Gain extra benefits by becoming a Supporting Member Click here find out how!

Classic Performance Products Classic Industries
American Auto Wire
Danchuk Catalog
Hellwig Products IncPerformance Rod & CustomNu-Relics Power Windows



 Page 1 of 2 12
Username Post: VIN tag rivets        (Topic#192277)
steamroller 
Newbie
Posts: 12

Reg: 06-18-08
06-18-08 02:31 PM - Post#1459058    

I am in the process of selling a 1965 Impala Super Sport Convertible on Ebay for a friend. One prospective buyer has informed me that the VIN tag rivets are not the correct star shaped rivets. The present owner purchased the car in 1975 for $375 and he absolutely hasn't tampered with the VIN tag during the 33 years he has owned the car. In my mind, there wasn't much point in tampering with the VIN tag before 1975 because the car wasn't worth much back then. The cowl tag indicates the car was assembled in Los Angeles during the 2nd week of December, 1964. Is it possible that the factory used round head blind rivets to secure the VIN tag? Is it true that 1965 was the first year the star shaped rivets were used? Did all the assembly plants do everything the same every time. The car does not look like it has been tampered with.



 


427SS65 
"17th Year" Platinum Supporting Member & Senior Moderator
Posts: 14723
427SS65
Age: 74
Loc: St. Louis, MO
Reg: 12-11-03
06-18-08 02:40 PM - Post#1459065    
    In response to steamroller

All plants used rosette rivets on the 65 model year cars, not round headed "pop rivets" for the VIN tags. Cowl tags use a hollow rivet about 3/8" in diameter (which are available on eBay).

From my understanding, it is illegal to have rosette rivets in your possession or change them or the VIN tag for any reason.

The VIN number is stamped into the frame on the passenger side, top side, behind the rear wheel opening. It may also be stamped inside the heater box cover on the engine side of the firewall.

Also, welcome to ChevyTalk!

Tom 65-70 Full Size Team Moderator

View My Photos Here

65 Impala SS Tahitian Turquoise


 
SleaStak 
Member
Posts: 51

Reg: 12-31-05
06-18-08 03:16 PM - Post#1459105    
    In response to 427SS65

somebody removed the original vin. its rare but if you get stopped by the police and they check. they should impound the vehicle to 'determine true owner' all states have that. police have to compare the vin to the registration on all auto accidents, they dont aways do it. a friend had a chevelle redone spend over 60,000 on the car and the work, son got caught drag racing. they found the vin was removed for what ever reason, long story short they impounded it and he could have got it back at the auction. it went for another 19,000.



 
txturbo 
Valued Contributor
Posts: 3549

Loc: Rosenberg,TX USA
Reg: 07-27-01
06-18-08 03:29 PM - Post#1459116    
    In response to steamroller

It could have been removed to repaint or repair collision or corrosion damage and reinstalled.

Dan
1969 Camaro SS 396/T400
1966 Impala 283/PG/AC
1966 Impala SS 427/4 Speed
1948 Panel 1 Ton
1963 Cadillac
1940 Ford P/U
1954 Chevy 3100
1955.2 Chevy 3100
1956 Cadillac CDV PINK
1930 Model A hot rod


 
SleaStak 
Member
Posts: 51

Reg: 12-31-05
06-18-08 05:51 PM - Post#1459256    
    In response to txturbo

once removed it can not be reattached. you have to have dept of motor vehicle inspect it and issue a new vin and sticker. all 50 states. if you do remove it make sure it cant be detected. not trying to start a flame war. its the law. state and fed law.



 
427SS65 
"17th Year" Platinum Supporting Member & Senior Moderator
Posts: 14723
427SS65
Age: 74
Loc: St. Louis, MO
Reg: 12-11-03
06-18-08 06:14 PM - Post#1459274    
    In response to steamroller

steamroller,

You might want to steer away from selling that car for a friend. It might be you that the purchaser holds liable for, if for some reason, the car is not what it is supposed to be!

Just a thought and my opinion only.

Tom 65-70 Full Size Team Moderator

View My Photos Here

65 Impala SS Tahitian Turquoise


 
steamroller 
Newbie
Posts: 12

Reg: 06-18-08
06-18-08 06:16 PM - Post#1459277    
    In response to SleaStak

How certain is everybody that no '65 Impala manufactured in late 1964 had VIN tag rivets with round heads. I know the Canadian cars did have round head rivets on the VIN tags. The number on the engine block boss matches the VIN tag on this car. I have a valid title and license registrations dating back to 1973 showing the same VIN. I am positive the present owner who has had the car for 33 years did not alter the VIN. It does not appear to have been altered in any way. I want to take somebody's word for this but who is the real expert?



 
427SS65 
"17th Year" Platinum Supporting Member & Senior Moderator
Posts: 14723
427SS65
Age: 74
Loc: St. Louis, MO
Reg: 12-11-03
06-18-08 06:23 PM - Post#1459283    
    In response to steamroller

Do you have a Canadian cowl tag on the car?

What does the cowl tag say on the top line where the body number is?

All the US made 65 cars had/have rosette rivets on the VIN tag in the driver's door pillar. It's a fact.

