WA state cancelling MV titles

[montaillou]

Look up, D.O.D. MIL-STD-1180B.

This is the kind of cryptic response I'm used to seeing on SS. Kind of surprised you included the "Look up" part.

 

[TomTime]

Mmmm, not really sure how to respond to that. Not sure if I provided to much info or not enough?

Well here is the D.O.D. MIL-STD-1180B that shows the military requires that the manufacture of military wheeled vehicles comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMCSS) and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Administration (FMSCA) Regulations .

If you wish I can attached a copy with highlighted areas to show where it complies. It’s in the first 10-12 pages.

 

[Mullaney]

Mmmm, not really sure how to respond to that. Not sure if I provided to much info or not enough?

Well here is the D.O.D. MIL-STD-1180B that shows the military requires that the manufacture of military wheeled vehicles comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMCSS) and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Administration (FMSCA) Regulations .

If you wish I can attached a copy with highlighted areas to show where it complies. It’s in the first 10-12 pages.

.
I also have a Wisconsin Case Case No. TR-11-0016 answering "In the Matter of a Denial of a Registration" on a Chevy Blazer where the MIL-STD was used to put this case in favor of the MV owner.

So, don't hesitate to whip out the book of rules and use them to your benefit!
.

 

[TomTime]

.
I also have a Wisconsin Case Case No. TR-11-0016 answering "In the Matter of a Denial of a Registration" on a Chevy Blazer where the MIL-STD was used to put this case in favor of the MV owner.

Yep, I have that too. Forgot to attached that!
Thanks for attaching it!!!

 

[Mainsail]

.
I also have a Wisconsin Case Case No. TR-11-0016 answering "In the Matter of a Denial of a Registration" on a Chevy Blazer where the MIL-STD was used to put this case in favor of the MV owner.

So, don't hesitate to whip out the book of rules and use them to your benefit!
.

Reading through that your D10 did meet the FMVSS at the time of manufacture, which may also be true for a HMMWV manufactured in the mid 80s. That may not be true, and probably isn't, for a HMMWV manufactured in 2007 (or thereabouts).

 

[EasternEmpire]

The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) has been pushing this nationally for a few years with varying levels of success. Here in Idaho the State DMV took a run at banning military vehicles using the doesn't comply with FMVSS argument a few years ago. Former military vehicle owners, particularly rural fire districts, pushed back hard and the result was the statute below. You can even get a conditional title without an SF-97.


TITLE 49
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 4
MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION
49-458. MILITARY VEHICLES. Notwithstanding any provisions of law to the contrary, a vehicle built for the United States armed forces may be registered and operated on public highways of this state, because such vehicles were manufactured in accordance with department of defense military safety standards. A federal form 97 shall be provided at the time of registration. If no federal form 97 is available, the applicant may apply for a conditional title.

 

[rawr]

Reading through that your D10 did meet the FMVSS at the time of manufacture, which may also be true for a HMMWV manufactured in the mid 80s. That may not be true, and probably isn't, for a HMMWV manufactured in 2007 (or thereabouts).

I think it is more challenging with a HMMWV I have attached correspondence and the notes I made while contemplating fighting em. WA's sticking point is the FMVSS sticker only. I am fairly sure my SF97 had "on-road use" but I got a title and couldnt get a copy of the SF97 which is what WA needs. You could try reaching out to the highway patrol since the DOL seems to be deferring to them in my correspondence .

I am moving out of state anyway.

 

[rawr]

What I'm currently wondering is if I should go ahead and get the WA off-highway title even though I'll be running VT plates. The advantage is the State cannot accuse me of registering in VT to avoid the WA sales tax, since I'll have to pay them that for the off-highway title. Thats the part they seem very sensitive about; registering out of state to avoid tax. Alternatively, I could go to the licensing office and offer to pay the sales tax but I don't know of a mechanism for that. Ultimately, it would be a difficult charge since they can't say I registered in VT to avoid tax when they don't offer the option of registering in WA anyway. I registered in VT because (1) WA wouldn't, and (2) WA doesn't offer the Air Medal license plate that honors my service, both valid reasons to register in VT.

I paid sales tax and all the appropriate fees when I registered for on-highway for the same reason, You should be able to go to the WA dmv and apply for a title without registration, that way your taxes are covered.

 

[US6x4]

Idaho Motor Pool is auctioning off a pile of blank SF97 forms (real ones) this month. Just thought I'd mention that, you know, for academic purposes...

https://jbsauctions.hibid.com/catal...l-military-surplus-reduction-auction/?cpage=3

 

[Mainsail]

Idaho Motor Pool is auctioning off a pile of blank SF97 forms (real ones) this month. Just thought I'd mention that, you know, for academic purposes...

https://jbsauctions.hibid.com/catal...l-military-surplus-reduction-auction/?cpage=3

View attachment 894643

Is or was?

 

[US6x4]

I thought I was looking at a current auction listing but that looks like an expired one. Dang...

 

[Mullaney]

I thought I was looking at a current auction listing but that looks like an expired one. Dang...

