VW caught cheating on emissions

[fordmantpw]

Well I'll be.

 

Welcome to the Blue Oval Forums School of Law.

[akirby]

It doesn't make sense to me, but I think Richard may be right. I found this statute in GA state law:

 

 

O.C.G.A. 40-2-27 (2010)
40-2-27. Registration of motor vehicles not manufactured to comply with federal emission and safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles; certificate of title


(a) No application shall be accepted and no certificate of registration shall be issued to any motor vehicle which was not manufactured to comply with applicable federal emission standards issued pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. Section 7401 through Section 7642, known as the Clean Air Act, as amended, and applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C.A. Section 30101, et seq., unless and until the United States Customs Service or the United States Department of Transportation has certified that the motor vehicle complies with such applicable federal standards and unless all documents required by the commissioner for processing an application for a certificate of registration or title are printed and filled out in the English language or are accompanied by an English translation.

 

But I was right in that it doesn't need to be tied to Emissions testing, only proof of non-conformance to the Clean Air Act. So GA could deny registration and renewals for vehicles that have not been updated even in counties where emissions testing is not required.

 

I could find no such law in SD.

[akirby]

Well I'll be.

 

Welcome to the Blue Oval Forums School of Law.

 

I think it's an IT thing - seemed perfectly logical to me, too.

[RichardJensen]

 

I think it's an IT thing - seemed perfectly logical to me, too.

 

Only if you don't follow it all the way through to its underlying principles. The very clear principle is that every aspect of enforcement must be grounded in law.

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

Nope. It's exactly the opposite.

 

One of the more amusing tidbits illustrative of this was an SDSU professor who used to advise miscreants to flee to the SDSU campus if they had broken city ordinances and were being pursued. His notion was that SDSU was not part of Brookings, therefore the city had no enforcement jurisdiction and that SDSU cops could not enforce Brookings ordinances.

 

While correct, in theory, the solution is that county, state and university LEOs were all 'cross-sworn' which means that they were legally permitted to enforce laws from the jurisdiction they were cross-sworn into, and that they could enforce laws within those jurisdictions as well, not just their own home jurisdiction.

I think that's a majority of college campuses. At Central Michigan, the CMU police are all cross sworn with Michigan State Police, Isabella County Sheriff, Mount Pleasant City and the Isabella Tribal police (half of the campus sits on an Indian reservation).

[RichardJensen]

even in counties where emissions testing is not required.

 

And that's probably the reason why that law exists in the first place--because Georgia has certain counties that require emissions testing on an ongoing basis, and this law provides part of the teeth to that emissions testing regime.

 

I expect that Calfornia's law looks similar to this.

Edited March 14, 2016 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

(half of the campus sits on an Indian reservation).

 

That's another area where one can readily observe the federal nature of laws and enforecement

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

That's another area where one can readily observe the federal nature of laws and enforecement

Well really, the tribal police can do whatever they want with you if you're on their reservation, being that they're still considered a sovereign nation and all.

[akirby]

 

Only if you don't follow it all the way through to its underlying principles. The very clear principle is that every aspect of enforcement must be grounded in law.

 

The confusing part is that it requires a state law to actually enforce a federal law.

[fordmantpw]

 

The confusing part is that it requires a state law to actually enforce a federal law.

 

Which makes no sense. So, without a state law to enforce a federal law, the only ones who could enforce it are federal marshals.

[RichardJensen]

 

The confusing part is that it requires a state law to actually enforce a federal law.

 

Apparently I haven't explained this well enough.

 

Any law must:

 

- define the proscribed act and the actor

 

- define the penalty or range of penalties

 

- assign responsibility for enforcement of the act.

 

In this instance:

 

- the defined act is selling a vehicle with a defeat mechanism and the actor is VW.

 

- the penalty is a fine of up to $25,000 per vehicle (plus, possibly, a per day fine of up to $25,000, but I didn't read that section of the law close enough to know if it applies in this instance

 

- enforcement is civil in nature and brought by the EPA.

 

In the case of the Georgia law*

 

- the defined act is operating a vehicle that is non-compliant with the CAA and the actor is the vehicle owner

 

- the penalty is the revocation of registration or the refusal to issue a title

 

- enforcement is civil in nature and handled by the department of revenue(?) (by refusing to issue a title or register the vehicle).

 

Georgia is not enforcing a federal law. They are using a preexisting federal law as the basis for their own law which essentially extends the reach of the original law.

 

Again, the CAA does not delineate any actions to be taken against vehicle owners except those who knowingly disable or modify their emissions treatment systems. Therefore any actions taken by states against owners of vehicles that are non-compliant through no deliberate act on their part as in this instance is not enforcement of a federal law.