Tom 65-70 Full Size Team Moderator

View My Photos Here

65 Impala SS Tahitian Turquoise


 
steamroller 
Newbie
Posts: 12

Reg: 06-18-08
06-18-08 06:39 PM - Post#1459298    
    In response to 427SS65

OK Tom, I see you are almost as old as I am so I respect your opinion. I just have a couple more questions: If the car is not stolen and everything matches except the rivets, I simply have a nice car with a incorrect rivets attaching the VIN tag to the door post. I do not know how the rivets got there. What difference does it really make? Secondly, you stated only rosette rivets were used in the 1965 model year was a fact. What is the source of that fact? Thanks



 
427SS65 
"17th Year" Platinum Supporting Member & Senior Moderator
Posts: 14723
427SS65
Age: 74
Loc: St. Louis, MO
Reg: 12-11-03
06-18-08 06:46 PM - Post#1459306    
    In response to steamroller

In 1965, the Federal government required US manufacturers to use rosette rivets. They went one step further in 1969 by making the VIN tags up on the driver's side of the dash.

It only makes a difference if you get stopped by police or get into an accident or if somebody sues you because they find out the tag has been removed. Now, I'm not saying there is something wrong with the car. I have no way to prove or disprove what you are saying, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

You or your friend may not be so lucky with the next owner, if he finds those round headed rivets, knows that they should be six sided rivets, and calls his local State Police department about the problem!

I can post the Federal law here. It's about 12 pages long if you want to see it.



Tom 65-70 Full Size Team Moderator

View My Photos Here

65 Impala SS Tahitian Turquoise


 
steamroller 
Newbie
Posts: 12

Reg: 06-18-08
06-18-08 06:51 PM - Post#1459313    
    In response to 427SS65

Thanks, I'd like to see the law. If you don't want to post it, just tell me where I can look it up.



 
427SS65 
"17th Year" Platinum Supporting Member & Senior Moderator
Posts: 14723
427SS65
Age: 74
Loc: St. Louis, MO
Reg: 12-11-03
06-18-08 06:52 PM - Post#1459315    
    In response to steamroller

18 USCS § 2321

TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I. CRIMES
CHAPTER 113. STOLEN PROPERTY

18 USCS § 2321 (2003)

§ 2321. Trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts

(a) Whoever buys, receives, possesses, or obtains control of, with intent to sell or otherwise dispose of, a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part, knowing that an identification number for such motor vehicle or part has been removed, obliterated, tampered with, or altered, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

107 A.L.R.5th 567

SUMMARY: Illegally removing or altering a vehicle identification number (VIN) or selling or possessing a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN constitutes a crime in most states. In order to impose liability, state courts normally require a culpable mental state on the part of the defendant in altering or removing a VIN or in possessing a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN. Some states, however, do not require any culpable mental state on the part of the defendant when selling a vehicle or vehicle part with a removed or altered VIN.

For example, in State v. Smith, 972 S.W.2d 476, 107 A.L.R.5th 791 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1998), the defendant sold a vehicle that was subsequently found to have an altered VIN. The defendant claimed the state was required to establish that he had knowledge of the VIN alteration at the time the sale occurred. The court held that while knowledge was required for possessing a vehicle with an altered VIN, the statute's plain language indicated that knowledge was not required when selling a vehicle with an altered VIN.

Most state courts held that knowledge of the altered or removed VIN is required before the defendant can be convicted of altering or removing a VIN or possessing or selling a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN ( § 10[a] ). However, a few courts have concluded that from a plain reading of the applicable statute, knowledge of the altered or removed VIN is not required when altering or removing a VIN or possessing or selling a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN ( § 10 ). Courts singled out a number of particular circumstances as tending to establish knowledge of an altered or removed VIN on the part of the defendant. For instance, knowledge was found to exist where there is physical evidence of the VIN alteration as well as proof the defendant tried to sell the vehicle or had possession of the vehicle for a long period of time ( § 10[c] ). Knowledge was also proved by evidence that the defendant was warned of a missing or altered VIN and did not correct the defect or where the police found evidence of a "chop shop" and other dismantled vehicle parts in the defendant's possession ( § 10[c] ). To the contrary, courts found the defendant did not have knowledge of an altered or removed VIN where, although there was evidence of possession or sale of the vehicle, there was no direct or physical evidence the defendant altered or removed the VIN ( § 10[d] ). Knowledge was also not proved where the defendant merely leased a building to a person operating a "chop shop" and did not know what was happening inside the building ( § 10[d] ).

Along with the culpable mental state requirement, courts also addressed the criminal conduct involved in altering or removing a VIN or possessing or selling a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN. For example, state courts found that a VIN was altered or removed even if the concealed VIN was not removed or the vehicle bore an additional VIN not affixed by the manufacturer ( § 12[a] ).

Delaware:

In Tackett v. State, 416 A.2d 1225 (Del. 1980), the court held that two statutes: (1) the possession of a vehicle with a removed VIN (Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 6709); and (2) the possession of a vehicle with knowledge that the VIN is falsified with intent to misrepresent the identity (Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 6705(d)) were not unconstitutionally vague. The court noted that the standard for judging the certainty of a criminal statute is whether it is specific enough to give notice to a person of ordinary intelligence of the conduct prohibited. Consequently, the court found Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 6705(d) clearly comports with constitutional standards of specificity in that the statute unambiguously describes both the conduct prohibited and the requisite states of mind. The court also found that Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 6709 was not vague as applied to this case because the indictment charged that the defendant knew of the altered VINs; the defendant was in the auto repair business and a former employee of a major automaker, giving rise to a fair inference that he was familiar with confidential VINs; and the defendant's knowledge that the VINs had been altered was charged and proven.

