PA & Doorless = $141.50 fine

[BobNH]

If you really want to play hardball, and you will have to take the time out of your day/week to do it, but you could assist all of Pa. if you dollow up on vague but in my opinion solid enough ground to at lrast get your fine lowered. Potentially enough legwork and you could benefit all wrangler owners but here it is. Also, I have screenshots but will post them here after as I forgot and am responding on Tapatalk which no longer allows me to add pics.
Anyway, the hard top "was not designed as a structural memeber of the vehicle...". This means it was NOT manufactured with a roof: "...unless the vehicle has been manufactured...to the extent that there is no roof...".
Up to you to present it in court, then let everyone know how you fared so they can quote X v Y when stopped for being doorless.
In my personal opinion, this is exactly what the law allowed for in sec f, as there was a time when you did not even GET a top unless you ordered it.
Good luck.

From my Owners Manual


From the referenced law:

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[RonG]

I would fight it. On the ticket he cited you 175.77e and his description was no doors. 175.77f pertains to doors. Seems to me maybe you could get out of it on a technicality. The way 175.77f reads to me that if you have no roof, you don’t have to have doors. I lived in State College for 10 years and never had a problem. Saw jeeps doorless all the time too. I’ve heard before that monroeville and York in SE PA can be real jerks about doorless jeeps.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app

If I am remembering correctly, all he’ll have to do after you bring it up at trial is move to amend the ticket. I saw it happen in court when the officer wrote the wrong date on the ticket.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app

 

[HighwayTrout]

Nobody said he was black yet. That’s a good one.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app

[emoji23][emoji23]

 

[HoosierWolf]

BobNH - I think you are 100% correct but I still wouldn't guarantee he'd win the court case. Sadly depending on the judge, going up against a LEO in court even when they are dead wrong, is never a sure thing. I personally had a LEO lie under oath stating he "couldn't divide 60 by 10 with a calculator" yet someone he also earlier in the same line of questioning attested that he was legally qualified as an accident re-constructionist. Both of those statements cannot be true. The judge even laughed about it. The problem was that he knew if my attorney could make him under oath do the math, it proved his figures were impossible. I still lost.

I'm not saying I'm anti LEO. I'm very pro LEO and have close friends in law enforcement but I'm being honest here. It is how it tends to work.

Now that said, I really hope the OP goes after this in court and flushes that ticket down the round white file cabinet.

 

[fiend]

Judges in my experience are pretty practical people. I think if you show up and make the argument about the Jeep not being manufactured with a structural roof, you probably can get the ticket cancelled.

 

[jesse3638]

Judges in my experience are pretty practical people. I think if you show up and make the argument about the Jeep not being manufactured with a structural roof, you probably can get the ticket cancelled.

Not to mention doors which are intended to be removed from the manufacturer.

 

[Sharkey]

I'd challenge it just to make the officer look like an ass for writing down the incorrect code when he is a code instructor.

 

[jdofmemi]

Just a guess, but I would bet some lobbying by Jeep or an owners group is the reason the exemption is written into the vehicle code to start with.

Weren't tops and doors optional equipment on older models?

Any chance of support from FCA on an issue like this?

 

[Eddie Man]

That cop should head north to the Bantam Festival in June.
Tell him that he’ll make a mint in tickets!

Then watch pandemonium unravel


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app

 

[fiend]

I'd challenge it just to make the officer look like an ass for writing down the incorrect code when he is a code instructor.

He probably won’t even show up to court and the ticket will get bounced because of that.

 

[Saharaunlmtd]

That cop should head north to the Bantam Festival in June.
Tell him that he’ll make a mint in tickets!

Then watch pandemonium unravel


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app

I saved this screenshot from a Bantam email a couple years ago...



Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app

 

[jamo922]

State trying to make up for not stealing enough of our money thru taxes.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app

That’s impossible. This is taxylvania


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app

 

[Sharkey]

He probably won’t even show up to court and the ticket will get bounced because of that.

That is not necessarily enough to get rid of a ticket, although I think it might be in this circumstance given the errors on the ticket itself.

 

[fiend]

PA & Doorless = $141.50 fine

That is not necessarily enough to get rid of a ticket, although I think it might be in this circumstance given the errors on the ticket itself.

The real question is whether it’s worth a day or half day of someone’s time, and maybe time off work, to go to court and try to save 140 bucks. For many people, the answer is no.

 

[BobNH]

If it was me, I would be there, law and owners manual in hand. And I would want him to show up. It is very clear, and they are misinterpreting it, or more accurately, not understanding it.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Saharaunlmtd]

The real question is whether it’s worth a day or half day of someone’s time, and maybe time off work, to go to court and try to save 140 bucks. For many people, the answer is no.

I’m pretty cheap, poor, and have four weeks of vacation to burn before EOY so the time would be worth it IF I don’t have much more to venture.

I need to determine what the associated court costs are to know if it’s worthwhile.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app

 

[sipafz]

The real question is whether it’s worth a day or half day of someone’s time, and maybe time off work, to go to court and try to save 140 bucks. For many people, the answer is no.

I agree. Go to court and get it drop or pay the fine.... neither solves the problem. The next time this officer sees the OP or others without doors the same thing will probably happen. The OP should respectfully contact the officer while on duty and get clarification on the roof / no roof angle. He might not tell him what he wants to hear, but at least will have an opportunity to find a loophole. I would seriously consider moving if I had to deal with this and couldn’t find some common ground.

 

[Saharaunlmtd]

If it was me, I would be there, law and owners manual in hand. And I would want him to show up. It is very clear, and they are misinterpreting it, or more accurately, not understanding it.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

I want to argue that the code is being inappropriately enforced, but the more i look at the language, the more damning it sounds.

The sentence structure leads me to believe that:

1. A vehicle must have doors commensurate to original equipment.

2. The doors must open and close securely unless it is devoid of a roof. (I’m Picturing a Shelby cobra kit car, as in it does not need functional doors if u gain access due to the lack of a roof).

The period dividing the first and second sentence is an issue of concern.

“ Doors. A vehicle specified under this subchapter shall be equipped with doors of a type used as original equipment. The doors shall open and close securely unless the vehicle has been manufactured or modified to the extent that there is no roof or side. “


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app

 

[tippedover]

Sounds like a lawsuit for wrong doing on them! Guys a jerk, get his address we can all Order pizzas to his house


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app

 

[BobNH]

I want to argue that the code is being inappropriately enforced, but the more i look at the language, the more damning it sounds.

The sentence structure leads me to believe that:

1. A vehicle must have doors commensurate to original equipment.

2. The doors must open and close securely unless it is devoid of a roof. (I’m Picturing a Shelby cobra kit car, as in it does not need functional doors if u gain access due to the lack of a roof).

The period dividing the first and second sentence is an issue of concern.

“ Doors. A vehicle specified under this subchapter shall be equipped with doors of a type used as original equipment. The doors shall open and close securely unless the vehicle has been manufactured or modified to the extent that there is no roof or side. “


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app

Tube doors aside, the straight letter says effectively oe or oe sized doors. Oe doors are removeable, and designed that way. Its in the book, they cant argue that. The jeep is manufactured without a top. So, the doors can be removed. It doesnt matter top on or off because it was manufactured without one, and that how it is written.
Just my opinion of course. But I would have no issue taking it to court if it were me.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk