Many years ago, circa 1958, 2 brothers had identical looking white 
Porsche 356A speedsters, one was a "normal" (60 hp.), and the other was 
a "Carrera" (probably twice the hp.) a real racing machine. They took 
the "normal" and with engine removed (a 20 minute at most project) and 
parked it on a back road, took the "Carrera" and found the local police 
car, baited, and stayed just out of range. The police came upon the 
"normal", ticketed the driver, and impounded the "normal". In the city 
mayor's court, they plead not guilty, pointing to the lack of engine, or 
would the city like to replace the engine that was stolen while in the 
cities care. I don't remember the outcome. The city was Bentleyville, 
Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland.

Russell McMahon wrote:
>> Back when you could own a gun here, you had to have a licence to own 
>> it - firing it didn't come into the equation.  It's the same with a 
>> car - if you
>> park it on a public road, it has to have a licence.  They don't have 
>> to prove that you've driven it!
>>     
>
> In certain cases here enforcement agents can 'ticket' cars that are 
> not on a public road for offences which did not demionstrably occue on 
> a public road and which properly (IMHO) relate only to their being on 
> a public road. For example, if a car did not have a "warrant of 
> fitness" and was parked in a supermarket carpark some enforcers would 
> feel justified in issuing a 'ticket' for that 'offense'.
>
> It is probable that a vehicle in the above example arrived where it 
> was via a public road and that it did so while in an illegal state. 
> BUT neither of these conditions is necessary and it seems to me (FWIW) 
> that such an action violates clear legal rights and principles. The 
> WOF could have expired after the vehicle arrived where it was,. It 
> could have been transported there in a legal manner for some reason. 
> The first of these has low probability on average and the second has 
> extremely low probability ever. But, that's not the point.
>
> A while ago I rang our government land transport authority and they 
> confirmed that they consider they have the right to act as above. I 
> was NOT inquiring due to any personal involvement in such matters. I 
> did know of someone who had had an extremely unjust and morally 
> destitute example of the public/private distinction enacted against 
> them. Apparently it MAY not have been leaglly destitute, but I suspect 
> even that.
>
>
>
>
>         Russell
>
>
>
>
>   
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist