing, and people trying to circumvent what appears to be a less than user friendly DMV. I would expect there might be more of you answering the door to find four or five officers standing there. Hopefully, you now have a better idea why they are there.

Best Wishes

[petek]

Thanks Steve, I certainly learned something from your post!

DV is right. Don't cut the corners or try to circumvent the proper procedure or you may pay big time in the long run.

Here in Missouri the inspection and titling process is painless. Just make sure you have all of your receipts, fill out the proper form, have the car inspected, and ta-da, all done. I spent maybe 15 minutes at the Highway Patrol.

Of course I don't get to see all of those neat "savings" other folks get to see on their insurance as they insure their 2002 Cobra as a 1965 Cobra. Then again, I don't get visited by the Highway Patrol either!

[agro1]

What ever happened to writing the person(s) in question a letter and asking them to come down to the local PD or DMV office for a little "show and tell" ??

But no, the cops need to exhibit, " initial show of force discourages a possible foolish act..."

What ever happend to innocent until proven guilty ? Seems the cops are only worried about their hides when executing search warrants and collecting on outstanding registration fees - call me cynical, but I think it's a complete JOKE. What would they have done if the owner had gotten frightened and picked up his 12 guage ??

It would have been a nasty situation, all over vehicle registration. Law enforcement needs use more restraint when using force as a deterent...People get hurt and do stupid things when they feel threatened.

[computerworks]

quod erat demonstrandum.

[Chaplin]

Ron-
That proves it! You must be French using language like that (Just kidding, I know you're not French, I just couldn't pass that one up )

Mike

[Excaliber]

Argo quote:

"What would they have done if the owner had gotten frightened and picked up his 12 guage ??"

As Steve explained very well, THATS why they send 4 or 5 officers. Makes perfect sense to me now that I understand the police logic. If your looking for a fraud or car thief, "inviting" them to the DMV is hardly the smart "police" thing to do, lol.

I'm surprised this apparently involves SPF cars! I guess that means it does not matter what the car, only how it was registered.

Ernie

[agro1]

Excaliber - So by that logic, and because it is our right to bear arms - then EVERY warrant served should be accompanied by excessive force ??? What about warrants issued for a failure to appear for a traffic ticket ?? Point is - Unless they had reason to suspect the current owner was involved in a conspiracy to defraud the state, then and only then would such a show of force be called for.

Excaliber Quote:

"If your looking for a fraud or car thief, "inviting" them to the DMV is hardly the smart "police" thing to do, lol."

Who ever said the person in question was a car thief or knowingly defrauding the state. He only said he was the owner of a car that allegedly had it's title washed in another state. Get your facts straight.

[StephenC]

Agro1:

Search warrants and Bench warrants for Failure to Appear for a traffic citation are two VERY different things, both in practical terms and legal proceedures. Each impowers a police officer to take certain, limited actions, all authorized by a judge or magistrate.

I fail to understand why you are so determined to demonstrate your lack of knowledge concerning law enforcement. You seem to be very critical of a legal system that you know so litttle about.
Contact you local police department, ask if they have a ride along program. If they do, ride along with an officer working the afternoon or night shift during the one of the summer months. It just may change your perspective.

By the way, I apologize if I've offended you in any way. I did not intend to do so.

As always, best wishes,

[Excaliber]

I think it's obvious from the use of force by the police they are looking for a fraud\car thief suspect. Wether or not that is justified would be based on the facts\rumors the police have on the case. I concur, it seems like "over kill", but then again, I don't know what evidence they have.

I would guess it's fairly substantial, or a simple "invite" would have sufficed. Of course with a large "drag net" (more than one person involved) some innocent civilians will get caught up, which is really a drag! I hope the police double checked their "source" to be "sure" of the facts as they knew them. If not, sue them for harrasement! The law works both ways like that. And we DO need the checks and balances of people like yourself to keep it "even".

Ernie

[agro1]

Steve - You didn't offend me, I'm thick skinned Bench warrant for a failure to appear or search warrant; although they are very different, as you pointed out, they both can facilitate a knock on your door, as you yourself said - IF a judge/magistrate sees fit to order such action...

If you read back, you will see that I am not being critical of the legal system itself, but moreso of the individuals who enforce the laws...

Something to think about:

"...for men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse..."

"The Prince"
Nicolo Machiavelli
Written c. 1505, published 1515

If my words have offended anyone involved in law enforcement, my apologies. But I question authority, sometimes to a fault - and in doing so I have learned that if we do not constantly question those in power, we too soon will meet with someone elses predetermined fate. And that is no way to live at all.

[Cobrabill]

The CHP is not law enforcement-they're AAA with a gun.

[Cal Metal]

Ron:

Nota bene----might be more appropriate in this thread.

[JoeLafives]

If you think about it. 4 or 5 LEO vehicles showing up at a residence is safer for the individual being served than one LEO. Why? Because there should be no doubt in the citizen's mind that these are LEO's. One LEO might be an imposter. The policy here in Mesa is to always have at least two LEO's serve a warrant.

[cobrap51d]

I've been avoiding posting here for some reason. Maybe because all the reading I had to do to get to the bottom of this thread. I'm sure I missed quite a bit because most of what I was reading didn't entertain me. Especially what dildo had to say, oops I mean Argo.

I had three CHP officers show up to my home Sunday morning. No search warrant. They just wanted to know about my 1965 Ford. I respect anybody that has a job with the potential of not returning home at night. I figure these guys probably deserve a break by coming to my house rather than being out on the street dealing with jerks.

Looking back on the conversation I had with them I will provide some detail. They made it clear to me that they were investigating Titles Unlimited and Attorney General Robert Morgester is leading the case.

Breaking news. I just talked to the CHP investigator. (She provided me with a non-emergency number) I wanted to find out some additional information based on the crap I was reading in this post. There are 19 witnesses being interviewed. I happen to be one of them, and there was a search warrant but she never gave it to me because it wasn’t necessary. She will either be delivering it to my house or sending it in the mail. Basically the warrant if for title information on my 1965 Ford.

They found all of our cars by searching their database for the letter K. This is the first letter of my VIN number. That’s about all I know.

When they came to my house they were in a Dodge Durango. Everything will be fine. If you are licensing your car at this time in California it might be wise to use sb-100.

[Excaliber]

Thanks Cobrap51d,,,,,,

for giving us some important details on this breaking case. I'm sure it's caused you enough grief all ready so I really appreciate you going out of your way to shed some light on it for us. If your up to it, keep us informed! It's an important issue.

Ernie

[agro1]

cobrap51d - mmmkay...Have fun dealing with the DMV/CHP smartguy...