Mississippi Becomes the Thirty-Ninth State To Ban Nitrous In Street CarsBy Brian Lohnes Posted 02/11/10
The Mississippi legislature recently passed the Trooper Steve Hood Act: The Nitrous Prohibition Act. The law is named after a state trooper who died in a high speed chase while in pursuit of a nitrous equipped vehicle. This law does not ban the use of nitrous at race tracks or on race cars, but it does make it illegal to have a functioning nitrous system in your street car.
While we certainly hate to see restrictions placed on vehicle performance and aftermarket companies hampered, the law makes some sense. We feel awful for the family of trooper Hood, who was 50 years old at the time of his death and was very close to retiring from the force.
What was not made clear in any of the stories we read was exactly how the law reads and how it is to be enforced. The penalties are stiff for violators. The first offense could land the driver in the clink for 48 hours and fined up to $1,000. A second violation could earn a year in jail and a third could result in up to five years.
In many states, the nitrous system can be in the car so long a bottle is not connected and ready for use. Seeing as though this is a law fresh in the minds of law enforcement and represents an emotional event for the Mississippi State Troopers, we'd stow our bottle well away from the mount when headed to the race track.
Source -- ClarionLedger.com -- Fatal Crash Behind Bill
Comments + Post your comment!
Written by Speedzzter.blogspot
Feb 12 2010
Super Sport, I was assuming that 5.0 had some probable cause or "reasonable suspicion" for a stop, such as exhibition of speed, reckless driving, etc.
In other words, something more than just youth, rumor and nitrous decals. State law would determine whether or not such "busts" could be turned into a custodial arrest. Once the driver is in custody, most states would allow a vehicle impound. Of course, all of this assumes the hooked-up bottle is not in "plain view" (inside the passenger compartment or the open bed of a truck).
Of course, it's always better to have a warrant than to rely on exceptions to the exclusionary rule.
Written by ponchoman Feb 12 2010
There are two sets of "wrong" people here.
1) The jackasses who were being chased and caused the entire thing. Let's not forget that the cop was not in the wrong here. The criminals were. Regardless of how they were caught, they should be prosecuted to the maximum - and I hope they never ever get out of jail, and are put in a cell with a 350 pound sexual deviant. These are the jerks who make things difficult for people in our hobby. We all get painted with their brush.
2) The jackasses who are over-reacting and penalizing the wrong people. Do they really believe that because they pass a law, somebody who is already guilty of driving with complete reckless abandon will somehow decide to obey "the NEW law" when they never obeyed the old ones?
Written by Super Sport Feb 12 2010
You sometimes have broad actions, like when some multi-agency force shuts down street races and the like, and then they impound/store/seize/steal/demolish cars from there. At that point, you don't need a warrant to search the vehicle, as you are required to "inventory" the contents of the vehicle pursuant to impound or storage.
It's better than a warrant actually, because warrants have scope. If I had a warrant to search a car for a stolen television, for instance, I would NOT be allowed to search the glove box, because it would not be reasonable to find something as large as a TV in a space as small as a glove box, so it falls outside the scope of the warrant.
But otherwise, no. If I am John Law, and I am driving down the road and I see a car with NOS decals in the windows bumpin down the road and every 17 year old I know in the neighborhood tells me the car is squeezing, that does not constitute probable cause for a stop, not to mention a search. From a legal standpoint, you've got to do more work than that.
I can stop them for something else, if I observe it. If I stop them, I can ASK them if they would not mind if I searched the vehicle (you would be amazed and disturbed how many people consent to this) but I cannot tell them that I am going to force a search outright. And that's not state law, that's the Bill of Rights and subsequent Case Law.
But yeah, like I said before, this all hinges upon the person in question not being a mental midget and doing something dumb like purging in front of Krispy Kreme, or using their nitrous to test their new rev limiter on a burnout or something equally daft.
Written by Speedzzter.blogspot
Feb 12 2010
Couldn't they just impound your car if they suspect "NOSS" ( ;D) and do an inventory search? [url=http://faculty.ncwc.edu/Mstevens/410/410lect14.htm]http://faculty.ncwc.edu/Mstevens/410/410lect14.htm[/url]
Probably a better plan (albeit highly illegal) is the same one a lot of street racers already use: Put a big honkin disconnected "dummy" bottle in the trunk for show and hide the hooked-up giggle gas bottle for go. Then you can tell tell Officer Fife, Sargent Stadanko, or Trooper Mount "Look! It's not even hooked up, Man!"
Of course you've got to remember not to purge out in front of Krispy Kreme . . . .
Written by Super Sport Feb 11 2010
If you waive your fourth amendment rights and let them search your car, bad on you. Because from a legal perspective, articulating probable cause to search a vehicle specifically for nitrous oxide would require a hybrid between a cop, Rhodes Scholar, and a serious gearhead. It's not happening.