New York:

The court held in People v. Giese, 95 Misc. 2d 792, 408 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Sup 1978), order aff'd without published op, 68 A.D.2d 1019, 414 N.Y.S.2d 947 (2d Dep't 1979), that federal law (Federal Safety Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1381 et seq. (Repl.; see 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 30101 et seq.)) did not preempt N.Y. Penal Law § 170.70, which makes it illegal to possess a VIN that has been removed from a vehicle or vehicle part to which the VIN was affixed by the manufacturer in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Motor Vehicle and Information Cost Savings Act. The court noted that the promulgation of the safety standards cannot be said to be so pervasive of the area to prevent the state of New York from enacting and enforcing laws with respect to the illegal possession of VIN plates in order to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle theft. Consequently, the court held that such legislation was not in conflict with the purpose or language of the Federal Safety Act.

Maryland:

In interpreting Md. Ann. Code art. 66 1/2, § 73 (1957), which prohibits a person from knowingly possessing or selling a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN, for the purpose of concealing or misrepresenting the identity of the vehicle or vehicle part, the court in Greenway v. State, 8 Md. App. 194, 259 A.2d 89 (1969), concluded that "knowingly" as used in the statute means "having knowledge." A person thus may be found to have knowledge by evidence establishing that one has actual or direct knowledge of the VIN removal or alteration. For example, explained the court, actual knowledge is when one removes or alters the number personally, while direct knowledge is when one admits to knowing that the number has been removed or altered, and has no reasonable nonculpable explanation as to why it has been removed or altered.

Missouri:

The court in State v. Smith, 972 S.W.2d 476, 107 A.L.R.5th 791 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1998), held that the plain language of Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 301.390.1, 301.390.6 (1994) does not require criminal intent when selling a vehicle with an altered or removed VIN. The statute's language prohibits a person from selling or offering for sale, or knowingly having the custody or possession of a motor vehicle with an altered or removed VIN. The court said that the legislature clearly and deliberately wrote the statute so that "knowingly" refers only to the crime of custody or possession, and not to the crime of selling or offering for sale. The requirement that the defendant know the VIN was altered or removed in order to be convicted thus applies only to the crime of custody or possession, and not to the crime of sale.

Knowledge found:

The courts in the following cases held that the defendant knowingly altered or removed a vehicle identification number (VIN) or sold or possessed a vehicle or vehicle part knowing it had an altered or removed VIN.

Georgia:

In Martin v. State, 160 Ga. App. 275, 287 S.E.2d 244 (1981), the court found that a man who rebuilt and sold a vehicle with parts containing altered or removed VINs knowingly concealed or misrepresented the identity of the vehicle under Ga. Code Ann. § 68-9916(a). Since the Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Act requires that the certificate of title for any vehicle that has been rebuilt, reconditioned, or remanufactured must so state on the face of the title, and the certificate of title that the man obtained for the vehicle did not disclose on its face that the vehicle had been rebuilt, the court found there was enough evidence to conclude that he knew the vehicle contained an altered or removed VIN.

The court in Ramey v. State, 239 Ga. App. 620, 521 S.E.2d 663 (1999), denied a directed verdict of acquittal when the court found enough circumstantial evidence that the car dealer sold the stolen vehicle knowing it had an altered VIN, which is prohibited under Ga. Code Ann. § 40-4-22(a). Because the car's true VIN was damaged and then concealed, and a false VIN plate applied loosely to the door, changes that a person in the business of buying and selling cars should have noticed, and the VIN stamped on the false plate and used by the dealer for the bill of sale did not match the car and could not have been assigned to that year vehicle, the court found sufficient evidence to show the dealer had guilty knowledge of the altered VIN.

Illinois:

Enough circumstantial evidence was found by the court in People v. Kilgore, 33 Ill. App. 3d 557, 338 N.E.2d 124 (2d Dist. 1975), to sustain the defendant's conviction under Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 95 1/2, P 4-103(b) (1973), for knowingly possessing a vehicle with an altered or removed VIN. The court found that the combination of circumstances, which included the payment of $ 500 for a car valued at more than $ 2,000; the falsified VIN on the bill of sale in defendant's possession; the defendant's explanation that he purchased a burned out car and added value thereafter, which was refuted by the actual condition of the car; the fact the defendant did not present invoices or receipts corroborating his story that he bought parts to repair the car; and his failure to complete the title application or apply for plates in the time available, supported the conviction.

Kansas:

In State v. Holland, 141 Kan. 307, 40 P.2d 469 (1935), the court held there was enough evidence to uphold a conviction of possessing a vehicle, whose VIN was altered or removed in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-116(b). The evidence included testimony of the VIN alteration or removal, which showed that several VINs had been ground off and other VINs were stenciled on. In addition, it was found that the defendant had been in the possession of the vehicle for 15 months and therefore had enough time to gain knowledge of the change in the numbers.

Massachusetts:

In Com. v. Perreault, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 1072, 435 N.E.2d 635 (1982), the court found was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of violating Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 266, § 139(b)-(c), which prohibits the possession or sale of a vehicle or vehicle part knowing the VIN has been altered or removed. Because the defendant testified that the true VIN numbers were no longer on the cars and an auto theft investigator testified as to what the VINs were as they appeared on the stolen vehicles and what the VINs should have been, the court concluded that the Commonwealth satisfied its burden of proving that the defendant knew the vehicles had altered or removed VINs.

Ohio:

In State v. Halczyszak, 1990 WL 32605 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1990), the court upheld a conviction under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4549.62(D)(1), after it was found that salvage yard owners knowingly possessed a vehicle in which the VIN was altered. The court found that the case record revealed that the owners knowingly and purposely altered the body of an older vehicle by attaching the VIN from a newer vehicle. In addition, one of the salvage yard owners further demonstrated this knowledge by stating to the police that she believed they could transfer the VIN from one car to another.

