Hi Bob:
Thanks for going to the trouble to research this question. I really
appreciate it and am keeping a copy of the information.
Regards
David Sosna
VegasLegal@aol.com wrote:
> Dear List:
>
> With this issue going all over the board, I went the extra mile and actually
>researched the issue. The following is the Nevada statute on the issue. The
>California law is similar, and the statute can be found at Cal. Veh. Code
>10750. A second criminal statute also describes criminal sanctions, and is
>found at Cal. Veh. Code. 10802.
>
> NRS 482.553 Unlawful destruction or alteration of number of motor or other
>part of motor vehicle or other mark of identification; placement of serial
>numbers; penalty.
>
> 1. A person shall not intentionally deface, destroy or alter the
>motor number, other distinguishing number or identification mark of a vehicle
>required or employed for registration purposes or the identification number or
>other distinguishing number or identification mark of a part of a motor
>vehicle which was placed or stamped on that part by the manufacturer pursuant
>to federal law or regulation without written authorization from the
>department, nor shall any person place or stamp any serial, motor or other
>number or mark upon a vehicle or the parts thereof except one assigned thereto
>by the department. [Comment from me: Note that it is the number that is not
>to be altered. Removal for paint and reattachment in no way alters the
>number, and the number always remained the same.]
>
> 2. This section does not prohibit the restoration by an owner of the
>original vehicle identification number when the restoration is authorized by
>the department, nor prevent any manufacturer from placing in the ordinary
>course of business numbers or marks upon new motor vehicles or new parts
>thereof. [Comment from me: This section does not relate to removal and
>reinstallation. This section addresses a recovered stolen vehicle or some
>other circumstance causing an actual defaced or destroyed Vin plate or tag.]
>
> . . .
> 4. Any person who violates any provisions of subsection 1 is guilty of a
>gross misdemeanor.
>
> California also dealt with the Vin plates and tags in the case of People v.
>Joiner (Web address after quote below). In construing the law, the court
>stated:
>
> "Accordingly, our analysis begins with a review of the relevant language set
>forth in section 10802, which is as follows:
> b Any person who knowingly alters, counterfeits, defaces, destroys,
>disguises, falsifies, forges, obliterates, or removes vehicle identification
>numbers, with the intent to misrepresent the identity or prevent the
>identification of motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts, for the purpose of
> sale, transfer, import, or export, is guilty of a public offense .b&b
> Section 10802 prohibits certain activities designed to intentionally
>misrepresent the identity of a vehicle or prevent identification of a vehicle
>or its parts. The language of the statute does not permit a construction that
>any activity designed to intentionally misrepresent the identity of a vehicle
>or prevent identification is sufficient. Had the
> Legislature intended such a broad application, it would have used language
>such as b including but not limited tob altering, defacing, etc. vehicle
>identification numbers with
> the requisite intent.
>
> People v. Joinerb&
>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/f028186.pdf
>
> In this sense, there must be intent to misrepresent, and actual defacement or
>alteration. The idea of removing a vin tag for paint and then reinstalling it
>being a crime just doesn't exist.
>
> Again, this is not to suggest that flags won't be raised or explanations
>won't have to be made. Prudence certainly dictates that you just leave the
>darn thing alone. Still, no one is going to jail, and no car is being
>crushed, so long as the plate goes back on a Tiger it came off of and not a
>cute little underpowered effete Alpine. (Actually, I like Alpines).
>
> Bob Nersesian
> B382000975
|