 

* There are aspects of that law that suggest it is either not being applied at present or is not applicable at this juncture as, presumably, people with non-complying vehicles are continuing to be registered.

Edited March 14, 2016 by RichardJensen

[akirby]

I get it from a technical standpoint. The bottom line is any state can choose to deny registration based on non-compliance with the Federal law, they just have to make the appropriate state law to do that, like GA did.

 

So let's say the Federal law did specifically prohibit registration of non-conforming vehicles - could South Dakota DMV enforce that or would they still have to pass a state law to that effect?

[RichardJensen]

I get it from a technical standpoint. The bottom line is any state can choose to deny registration based on non-compliance with the Federal law, they just have to make the appropriate state law to do that, like GA did.

 

It's important to understand that noncompliant is not the same as illegal.

 

Illegal acts can only be performed by competent individuals. Objects can be noncompliant.

 

The law is not concerned with objects, it is concerned with individuals (including corporations).

 

Ownership of something noncompliant may be illegal. Or an action that makes something noncompliant may be illegal.

 

In the case of the CAA, the action of manufacturing a vehicle with a defeat device is illegal. But ownership of that vehicle is not illegal if one has bought and operated that vehicle in good faith.

 

So let's say the Federal law did specifically prohibit registration of non-conforming vehicles - could South Dakota DMV enforce that or would they still have to pass a state law to that effect?

 

 

That gets into tenth amendment territory, I believe.

 

Standard IANAL applies, but the touch point here would be, among other cases, appropriately enough, South Dakota v. Dole, in which the state of South Dakota contested an appropriations bill which tied highway funding to a state drinking age of 21.

 

Lawyers for SD argued that the feds had no right to insert such a provision. They also lost, I believe, 7-2.

 

How that factors in here: I believe that the Feds cannot interfere directly in state matters by telling a state that it cannot renew the registration of a vehicle (that would run afoul of the 'reserved powers' doctrine--AFAIK). However, the feds could withhold appropriations to states which did not pass laws prohibiting registration of noncompliant vehicles. That was established by SD v. Dole.

Edited March 14, 2016 by RichardJensen

[blwnsmoke]

Volkswagen (VLKAY) Stock Closes Down, Faces $3.61 Billion Lawsuit in Germany

 

 

 

Volkswagen AG (VLKAY) shares closed Monday's trading session down 2.06% to $28.57 as nearly 300 institutional investors in Germany have filed a $3.61 billion lawsuit against the German carmaker over the emissions scandal, Reuters reports.

[RichardJensen]

Wow.

 

Volkswagen (VLKAY) Stock Closes Down, Faces $3.61 Billion Lawsuit in Germany

 

[jpd80]

VLKAY = VW Group

 

[RichardJensen]

 

Which makes no sense. So, without a state law to enforce a federal law, the only ones who could enforce it are federal marshals.

 

Missed this earlier.

 

Need to provide some additional clarification.

 

Federal marshals are under the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court. They are not exactly a law enforcement agency. If you remember the separation of powers doctrine, marshals are in the judicial branch, not the executive branch.

 

Federal crimes are handled by the Department of Justice, which primarily uses the FBI as its investigatory unit (If US attorney general ~ state attorney general's office, FBI ~ state police). Some other federal agencies that are not under the Department of Justice may be able to bring criminal charges--I'm not entirely sure about that (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, for instance, is part of the US Treasury, not Justice).

 

Civil infractions, however, are handled by any of a number of agencies (the IRS, SEC and EPA being common examples). These agencies are authorized to sue people on behalf of the US government in US district court. The result is a judgment not jail time.

 

I'm not certain, but my gut instinct is that the vast and overwhelming majority of Federal laws involve civil penalties

Edited March 15, 2016 by RichardJensen

[blwnsmoke]

Audi A4 TDI plans scrapped for the US

 

 

 

Despite what you may be thinking, Keogh claims the decision isn't based on the ongoing talks between parent company Volkswagen and US regulators regarding the diesel emissions scandal. (Currently, Audi and Volkswagen are awaiting EPA certification for their diesel engines in the US.) The reason, he says, is that the demand for diesel sedans is low here, particularly when compared to the company's lineup of crossovers. "The marketplace speaks, we listen to the marketplace, and the marketplace told us, 'Go with SUVs,'" says Keogh, presumably in his usual straightforward, assuring manner.

 

HAHA... ya I call complete BS on that

[silvrsvt]

Now the FTC is getting in on the action

F.T.C. Sues Volkswagen Over Diesel Car Ads

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/business/media/ftc-sues-volkswagen-over-diesel-car-ads.html