Missouri:

According to the court in State v. Wakefield, 682 S.W.2d 136 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1984), there was sufficient evidence to convict the owner of a salvage yard and repair shop of removing or defacing a vehicle's VIN in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 301.400 (1978). The court held there was enough evidence in the record that permitted the inference that at some time the owner, or his employees, mounted the body of a stolen 1978 vehicle on the frame and transmission of a 1980 vehicle, which the defendant had acquired as salvage. The public VIN was removed from the 1980 salvage vehicle and was affixed by homemade rosette rivets to the body of the 1978 vehicle. Thereafter, the reconstituted vehicle was sold as a 1980 model vehicle. The court found the above evidence was sufficient to support the judgment of conviction under the statute.
Here are cites to individual state laws and cases:

JURISDICTIONAL TABLE OF CASES and STATUTES

UNITED STATES CODE

18 U.S.C.A. § 2321 See --§ 2[a]
18 U.S.C.A. § 511 See --§ 2[a] --§ 5

ALABAMA

Alabama Code 32-8-86(a), (c) See --§ 10[a]
Alabama Code 32-8-86(b), (d), (e) See --§ 11[a]
Alabama Code 32-8-86(c) See --§ 10[d]

State v. Honda, 387 So. 2d 219 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980--§ 10[d]
State v. Self, 492 So. 2d 319 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)--§§ 10[a],11[a]

ARKANSAS

Hall v. State, 171 Ark. 787, 286 S.W. 1026 (1926)--§ 10
Ogburn v. State, 168 Ark. 396, 270 S.W. 945 (1925)--§ 13

CALIFORNIA

California Veh. Code 10752(a) See --§§ 3 11[a]
California Veh. Code 10802 See --§ 12

People v. Joiner, 84 Cal. App. 4th 946, 101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 270 (5th Dist. 2000) --§ 12
People v. Suk, 220 Cal. App. 3d 952, 269 Cal. Rptr. 676 (2d Dist. 1990) --§§ 3 11[a]

COLORADO

Colorado Rev. Stat. Ann. 18-5-305 See --§ 8
Colorado Rev. Stat. Ann. 42-5-102(2) See --§§ 3 8 10[a]
Colorado Rev. Stat. Ann. 42-6-117 See --§ 3

People v. Bossert, 722 P.2d 998 (Colo. 1986) --§§ 3 8
People v. Sequin, 199 Colo. 381, 609 P.2d 622 (1980) --§§ 3 10[a]

DELAWARE

Delaware Code Ann. tit. 21, 6705(d) See --§ 3
Delaware Code Ann. tit. 21, 6709 See --§ 3

State v. Derrickson, 31 Del. 342, 114 A. 286 (Gen. Sess. 1921) --§ 11[a]
Tackett v. State, 416 A.2d 1225 (Del. 1980) --§ 3

FLORIDA

Florida Stat. Ann. 319.33(1)(d) See --§§ 7 10[a] 10[d] 11 12[a] 12

City of Margate v. Singh, 778 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2001) --§ 12
Cooper v. State, 585 So. 2d 489 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1991) --§ 12[a]
Jackson v. State, 736 So. 2d 77 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1999) --§ 10[d]
Rogers v. State, 656 So. 2d 245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1995) --§ 7
Stark v. State, 316 So. 2d 586 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1975) --§§ 10[a] 10[d]
State v. Copher, 395 So. 2d 635 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1981) --§ 11
State v. Kennedy, 390 So. 2d 456 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1980) --§ 12

GEORGIA

Georgia Code Ann. 40-4-22(a) See --§ 10[c]
Georgia Code Ann. 68-9916 (a)-(c) See --§§ 10[a] 11[c]
Georgia Code Ann. 68-9916(a) See --§ 10[c]

Dooley v. State, 145 Ga. App. 539, 244 S.E.2d 55 (1978) --§ 10[a]
Greer v. State, 113 Ga. App. 342, 147 S.E.2d 877 (1966) --§ 10[c]
Hubbard v. State, 239 Ga. App. 632, 521 S.E.2d 678 (1999) --§ 10[c]
Martin v. State, 160 Ga. App. 275, 287 S.E.2d 244 (1981) --§ 10[c]
McCannon v. State, 161 Ga. App. 685, 288 S.E.2d 663 (1982) --§ 10[c]
McJunkin v. State, 160 Ga. App. 30, 285 S.E.2d 756 (1981) --§ 11[c]
Ramey v. State, 239 Ga. App. 620, 521 S.E.2d 663 (1999) --§ 10[c]

ILLINOIS

625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/4-103(a)(2) See --§ 11[a]
625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/4-103(a)(4) See --§§ 11[a] 11[d]
625 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/4-103(a)(5) See --§§ 3 8

People v. Billardello, 319 Ill. 124, 149 N.E. 781, 42 A.L.R. 1146 (1925) --§ 10
People v. DePalma, 256 Ill. App. 3d 206, 194 Ill. Dec. 594, 627 N.E.2d 1236 (2d Dist. 1994) --§§ 11[a] 11[d]
People v. Fernow, 286 Ill. 627, 122 N.E. 155 (1919) --§ 10
People v. Johnson, 288 Ill. 442, 123 N.E. 543, 4 A.L.R. 1535 (1919) --§ 10
People v. Kaye, 264 Ill. App. 3d 369, 201 Ill. Dec. 450, 636 N.E.2d 882 (1st Dist. 1994) --§ 10[c]
People v. Kilgore, 33 Ill. App. 3d 557, 338 N.E.2d 124 (2d Dist. 1975) --§§ 2 10[c]
People v. Mayhall, 291 Ill. App. 3d 650, 225 Ill. Dec. 699, 684 N.E.2d 174 (5th Dist. 1997) --§ 11[a]
People v. Neville, 42 Ill. App. 3d 9, 355 N.E.2d 179 (4th Dist. 1976) --§ 3
People v. Pronger, 48 Ill. App. 2d 477, 199 N.E.2d 239 (1st Dist. 1964) --§ 11[a]
People v. Steffens, 208 Ill. App. 3d 252, 153 Ill. Dec. 135, 566 N.E.2d 985 (4th Dist. 1991) --§§ 3 8