Not to mention that the way things work, you would have to hold some sort of training program to certify "experts" in Nitrous Oxide systems within a given police agency. Otherwise, they wouldn't know a "Functional" Nitrous system if it snaked it's way out of the hood and choked them. They'd get killed on their lack of expertise in court.
This is symbolic, stupid legislation that is designed to appeal to and appease emotions. Therefore, it's bad law. It's a shame that some trooper lost his life chasing someone, but he liked the dangers of his job just fine up to that point, he chose it. And, frankly, if you chase cars that run, and especially bikes that run, something is almost certainly going to crash. The stat is well over fifty percent. This is why most watch commanders will advise their charges to let non-violent misdemeanors and less run, and catch up with them later. The liabilities just don't balance out.
Bottom line on the nitrous thing. Never waive your rights. Bad laws lose in court.
Written by 67prostreet
Feb 11 2010
[quote author=Speedzzter.blogspot link=topic=19796.msg370182#msg370182 date=1265911976]
This is ineffective, knee-jerk legislation.
[/quote]
I have to agree with you.
The story says only that the car had Nitrous, not that it was used or was the reason the trooper was killed when [b]HE[/b] lost controll of his car and hit a [b]TREE![/b] How many times have we heard of a cop loosing control of there own car during a chase when all cops are told to call off the chase if it creates more of a danger. It is unfortunate he was killed but the fact is he was driving at a speed beyond his abilities and lost control. This is called Wreckless Driving and/or Failure to Maintain Controll. Something cops seem to issue citations on in large numbers.
Written by A/Fuel
Feb 11 2010
[quote author=dieselgeek link=topic=19796.msg370232#msg370232 date=1265917534]
I'm fine with it as long as they don't ban turbochargers.
[/quote]
Your turn could be next....It's a lot easier to hide a kit than a turbo.
Written by dieselgeek Feb 11 2010
I'm fine with it as long as they don't ban turbochargers.
Written by Speedzzter.blogspot
Feb 11 2010
This is ineffective, knee-jerk legislation.
However, we should note that the SEMA model bill on Nitrous Oxide reads as follows:
[quote]A person shall not on a public road drive a motor vehicle which is equipped to supply the motor vehicle?s combustion engine with nitrous oxide unless the system supplying nitrous oxide is made inoperative by disconnecting the line feeding nitrous oxide to the engine or; removing the container or containers of nitrous oxide.[/quote][url=http://www.semasan.com/images/NitrousOxide.pdf]http://www.semasan.com/images/NitrousOxide.pdf[/url]
SEMA has made the legislative judgment that giving in to the need of know-nothing politicians to "do something" by supporting an on-the-street ban of N20 is better than the alternative of a total N20 ban.
Nitrous users should also note that N20 is a greenhouse gas that's allegedly much more "heat trapping" than CO2. [url=http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/sources.html]http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/sources.html [/url] So as greenhouse gas regulations become more politically popular, expect more pressure from the US EPA and others to limit N20 use. We ought to be concentrating on fighting against CO2 limits.
The bottom line: N2O is on its way out as a legal perfomance enhancer for street cars.
That doesn't mean that N20 won't be often used illegally on the street. But its users should become much more clandestine and judicious if they want to avoid penalty. Better yet, they should step up to better, legal "power adders," such as supercharging and/or turbocharging.
Written by Super Sport Feb 12 2010
[quote author=ponchoman link=topic=19796.msg370684#msg370684 date=1265993164]
There are two sets of "wrong" people here.
1) The jackasses who were being chased and caused the entire thing. Let's not forget that the cop was not in the wrong here. The criminals were. Regardless of how they were caught, they should be prosecuted to the maximum - and I hope they never ever get out of jail, and are put in a cell with a 350 pound sexual deviant. These are the jerks who make things difficult for people in our hobby. We all get painted with their brush.
2) The jackasses who are over-reacting and penalizing the wrong people. Do they really believe that because they pass a law, somebody who is already guilty of driving with complete reckless abandon will somehow decide to obey "the NEW law" when they never obeyed the old ones?
[/quote]
You'll find no disagreement here, unless you subscribe to the legal "butterfly effect" of Transferred Intent. And please don't interpret my thoughts on the trooper's demise as apathy. I worked as a Reserve in a local Sheriff's Department for 13 years. The experience enlightened me to a lot of things. One of the most disturbing revelations was that our best and brightest kids do NOT grow up to become public servants, especially legislators. Knee-jerking when writing laws is the rule with most of these types, not the exception, and they read the Constitution a time or two when they were in college, but just to pass that damned exam...
Unfortunately, I fear we have a diminishing returns curve with Law Enforcement recruitment too. That's probably a totally different discussion though.
Finally, there is a very important third component in our soup, and that is the media. It's their hand that holds that broad brush you are referring to, and they have no scruples about whom they paint with it. It's very important to challenge them at every opportunity in public forums like Editorial pages, web pages, ads, and the like.
Sorry about the rant. But i've really gotten to the point where I feel like the word "ban" is the ugliest word in the English language.