California: Police Raid Car Enthusiast Gathering, Generate Revenue

[Cookie Monster]

They could be S2000s and NSXs too,

but yeah, not likely...

I'm thinking the odds are that if they asked a guy in a Honda the same question he'd complain about the Toyota guys.

S2000's, maybe. I couldn't really see people doing that in NSX's but I suppose it's possible.
But S2000's and NSX's don't make up the "rice0r" population that consists of Hondas. It's all Civics, CRX's and Preludes, with some Accords too.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

S2000's, maybe. I couldn't really see people doing that in NSX's but I suppose it's possible.
But S2000's and NSX's don't make up the "rice0r" population that consists of Hondas. It's all Civics, CRX's and Preludes, with some Accords too.

What makes you think these people aren't driving tastfully modified S2000's and NSX's.

"Michael Calderon, 22, of San Bernardino, stood in the parking lot as his 1995 Honda Civic hatchback, which he bought for $600, was loaded onto a tow truck.

Police impounded his car because officers believed some of its parts were stolen.

Calderon said he bought the parts from a reputable business.

"It's devastating," said Calderon, who spent $20,000 on car improvements. "That's my soul right there. This is the worst night of my life."


Ohh, maybe thats' it.

Maybe the police should raid Hot Import Nights next.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Maybe the police should raid Hot Import Nights next.

I can't believe the police put so much effort into raiding what is the equivalent of a moderately sized meth party. You don't spend $500,000 busting a bunch of toothless deadbeats, you follow them until you can find the dealer, then you raid the meth lab. Their target should be the SEMA show - that's where it all starts.

[Soup DeVille]

I can't believe the police put so much effort into raiding what is the equivalent of a moderately sized meth party. You don't spend $500,000 busting a bunch of toothless deadbeats, you follow them until you can find the dealer, then you raid the meth lab. Their target should be the SEMA show - that's where it all starts.

That's in Vegas. Vegas is in Nevada. California would have a lot to explain.
But yeah, maybe they should arrest Chrysler.

Did you know they sell cars with over 500 HP? Why would you need that power unless you were street racing? They are obviously the root of the problem and need to be snuffed out.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

I hear the police in california are trying to pass a law that makes possession of a turbocharger a felony.

[Soup DeVille]

I hear the police in california are trying to pass a law that makes possession of a turbocharger a felony.

Why do I believe that?

[Eye of the Tiger]

I hear the police in california are trying to pass a law that makes possession of a turbocharger a felony.

I hear the police in california are trying to pass a law that makes possession of any car that's not a Toyota Camry a felony.

[Cookie Monster]

I hear the police in california are trying to pass a law that makes possession of a turbocharger a felony.

Are you serious?!
So VW can't sell the 2.0T here because it's illegal? Jeez!
I need to move to Michigan.

[Raza]

I mean think about this for a second: 100 officers from 9 departments, $500,000 in overtime costs alone.

What else is that kind of force used for? Riot control? Disaster Relief?

It's a bit much to hand out 100 tickets.

[Secret Chimp]

I never knew Honda Civics and CRX's were RWD.

Newspaper/TV journalists are known to not know shit about cars, then again I wouldn't put past the lower-level Hondatard wrenching his handbrake to do a goofy nose-around donut.

[280Z Turbo]

A CRX can do a doughnut, without a handbrake, going forward.

Ask me how I know.

[280Z Turbo]

That's in Vegas. Vegas is in Nevada. California would have a lot to explain.
But yeah, maybe they should arrest Chrysler.

Did you know they sell cars with over 500 HP? Why would you need that power unless you were street racing? They are obviously the root of the problem and need to be snuffed out.

Ever since I dropped a turbocharged L28 I've raced countless people to gain steet cred.

It's not like I actually enjoy working on my car or race on off-road courses with it. It's all about street cred, yo.

[bing_oh]

I was going to comment on this but then I noticed how everybody swallowed the first opinionated, biased story hook, line, and sinker. That's when I realized it was a lost cause. Nevermind. Continue with your bitching...

[280Z Turbo]

I was going to comment on this but then I noticed how everybody swallowed the first opinionated, biased story hook, line, and sinker. That's when I realized it was a lost cause. Nevermind. Continue with your bitching...

There's a way to present this information in a more pleasing manner?

[Raza]

I was going to comment on this but then I noticed how everybody swallowed the first opinionated, biased story hook, line, and sinker. That's when I realized it was a lost cause. Nevermind. Continue with your bitching...

Go for it, copper.  Tell me how they were serving and protecting.

[280Z Turbo]

Go for it, copper.  Tell me how they were serving and protecting.

Even if every other word in the story was false and biased, this quote says it all:

"If you're not into street racing, why would you need that?" Riverside Police Traffic Sergeant Skip Showalter asked an enthusiast during a similar crackdown last year. "Why would you want more power going to your car?"

[bing_oh]

There's a way to present this information in a more pleasing manner?

I could care less about presenting it in a "pleasing manner." How about presenting it as a straight news story instead of an op-ed piece masquerading as a straight news story. News does not include the writer's (legally-misinformed) opinion.