INDIANA

Indiana Code Ann. 9-1-5-3 See --§ 12

Payne v. State, 396 N.E.2d 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1979) --§ 12

KANSAS

Kansas Stat. Ann. 8-116(b) See --§§ 10[a] 10[c]

State v. Holland, 141 Kan. 307, 40 P.2d 469 (1935) --§§ 10[a] 10[c]

LOUISIANA

Louisiana Rev. Stat. Ann. 14:207 See --§ 11[c]

State v. Slaughter, 451 So. 2d 59 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984) --§§ 2 11[c]

MARYLAND

Maryland Ann. Code art. 27, 389 (b) See --§ 10[c]
Maryland Ann. Code art. 66 1/2, 73 See --§§ 10[a] 10[c]

Greenway v. State, 8 Md. App. 194, 259 A.2d 89 (1969) --§§ 2 10[a] 10[c]
Spears v. State, 38 Md. App. 700, 382 A.2d 616 (1978) --§ 10[c]

MASSACHUSETTS

Massachusetts Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 266, 139(b)-(c) See --§ 10[c]

Com. v. Gonsalves, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 506, 778 N.E.2d 997 (2002) --§ 10[c]
Com. v. Perreault, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 1072, 435 N.E.2d 635 (1982) --§ 10[c]

MICHIGAN

Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. 750.415(1) See --§§ 7[a] 17
Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. 750.415(2) See --§§ 6 7 11[c]
Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. 750.415(3) See --§§ 6 11[c] 17

People v. Battle, 161 Mich. App. 99, 409 N.W.2d 739 (1987) --§ 6
People v. Brooks, 405 Mich. 225, 274 N.W.2d 430 (1979) --§ 17
People v. Coon, 200 Mich. App. 244, 503 N.W.2d 746 (1993) --§ 11[c]
People v. Griffis, 218 Mich. App. 95, 553 N.W.2d 642 (1996) --§ 7
People v. Oxendine, 201 Mich. App. 372, 506 N.W.2d 885 (1993) --§ 7[a]
People v. Venticinque, 459 Mich. 90, 586 N.W.2d 732 (1998) --§ 11[c]
People v. Wilson, 257 Mich. App. 337, 668 N.W.2d 371 (2003) --§ 15

MISSOURI

Missouri Ann. Stat. 301.390.1 See --§ 10[c]
Missouri Ann. Stat. 301.390.1, 301.390.6 See --§ 13
Missouri Rev. Stat. 301.390 See --§§ 3 10[a] 12[a]
Missouri Rev. Stat. 301.390.1 See --§ 10[c]
Missouri Rev. Stat. 301.390.1, 301.390.6 See --§ 10
Missouri Rev. Stat. 301.400 See --§ 12[a]

State v. Friedman, 412 S.W.2d 171 (Mo. 1967) --§ 12[a]
State v. Smith, 972 S.W.2d 476, 107 A.L.R.5th 791 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1998) --§ 10
State v. Sollars, 706 S.W.2d 485 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1986) --§§ 10[a] 10[c] 12[a]
State v. Sollars, 747 S.W.2d 134 (Mo. 1988) --§ 3
State v. Supinski, 779 S.W.2d 258 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1989) --§§ 10[c] 13
State v. Wakefield, 682 S.W.2d 136 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1984) --§ 12[a]
State v. Wakefield, 712 S.W.2d 442 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1986) --§ 12[a]

NEW JERSEY

New Jersey Stat. Ann. 2C:17-6(b) See --§§ 3 9 18[a]
New Jersey Stat. Ann. 2C:43-2c See --§ 19
New Jersey Stat. Ann. 39:10-7 See --§ 19

State v. Davis, 244 N.J. Super. 180, 581 A.2d 1333 (App. Div. 1990) --§§ 2 3 18[a]
State v. Gross, 225 N.J. Super. 28, 541 A.2d 714 (App. Div. 1988) --§ 19
State v. Pontelandolfo, 227 N.J. Super. 419, 547 A.2d 738 (Law Div. 1988) --§ 9

NEW YORK

New York Penal Law 170.70 See --§§ 4 5
New York Penal Law 170.70(1) See --§ 13
New York Penal Law 170.70(2) See --§ 15
New York Penal Law 170.70(3) See --§ 10[d]
New York Penal Law 436-a See --§ 15
New York Veh. & Traf. Law 65 See --§ 14