(edit)

.
Might be worth deleting that last line in your post.

 

[98G]

.
Might be worth deleting that last line in your post.

And altering your quote...

 

[Westo]

Going back to the discussion about out of state registration, I've been looking into some stuff there. The law on it says: "It is a gross misdemeanor for a resident, as identified in RCW 46.16A.140, to register a vehicle in another state, evading the payment of any tax or vehicle license fee imposed in connection with registration" (RCW 46.16A.030). The crime is not predicated on having intent to evade taxes, so I can see them finding someone guilty even if they have a tax receipt or off road title in WA. In the case of registering out of state as a road vehicle then switching to a WA ORV, wouldn't those plates no longer be valid and show up as such if someone ran them?

 

[TechnoWeenie]

Going back to the discussion about out of state registration, I've been looking into some stuff there. The law on it says: "It is a gross misdemeanor for a resident, as identified in RCW 46.16A.140, to register a vehicle in another state, evading the payment of any tax or vehicle license fee imposed in connection with registration" (RCW 46.16A.030). The crime is not predicated on having intent to evade taxes, so I can see them finding someone guilty even if they have a tax receipt or off road title in WA. In the case of registering out of state as a road vehicle then switching to a WA ORV, wouldn't those plates no longer be valid and show up as such if someone ran them?

This only applies to a resident.

This is why I suggest putting vehicles in a Trust, out of state. A trust is not a resident of the state, AND serves a legitimate and lawful purpose (estate management). An LLC has to have a function, and an LLC that solely exists to hold a vehicle so it can be titled/registered in another state can absolutely be tax fraud. The trust, by its very existence, serves a purpose... A purpose that an LLC doesn't serve, which, as mentioned, only exists for itself.

The other thing is, they have to A) catch you and B) enforce it.

Police on the wet side of WA aren't pulling anyone over for anything, really... Unless they know they'll stop... because current law means you can just flee... and they can't chase.. So they usually don't even bother with vehicles that have no plates, or simple stuff like basic speeding or expired reg.

 

[98G]

This only applies to a resident.

This is why I suggest putting vehicles in a Trust, out of state. A trust is not a resident of the state, AND serves a legitimate and lawful purpose (estate management). An LLC has to have a function, and an LLC that solely exists to hold a vehicle so it can be titled/registered in another state can absolutely be tax fraud. The trust, by its very existence, serves a purpose... A purpose that an LLC doesn't serve, which, as mentioned, only exists for itself.

The other thing is, they have to A) catch you and B) enforce it.

Police on the wet side of WA aren't pulling anyone over for anything, really... Unless they know they'll stop... because current law means you can just flee... and they can't chase.. So they usually don't even bother with vehicles that have no plates, or simple stuff like basic speeding or expired reg.

Can you elaborate on that last paragraph?

 

[Mainsail]

Can you elaborate on that last paragraph?

RCW 10.116.060

Vehicular pursuit.

(1) A peace officer may not engage in a vehicular pursuit, unless:
(a)(i) There is probable cause to believe that a person in the vehicle has committed or is committing a violent offense or sex offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030, or an escape under chapter 9A.76 RCW; or
(ii) There is reasonable suspicion a person in the vehicle has committed or is committing a driving under the influence offense under RCW 46.61.502;
(b) The pursuit is necessary for the purpose of identifying or apprehending the person;
(c) The person poses an imminent threat to the safety of others and the safety risks of failing to apprehend or identify the person are considered to be greater than the safety risks of the vehicular pursuit under the circumstances; and
(d)(i) Except as provided in (d)(ii) of this subsection, the officer has received authorization to engage in the pursuit from a supervising officer and there is supervisory control of the pursuit. The officer in consultation with the supervising officer must consider alternatives to the vehicular pursuit. The supervisor must consider the justification for the vehicular pursuit and other safety considerations, including but not limited to speed, weather, traffic, road conditions, and the known presence of minors in the vehicle, and the vehicular pursuit must be terminated if any of the requirements of this subsection are not met;
(ii) For those jurisdictions with fewer than 10 commissioned officers, if a supervisor is not on duty at the time, the officer will request the on-call supervisor be notified of the pursuit according to the agency's procedures. The officer must consider alternatives to the vehicular pursuit, the justification for the vehicular pursuit, and other safety considerations, including but not limited to speed, weather, traffic, road conditions, and the known presence of minors in the vehicle. The officer must terminate the vehicular pursuit if any of the requirements of this subsection are not met.
(2) A pursuing officer shall comply with any agency procedures for designating the primary pursuit vehicle and determining the appropriate number of vehicles permitted to participate in the vehicular pursuit and comply with any agency procedures for coordinating operations with other jurisdictions, including available tribal police departments when applicable.
(3) A peace officer may not fire a weapon upon a moving vehicle unless necessary to protect against an imminent threat of serious physical harm resulting from the operator's or a passenger's use of a deadly weapon. For the purposes of this subsection, a vehicle is not considered a deadly weapon unless the operator is using the vehicle as a deadly weapon and no other reasonable means to avoid potential serious harm are immediately available to the officer.
(4) For purposes of this section, "vehicular pursuit" means an attempt by a uniformed peace officer in a vehicle equipped with emergency lights and a siren to stop a moving vehicle where the operator of the moving vehicle appears to be aware that the officer is signaling the operator to stop the vehicle and the operator of the moving vehicle appears to be willfully resisting or ignoring the officer's attempt to stop the vehicle by increasing vehicle speed, making evasive maneuvers, or operating the vehicle in a reckless manner that endangers the safety of the community or the officer.

