FMCSR 303--Civil Rights

I can see you guys' points. CDLs and commercial vehicles are heavily regulated, and I believe that gives dieselbears carte blanche for searching trucks (our places of business), although I also believe they abuse their authority daily. But I also think this entire issue is a lot more muddled with CSA2010 being rolled out - the feds are probably crossing some line somewhere with going into the DAC business...

 

Please explain to me, where in the CFR quoted by the OP are anyones civil rights lost or violated.

Let's keep this on track here kids.

 

Look, you can try to veer off topic or sling all the pointless ad hominen attack BS you want. It won't change the fact that the assertion you made in your original post is wrong. The code section you quote in fact requires anyone receiving any federal funding to comply with the Civil Rights Act.

My opinions and beliefs are as logical and consistent as the universe itself.

 

CSA 2010 infringes on a lot more civil liberties than tha passage you quoted Injun. Think about it...the officer writing the inspection is elevated to an untouchable status with no legal recourse for the accused at all.
Recently I was in Texas in my newly aquired w900B....got inspected at a scale on I 35 where the officer wrote up such items as bad auto slack adjusters(truck and trailer are all manual as they are both old enough to have them) leaking airbag on trailer(spring ride), bad brakes(brand new just before starting trip,including drums), and bad torque arms on trailer(??? they are also brand new), but was only ticketed for minor log violation (spilled coffee on book when setting cup in holder{oops..not at my best in early am sometimes}) The Judge set aside book infraction but could not address other issues as were not assessed a fine and were administrative rule violations if not written as a ticket. In other words even though I proved my case...they were written as warnings and in the eyes of the justice system do not count!!! Does anyone know of a process to dispute an inspection under CSA 2010? If so you would be the only one that knows about it as my attorney and several others including myself have hit a dead end on this issue. So we have an administrative rule that has no appeals process(you never get to face your accuser,or get your day in court,so to speak),,,but still carries full penalty, even if inspection is absurdly out of the norm.
Can anyone say DUE PROCESS...yet another sacrifice on the alter of safety.

 

Tip o' the hat to the OP... but, but they issue warnings without regard to race, creed or color! LOL!

Its only a "sacrifice on the altar of safety" as long as we allow it to be so. Until one of us stands their ground on this issue, this untollerable affront to our civil rights will continue.

The FMCSA sloughs this off as a state issue because the issuing entity is an officer of the state where the violation occurred. Then they arrogantly point out that just because the infraction is issued as a warning, (in their words) "...doesn't mean it didn't happen." Leading to the assertion that the Data-Q challenge to the warning (leading right back to the issuing officer) is in fact "due process."

Now one can make all the noise they like about the US becoming the "USSA" or our rights evaporating, but its been this way since before the ink dried on the Constitution. Until "someone" challenges not the issue that the brand new torque arm was in some way defective but the administrative process that prevents them from challenging the issue in court, then this loss of freedom will continue. Find a constitutional attorney who will listen. There are a bunch of them at OOIDA.

 

And add to this the problem with CSA2010 data being sold to carriers, much like what DAC does, it's a problem.

I personally think they are overstepping their boundaries.

 

Uhm you faced your accuser that day. Why sign the inspection if the equipment cited did not exist on your truck?

Appeal no problem.

https://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov/login.asp


Glad to clear that up for you.

 

That's not an "appeal" driver. 99% of Data-Q requests mean that you're asking the same DOT officer who wrote the warning to say he didn't really mean it.

 

It goes to the agency yes. But show the suspension sans air bags(really do not understand signing such a far fetched inspection in the first place truthfully), manual slack adjusters, brakes well again you should have argued that then.

But there is an appeal process.