People v. Codrington, 165 Misc. 2d 214, 629 N.Y.S.2d 369 (City Crim. Ct. 1995) --§ 13
People v. Congress Radio, 133 Misc. 542, 232 N.Y.S. 647 (Gen. Sess. 1929), aff'd without published op, 251 N.Y. 572, 168 N.E. 432 (1929) --§ 15
People v. Giese, 95 Misc. 2d 792, 408 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Sup 1978), order aff'd without published op, 68 A.D.2d 1019, 414 N.Y.S.2d 947 (2d Dep't 1979) --§ 5
People v. McCabe, 157 Misc. 2d 373, 596 N.Y.S.2d 1021 (City Crim. Ct. 1993) --§ 10[d]
People v. Silver, 39 N.Y.2d 99, 382 N.Y.S.2d 972, 346 N.E.2d 811 (1976) --§ 4
People v. Sullivan, 137 Misc. 2d 909, 522 N.Y.S.2d 758 (Sup. Ct. 1987) --§ 15
People v. Von Werne, 41 N.Y.2d 584, 394 N.Y.S.2d 183, 362 N.E.2d 982 (1977) --§§ 2 10[d]
People, on Complaint of Shanley, v. Stowers, 259 A.D. 528, 19 N.Y.S.2d 921 (1st Dep't 1940) --§ 14

NORTH CAROLINA

North Carolina Gen. Stat. 20-109(b)(1) See --§ 16

State v. Wyrick, 35 N.C. App. 352, 241 S.E.2d 355 (1978) --§ 16

OHIO

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 4549.62(A) See --§ 11[c]
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 4549.62(D) See --§ 10[c]
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 4549.62(D)(1) See --§§ 3 10[a] 10[c] 10[d] 11 12 18[a] 18
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 4549.62(D)(4) See --§ 18[a]
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 4549.62(D)(4)(a) See --§ 18

Forfeiture of 1980 Fruehauf Forty-foot Flatbed Trailer, 49 Ohio App. 3d 68, 550 N.E.2d 188 (6th Dist. Lucas County 1988) --§ 10[c]
Emanuele v. City of Akron, 1989 WL 84033 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. Summit County 1989) --§ 10[a]
State v. Adams, 1991 WL 216874 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. Union County 1991) --§ 3
State v. Banks, 1991 WL 227028 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. Montgomery County 1991), jurisdictional motion overruled, 62 Ohio St. 3d 1471, 580 N.E.2d 1101 (1991) --§ 10[c]
State v. Bradley, 1997 WL 691510 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. Champaign County 1997) --§§ 10[c] 11[c] 18
State v. Halczyszak, 1990 WL 32605 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1990) --§ 10[c]
State v. Lawson, 1989 WL 18948 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1989) --§§ 2 10[c]
State v. McClain, 1987 WL 6702 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. Warren County 1987) --§§ 10[d] 18
State v. Ribovich, 1987 WL 14438 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. Medina County 1987) --§ 10[c]
State v. Rosebrook, 1988 WL 87139 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. Marion County 1988), cause dismissed, 41 Ohio St. 3d 703, 534 N.E.2d 1202 (1989) --§§ 3 10[a] 10[c] 10[d] 12
State v. Rosebrook, 1991 WL 216869 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. Union County 1991) --§ 3
State v. Shifflett, 1993 WL 372233 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. Montgomery County 1993), dismissed, jurisdictional motion overruled, 69 Ohio St. 3d 1477, 634 N.E.2d 1024 (1994) --§§ 11 18
State v. Shifflett, 1994 WL 37277 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. Montgomery County 1994), dismissed, jurisdictional motion overruled, 69 Ohio St. 3d 1477, 634 N.E.2d 1024 (1994) --§§ 2 18[a]

OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma Stat. Ann. tit. 47, 1503(C)(1) See --§§ 3 11

State v. Johnson, 1992 OK CR 72, 877 P.2d 1136 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992) --§§ 3 11

PENNSYLVANIA

75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 7102(b), 7103(b) See --§ 11[c]
75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 7103 See --§ 10[c]
75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 7103(a) See --§ 10[d]
75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 7103(b) See --§ 10[d]
Pennsylvania Stat. Ann. tit. 75, 301 See --§§ 10[c] 10[d]

Com. v. Cecchini, 315 Pa. Super. 153, 461 A.2d 843 (1983) --§ 10[d]
Com. v. Grabowski, 306 Pa. Super. 483, 452 A.2d 827 (1982) --§ 10[c]
Com. v. Lowry, 385 Pa. Super. 236, 560 A.2d 781 (1989) --§ 11[c]
Com. v. Milewski, 340 Pa. Super. 226, 489 A.2d 925 (1985) --§ 10[d]
Com. v. Stevenson, 242 Pa. Super. 31, 363 A.2d 1144 (1976) --§ 10[c]
Com. v. Unkrich, 142 Pa. Super. 591, 16 A.2d 737 (1940) --§§ 10[a] 10[c] 10[d]
Com. v. White, 259 Pa. Super. 397, 393 A.2d 886 (1978) --§ 10[d]

SOUTH DAKOTA

South Dakota Codified Laws 32-4-10 See --§ 10[a]

Soet v. State, 381 N.W.2d 285 (S.D. 1986) --§ 10[a]

TEXAS

Texas Penal Code Ann. 31.11(a)(2)(A) See --§ 10[c]

Austin v. State, 1995 WL 785161 (Tex. App. Dallas 1995) --§ 10[c]

VIRGINIA

Virginia Code Ann. 46.2-1075 See --§§ 10[c] 13

Stevens v. Commonwealth, 1995 WL 748632 (Va. Ct. App. 1995) --§ 10[c]
Viar v. Commonwealth, 1995 WL 464265 (Va. Ct. App. 1995) --§§ 10[c] 13
Is stamping or removing a VIN on an engine block or other part illegal?