 

[98G]

RCW 10.116.060

Vehicular pursuit.

(1) A peace officer may not engage in a vehicular pursuit, unless:
(a)(i) There is probable cause to believe that a person in the vehicle has committed or is committing a violent offense or sex offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030, or an escape under chapter 9A.76 RCW; or
(ii) There is reasonable suspicion a person in the vehicle has committed or is committing a driving under the influence offense under RCW 46.61.502;
(b) The pursuit is necessary for the purpose of identifying or apprehending the person;
(c) The person poses an imminent threat to the safety of others and the safety risks of failing to apprehend or identify the person are considered to be greater than the safety risks of the vehicular pursuit under the circumstances; and
(d)(i) Except as provided in (d)(ii) of this subsection, the officer has received authorization to engage in the pursuit from a supervising officer and there is supervisory control of the pursuit. The officer in consultation with the supervising officer must consider alternatives to the vehicular pursuit. The supervisor must consider the justification for the vehicular pursuit and other safety considerations, including but not limited to speed, weather, traffic, road conditions, and the known presence of minors in the vehicle, and the vehicular pursuit must be terminated if any of the requirements of this subsection are not met;
(ii) For those jurisdictions with fewer than 10 commissioned officers, if a supervisor is not on duty at the time, the officer will request the on-call supervisor be notified of the pursuit according to the agency's procedures. The officer must consider alternatives to the vehicular pursuit, the justification for the vehicular pursuit, and other safety considerations, including but not limited to speed, weather, traffic, road conditions, and the known presence of minors in the vehicle. The officer must terminate the vehicular pursuit if any of the requirements of this subsection are not met.
(2) A pursuing officer shall comply with any agency procedures for designating the primary pursuit vehicle and determining the appropriate number of vehicles permitted to participate in the vehicular pursuit and comply with any agency procedures for coordinating operations with other jurisdictions, including available tribal police departments when applicable.
(3) A peace officer may not fire a weapon upon a moving vehicle unless necessary to protect against an imminent threat of serious physical harm resulting from the operator's or a passenger's use of a deadly weapon. For the purposes of this subsection, a vehicle is not considered a deadly weapon unless the operator is using the vehicle as a deadly weapon and no other reasonable means to avoid potential serious harm are immediately available to the officer.
(4) For purposes of this section, "vehicular pursuit" means an attempt by a uniformed peace officer in a vehicle equipped with emergency lights and a siren to stop a moving vehicle where the operator of the moving vehicle appears to be aware that the officer is signaling the operator to stop the vehicle and the operator of the moving vehicle appears to be willfully resisting or ignoring the officer's attempt to stop the vehicle by increasing vehicle speed, making evasive maneuvers, or operating the vehicle in a reckless manner that endangers the safety of the community or the officer.

So how are traffic tickets issued when the violator doesn't stop? Does 1 b not cover this?

 

[Mainsail]

So how are traffic tickets issued when the violator doesn't stop? Does 1 b not cover this?

I didn't even know this was a law until I started noticing how often police were calling off pursuits when listening to the scanner.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

So how are traffic tickets issued when the violator doesn't stop? Does 1 b not cover this?

They're not. They don't chase. They don't issue tickets.


Literally, all the criminals and tweakers have taken off their license plate or display a fictitious temporary (paper) plate. The only people getting penalized are law abiding citizens, since they stop. The others drive like idiots and do whatever they want because they know police can't chase them when they run, so if they see red/blue lights, they just punch it, and cops turn off the lights/don't follow. It's the law in WA.


So, in WA... to engage in a pursuit...... (paraphrasing)....

• The person being pursued must have committed a violent crime OR, DUI
• The officer/trooper MUST request permission and be granted approval by the supervisor, who bears liability for authorizing the pursuit
• There must be no other reasonable alternative to the pursuit, and the capture must outweigh any risk by engaging in a pursuit.

That 'other reasonable alternative'? Not pursuing.

Not even joking.



...and if you think that's bad.... they banned 'use of force' when attempting to detain for a terry stop. They require PC not just RAS to stop someone now. So, a guy wearing a ski mask runs out of a bank, cop says 'STOP!', but the cop can't actually use force to detain them if they run... or just walk away...



Seattle PD policy when approaching occupied stolen cars is to leave space for them to leave, and if they knock on the window and don't respond, to just let them sit in the car, and put units back in service... Literally come upon a stolen car with the thief in the car and policy is 'let them get away if they want, and if they don't cooperate, leave them alone'...

It's a complete *&#$ show.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1478806446707859459