Even if every other word in the story was false and biased, this quote says it all:

"If you're not into street racing, why would you need that?" Riverside Police Traffic Sergeant Skip Showalter asked an enthusiast during a similar crackdown last year. "Why would you want more power going to your car?"

Please note the bolded section. How does a comment made at an unrelated incident with potentially differing circumstances have anything to do with the enforcement that the story is talking about?

[bing_oh]

Go for it, copper.  Tell me how they were serving and protecting.

That's why I'm not getting into the argument. There's no point in arguing something with someone who already has their mind made up. This wouldn't be a civil debate, it would be a pissing match. That's a waste of time.

[Raza]

That's why I'm not getting into the argument. There's no point in arguing something with someone who already has their mind made up. This wouldn't be a civil debate, it would be a pissing match. That's a waste of time.

I'm being civil.  Defend their unwarranted raid.  Please.

[bing_oh]

I'm being civil.  Defend their unwarranted raid.  Please.

I don't have to defend anything if you'd just consider the "facts" given in the first article with an open mind. Start by figuring the math for the supposed OT total they gave...$503,000 for 100 officers. That's around $5000 per officer. Does that sound like a realisitc number to you?

Maybe you should consider what they really meant by a "local car enthusiast's gathering." This wans't an organized car show. It sounds like a bunch of ricers gathering in a private parking lot where they didn't have permission to be and were screwing around. The article can play whatever word games they like, but we both know what happens with a group of kids between, say, 16 and 23, in souped up cars get together. Sounds like the business owners who used the lot didn't want the kids there...there were two separate managers from businesses in the second article praising the enforcement action.

And, quite frankly, the writer needs to go back to law school. If we assume from the quoted business owners that these "car enthusiasts" were in a private parking lot without permsssion and where there had been past problems, then they were trespassing. With trespassing being a criminal offense, officers can detain the offenders. Many of the stated violations (no front plate, tint violations) are easily observable by the officers by just looking. And, as I understand it, CA officers are legally allowed to on an on-site inspection of any motor vehicle. So, there's no requirement for a warrant or legal limitation on the officers' "interrogations." Absolutely, positively everything on the legal up and up.

Did I miss anything?

[Raza]

See?  Much of that sounds quite reasonable.

[Middle_Path]

LOL....cops, always doing the best for the community. LMAO!! "Give me your money bitches" should be their motto instead of "to protect and serve."

[dsred]

Did they  need 100 cops to issue trespass tickets Bing?

I'm sorry but this type of stuff is indefensible in a supposedly "free" country. It's just another example of the slippery slope to the ultimate Police State the West (N.A. in particular) is about to become. Why? Because people are all too happy to accept infringements on their rights in the name of safety and "security".

[hotrodalex]

Did they  need 100 cops to issue trespass tickets Bing?

I'm sorry but this type of stuff is indefensible in a supposedly "free" country. It's just another example of the slippery slope to the ultimate Police State the West (N.A. in particular) is about to become. Why? Because people are all too happy to accept infringements on their rights in the name of safety and "security".

They could do it with 25 cops, at the most.

If I was there, they could kiss my ass I leave (while revving as high as I could while following the speed limit) You can give me a ticket for tinted windows & no front license plate, but you're not gonna say I was street racing when I was parked in a parking lot.

[NomisR]

I don't have to defend anything if you'd just consider the "facts" given in the first article with an open mind. Start by figuring the math for the supposed OT total they gave...$503,000 for 100 officers. That's around $5000 per officer. Does that sound like a realisitc number to you?

Maybe you should consider what they really meant by a "local car enthusiast's gathering." This wans't an organized car show. It sounds like a bunch of ricers gathering in a private parking lot where they didn't have permission to be and were screwing around. The article can play whatever word games they like, but we both know what happens with a group of kids between, say, 16 and 23, in souped up cars get together. Sounds like the business owners who used the lot didn't want the kids there...there were two separate managers from businesses in the second article praising the enforcement action.

And, quite frankly, the writer needs to go back to law school. If we assume from the quoted business owners that these "car enthusiasts" were in a private parking lot without permsssion and where there had been past problems, then they were trespassing. With trespassing being a criminal offense, officers can detain the offenders. Many of the stated violations (no front plate, tint violations) are easily observable by the officers by just looking. And, as I understand it, CA officers are legally allowed to on an on-site inspection of any motor vehicle. So, there's no requirement for a warrant or legal limitation on the officers' "interrogations." Absolutely, positively everything on the legal up and up.

Did I miss anything?

If it was a simple trespassing, 1 or 2 squad cars would be able to shoo all the kids away, they don't really need that much man power to do something like it.  Even to punish the kids, it's a bit too much.

BUT, since you mentioned it, I did a short search on the various news outlets within the So Cal area and I see no mention of this at all.  I would expect this to be all over the news but nada.

[James Young]

That's around $5000 per officer. Does that sound like a realisitc number to you?

Who says all the money went to the officers?  A big chunk of this wound up in the sheriff?s departmental budget.