It might be, according to this case:

The court held in Greenway v. State, 8 Md. App. 194, 259 A.2d 89 (1969), that there was sufficient evidence to sustain an automobile repairman's conviction, under Md. Ann. Code art. 66 1/2, § 73 (1957), of possessing a vehicle knowing the engine VIN had been defaced for the purpose of concealing or misrepresenting the identity of the vehicle. While the evidence clearly showed that the repairman had in his possession a vehicle containing an engine which he admitted had been removed from another vehicle and whose VIN had been covered by a bead of weld, it was not shown that he ever had direct contact with the engine, either in purchasing it, receiving it after it was purchased, or removing it from one car and installing it in the other. Nevertheless, the court recognized that the repairman admitted he knew the provisions of the statute and therefore the court held that he deliberately "shut his eyes" so he would not have knowledge that the VIN on the engine in his possession had been defaced. The court noted that the engine was easily accessible to him while in his possession and it was immaterial, in the face of the statute, that engine numbers may not be required on certificates of title and that the statute does not provide specifically that failure to make a reasonable inspection means knowledge. He thus acted at his peril, concluded the court, and could be deemed as having "knowledge" of the fact that the engine VIN was defaced.



Tom 65-70 Full Size Team Moderator

View My Photos Here

65 Impala SS Tahitian Turquoise


 
steamroller 
Newbie
Posts: 12

Reg: 06-18-08
06-18-08 07:05 PM - Post#1459328    
    In response to 427SS65

Ok, I read that. What I don't see is the date by which rosette rivets were actually required by Federal Law.



 
427SS65 
"17th Year" Platinum Supporting Member & Senior Moderator
Posts: 14723
427SS65
Age: 74
Loc: St. Louis, MO
Reg: 12-11-03
06-18-08 07:32 PM - Post#1459352    
    In response to steamroller

The only thing I can find is that in 1970, all manufacturers were required to use those rivets. Chevrolet changed over to them in 1965, but I did read that the very early 65 Vettes had used circular rivets. Of course, they were made only in St. Louis.

I'm not going to be able to shed any more light on this subject, however, anybody else is allowed to chime in at any time!



Tom 65-70 Full Size Team Moderator

View My Photos Here

65 Impala SS Tahitian Turquoise


 
427SS65 
"17th Year" Platinum Supporting Member & Senior Moderator
Posts: 14723
427SS65
Age: 74
Loc: St. Louis, MO
Reg: 12-11-03
06-18-08 07:35 PM - Post#1459354    
    In response to 427SS65

As a postscript, the 65 Corvette I just restored has rosettes and it's build date is Jan 27, 1966.

Tom 65-70 Full Size Team Moderator

View My Photos Here

65 Impala SS Tahitian Turquoise


 
steamroller 
Newbie
Posts: 12

Reg: 06-18-08
06-18-08 07:47 PM - Post#1459360    
    In response to 427SS65

Thank you Tom,
This car was built in 1964. Maybe it was built before the switch was made even though it is a 1965 model. I will not sell the car without finding out for sure or at least advising the buyer of the possible discrepancy.



 
427SS65 
"17th Year" Platinum Supporting Member & Senior Moderator
Posts: 14723
427SS65
Age: 74
Loc: St. Louis, MO
Reg: 12-11-03
06-18-08 08:10 PM - Post#1459376    
    In response to steamroller

Look for the VIN stamped into the frame. It's on the passenger side, top of frame rail, just behind the rear wheel opening. You'll need a small inspection mirror, unless you take the body off!

Tom 65-70 Full Size Team Moderator

View My Photos Here

65 Impala SS Tahitian Turquoise


 
Carguy1965 
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 2376

Loc: Georgia
Reg: 02-25-08
06-19-08 03:18 AM - Post#1459444    
    In response to 427SS65

My two cents.. Mine has the rosette rivets.. but its a late 65 production model. I have the cars paper trail back to day one.. 3rd owner..


2007 Z06
DD 2007 Avalanche
1965 BB Impala SS ( Now Gone to a New Home )
1931 Reo Royale Project Coupe


 
wheelman 
Valued Contributor
Posts: 3638
wheelman
Loc: Long Island--New York
Reg: 04-14-07
06-19-08 05:25 AM - Post#1459493    
    In response to Carguy1965

If it is illegal, how do they do a rebody or reuse the vin taG ON THE NEW BOIDY SHELLS THEY SELL. jUST A THOUGHT.

1968 Impala Sports Coupe
2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee
Save a Classic - Crush an Import
[url=https://www.facebook.com/greg.leonovich [/url]


 
txturbo 
Valued Contributor
Posts: 3549

Loc: Rosenberg,TX USA
Reg: 07-27-01
06-19-08 05:33 AM - Post#1459502    
    In response to wheelman

New body shells are different.I would think those manufacturers are required to attach thier own cowl tag and provide an MSO (Manufacturers Statement of Origin) just like on new cars.I wouldn't think it would be legal to attach an original cowl tag to a new body shell.

Dan
1969 Camaro SS 396/T400
1966 Impala 283/PG/AC
1966 Impala SS 427/4 Speed
1948 Panel 1 Ton
1963 Cadillac
1940 Ford P/U
1954 Chevy 3100
1955.2 Chevy 3100
1956 Cadillac CDV PINK
1930 Model A hot rod


 
wheelman 
Valued Contributor
Posts: 3638
wheelman
Loc: Long Island--New York
Reg: 04-14-07
06-19-08 05:37 AM - Post#1459504    
    In response to txturbo

  • txturbo Said:
New body shells are different.I would think those manufacturers are required to attach thier own cowl tag and provide an MSO (Manufacturers Statement of Origin) just like on new cars.I wouldn't think it would be legal to attach an original cowl tag to a new body shell.



I have heard it done and the term used was "REBODY" such as was done in the early years by insurance companies if there was damage such as fire and body needed replacing, but car was not a losss.

1968 Impala Sports Coupe
2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee
Save a Classic - Crush an Import
[url=https://www.facebook.com/greg.leonovich [/url]


 
SleaStak 
Member
Posts: 51

Reg: 12-31-05
06-19-08 06:16 AM - Post#1459531    
    In response to wheelman

the new body shell are actually 2008 model year and what ever you want to call them. they put your old vin on it but its not legal. the 1966 cobra kit cars are mostly titled in Kentucky, because they have a loop hole and dont care what year/make it is as long as they get the registration fee.



 
427SS65 
"17th Year" Platinum Supporting Member & Senior Moderator
Posts: 14723
427SS65
Age: 74
Loc: St. Louis, MO
Reg: 12-11-03
06-19-08 07:24 AM - Post#1459581    
    In response to txturbo

Cowl and VIN tags are two different animals.

VIN tags are protected under Federal and State laws, and cowl tags are just for body maker (Fisher and others) accountability.

The VIN number does not appear on cowl tags.

Tom 65-70 Full Size Team Moderator

View My Photos Here

65 Impala SS Tahitian Turquoise


 
txturbo 
Valued Contributor
Posts: 3549

Loc: Rosenberg,TX USA
Reg: 07-27-01
06-19-08 07:30 AM - Post#1459585    
    In response to 427SS65

sorry...thought we were talking cowl tags. In that case, as long as the numbers match I don't see a problem. However, if they don't match, then it could be a big problem.

Dan
1969 Camaro SS 396/T400
1966 Impala 283/PG/AC
1966 Impala SS 427/4 Speed
1948 Panel 1 Ton
1963 Cadillac
1940 Ford P/U
1954 Chevy 3100
1955.2 Chevy 3100
1956 Cadillac CDV PINK
1930 Model A hot rod


 
steamroller 
Newbie
Posts: 12

Reg: 06-18-08
06-19-08 11:19 AM - Post#1459763    
    In response to txturbo

Just a little followup. I cleaned the top of the frame rail on the passenger side, behind the rear wheel well with Scotchbrite and WD40. There was no VIN number there. So, I cleaned the same area of the frame on the driver's side and presto! The number on the frame matches the number on the VIN tag and the number on the engine block boss. All the markings match the car perfectly. There is no evidence of tampering or repair that would have necessitated removal of the VIN tag rivets. I believe the car had round head rivets on the VIN tag from day 1.



 
ss3964spd 
"6th Year" Gold Supporting Member
Posts: 4620
ss3964spd
Loc: Fairfax, Va
Reg: 12-21-00
06-19-08 11:28 AM - Post#1459767    
    In response to steamroller

It's a 43 year old car. Is there any evidence of it ever having been re-painted? Does the paint code on the cowl tag match that of the car?

Dan

If I recall correctly my memory is excellent. My ability to access it is not.


 
elcamino 
Dedicated Member
Posts: 5492
elcamino
Loc: Lake Superior-Michigan US...
Reg: 03-30-00
06-19-08 12:32 PM - Post#1459796    
    In response to ss3964spd

GM never used pop rivets on VIN tags. Before the start of Rosette style, they were tack welded on. Chevrolet started using the rosette-head rivet on VIN plates in 1965.




I would NOT sell this car for anyone, let him sell it with the incorrectly attach VIN plate.

Mike
2021 GMC Sierra Denali 6.2L/10-sp
2018 Polaris RZR S 900 EPS
2017 John Deere X738 Snow Blower


 
leon phelps 
Valued Contributor
Posts: 4149
leon phelps
Loc: Croydon Manor, PA
Reg: 06-04-05
06-19-08 12:34 PM - Post#1459799    
    In response to elcamino

Tom,

I know you are trying to help here, but looks like this guy has in his mind that he is in the right. Problem is the buyer is the person who will be left with the illegal car, if any agency determines it to be.

We all know that the government agencies are a little lax on older cars, but let him put his hand to the fire and then learn the hard way. We have all done it with gray market stuff. Problem is the learning curve is steep with this.

Also, tampering with the VIN rivets would be treated as tampering with the VIN. No gray matter there.



 
steamroller 
Newbie
Posts: 12

Reg: 06-18-08
06-19-08 04:09 PM - Post#1459914    
    In response to leon phelps

We know that early 1965 Corvettes used round headed pop rivets to attach the VIN tags. We know that 1965 Canadian Chevrolets used round headed pop rivets to attach the VIN tags. We know that the original reason for switching to the pop rivets was because dealers were supposed to stamp delivery dates on the VIN tags and they frequently broke the welds in the process. How do you absolutely know for sure that no 1965 Impala had the VIN tag attached with round headed pop rivets? How illegal was it in 1966 for example for a body shop to re-attach a VIN tag. I don't think the current laws took effect until 1970. Are there any lawyers in this forum? I came here looking for some expertise.



 
Carguy1965 
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 2376

Loc: Georgia
Reg: 02-25-08
06-19-08 04:28 PM - Post#1459922    
    In response to steamroller

Never mind.. I was about to point out the differences between this tag and the one on my car.. Then I realized its not the tag from the car in question.. Sorry .. Blonde moment...


2007 Z06
DD 2007 Avalanche
1965 BB Impala SS ( Now Gone to a New Home )
1931 Reo Royale Project Coupe


Edited by Carguy1965 on 06-19-08 04:32 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 


 Page 1 of 2 12
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

26430 Views
FusionBB
FusionBB™ Version 2.1
©2003-2006 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.155 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0800) Pacific. Current time is 05:07 AM
Top