Did I miss anything?

Yes.  First, the implicit assumption that the ?raid? was a necessary and legitimate function of law enforcement, necessary to provide public safety.  When the societal need for police action is not glaringly obvious ? investigation of murders & rapes, riot control, and protections against fraud such as ID theft, for examples ? and must be rationalized by police spin artists, we citizens must examine the motivation behind the raid. 

Why did they do this?  Because they could and because somebody else paid for it, at least in the beginning.  I live in Riverside County and the Sheriff?s office and the ?Code Enforcement Section? [see note 1] have openly bragged about how much stuff that they seized and how much trouble they caused.  It is easy ? cowardly but easy ? to attack those who cannot fight back and the LEOs on these boards know that it happens every day.  Who benefited from this ?raid??  Certainly, the department who collected the $503K but who did not pay it all out to the guys in the field.  I have called Rep. Darrell Issa?s office to request a full accounting of the $503K, which was largely federal money.  I expect nothing will come from him because he is a well-known fascist authoritarian who encourages police misbehavior such as this.
The citizens and taxpayers of Riverside County will wind up paying for any subsequent lawsuits, damage done to the property while it was under police control, and the expanded public relations effort to recapture lost credibility, which it has already started BTW.

Is this the behavior that we citizens want to see from our law enforcement agencies?  In a word, hell no!  Who cares if a bunch of kids have tinted windows, turbos, jacked up or lowered suspensions, or weird lighting?  It is disingenuous to designate this as a simple trespass (it may or may not have been; some controversy remains) when 100+ cops show up with stated intent to seize property.  It is also disingenuous to raid this group because they MIGHT do something.  After all, ?we both know what happens with a group of kids between, say, 16 and 23, in souped up cars get together.?
One final sidebar:  what is the legal distinction between a bunch of car enthusiasts who gather in a parking lot and a bunch of firearms enthusiasts who gather in the same lot to buy, sell and swap firearms?  We call the first group criminals and seize their property with intent to sell and keep the money.  We call the second group a gun show and provide traffic control and protection at public expense.

It gets even more complex.  What is the legal difference between an informal group of auto enthusiasts who get together to compare their cars and swap stories and another group of old men who get together with the intent to consume alcoholic beverages, argue, solicit each other?s wives, and conspire to fix prices and manipulate free markets?  We call the first group ?ricers? and the second group Elks or Rotarians.  We condemn the first and adulate the second?  When does a ?service organization? slide into the realm of a ?gang?? 

[note 1]  My main job is with a winery and my consulting job is with a movie production company that has used parts of Riverside County for location shoots.  Riverside County treats the agriculture sector (grapes/wine, oranges and avocados) and the movie industry with kid gloves.  They know where the butter on their toast comes from.  Is it any surprise that the complaints about the sheriff come from poorer sections rather than from Palm Springs? 

[GoCougs]

Meh - without further explanation of the $503k for OT I am left with no choice but to invalidate the entire piece. 100 LEOs with a generous 8 hours OT each is $500/hr.

[Soup DeVille]

I don't have to defend anything if you'd just consider the "facts" given in the first article with an open mind. Start by figuring the math for the supposed OT total they gave...$503,000 for 100 officers. That's around $5000 per officer. Does that sound like a realisitc number to you?

Maybe you should consider what they really meant by a "local car enthusiast's gathering." This wans't an organized car show. It sounds like a bunch of ricers gathering in a private parking lot where they didn't have permission to be and were screwing around. The article can play whatever word games they like, but we both know what happens with a group of kids between, say, 16 and 23, in souped up cars get together. Sounds like the business owners who used the lot didn't want the kids there...there were two separate managers from businesses in the second article praising the enforcement action.

And, quite frankly, the writer needs to go back to law school. If we assume from the quoted business owners that these "car enthusiasts" were in a private parking lot without permsssion and where there had been past problems, then they were trespassing. With trespassing being a criminal offense, officers can detain the offenders. Many of the stated violations (no front plate, tint violations) are easily observable by the officers by just looking. And, as I understand it, CA officers are legally allowed to on an on-site inspection of any motor vehicle. So, there's no requirement for a warrant or legal limitation on the officers' "interrogations." Absolutely, positively everything on the legal up and up.

Did I miss anything?

Whether or not it is legal isn't the question. The question is whether or not it was warranted.

You could dispatch 100 officers on OT to crackdown on jaywalking during Monday at lunchtime in any downtown business district and write hundreds of perfectly legal citations.

It would be legal, but is it warranted or necessary?

[MX793]

Meh - without further explanation of the $503k for OT I am left with no choice but to invalidate the entire piece. 100 LEOs with a generous 8 hours OT each is $500/hr.

625 an hour by my count, if it was 8 hours of overtime per officer.

[Soup DeVille]

Meh - without further explanation of the $503k for OT I am left with no choice but to invalidate the entire piece. 100 LEOs with a generous 8 hours OT each is $500/hr.

http://riversideca.gov/rpd/press/2007releases/nov08a07.pdf