Va Dune Buggy

“Director,
Here is the case update from General District Court on Mr.Davis 2009-10-17-0017 – **********************. Certified to Gran Jury

Kevin Wilson who purchased an ATV from Va Dune Buggy, has filed a complaint with LES on Jake Davis. Mr Ronald Morris, the Commonwealth’s Attorney of Greene County, was advised of the complaint as soon as it was received. Mr. Morris advised Jake Davis and his Attorney Dean LHospital before the preliminary hearing that two additional felony charges were pending due to the Kevin Wilson complaint. Dean Lhospital advised he did require additional time as he was going to win the preliminary hearing.
Mr. Davis’s defense at the trial was that the “”Dune Buggy”" was a motorcycle because he had a State Police Inspection Receipt stating it was a motorcycle.
The judge stopped his testimony to advise Mr. Davis that was not a valid defense and certified all felony charges for “”Obtaining Documents from DMV he was not entitled by making a false statement”" to the next Gran Jury in FEB 2010.”

“**Confidential**
William or Sheila,
The attached title cancellation requests were submitted to your office on November 6, 2009. The Commonwealth Attorney is inquiring bout whether or not the documents have been canceled and if the pickup orders on the original titles, still in possession of the accused, Jake Davis has been issued.
The court date is in January 2010 and the Commonwealth Attorney feels that not canceling and picking up the titles will fatally affect the verdict in the case. The two tittles are documentary evidence to show material fraud (Felonies).
We would appreciate any assistance you can provide, (1) in canceling the titles and (*2) providing us with a pickup order so we can recover the unlawfully obtained titles. Davis provided us with the copies of the titles, but would not voluntarily surrender them. (We recovered the tags)

The charges in this case has noting to do with the other issues we are reviewing concerning Davis request for reconstructed or specially constructed vehicle title for a dune buggy. It involves the defendant unlawfully obtaining documents form DMV (DMV Select) he was not entitled to by fraud.

We appreciate your expeditious help in this matter. If we can assist in any way, please do not hesitate to call.
Thank you, Gerry

Brock
The Commonwealth’s Attorney In our charges against Jake Davis for registering the ATVs as MCs has Inquired about the OMV position on if we will allow the ATVs to be registered for road use in any manner. Mr. Davis is apparently arguing that his MC application was just a mistake and he has now property applied for reconstructed vehicle registration. The CA Is concerned that the judge will want a definite answer In writing from OMV.

I know we have agreed In our meetings that we won’t, but are we ready to give the CA anything In writing for his court case yet?

Thanks,
Don

“William,

I have several problems with this reconstructed vehicle Inspections request. Reconstructed vehicles under 46.2-100 must be “”a type required to be registered”" before it is reconstructed. This vehicle MCO clearly states it is an ATV for off road use only. While DMV can title it, it cannot be registered for highway use or titled or registered as a reconstructed vehicle.
To the best recollection of LES, the only reconstructed vehicles converted to dune buggys ever done before were regular highway vehicles like VWs that were legal for highway use before they were reconstructed as dune buggy body types.
If we do this now, we will open up reconstructed vehicles to all types of motorized 2, 3 or more wheeled vehicles never intended to be reconstructed for registration for highway use. We need to make sure exactly what we are doing before we move forward with this.
While this ATV is a particularly expensive $10k well-equipped US assembled motor vehicle, what will you say if someone wants to reconstruct a $500 go cart for highway use? You can put lights and brakes and mirrors, etc. on one of those. Where would you draw the line?
Off road only motor vehicles are not certified by USDOT as meeting motor vehicle safety standards or the EPA for air pollution control systems because they are not manufactured to be highway vehicles.
While the Joyner in this case is assembled in the US, most ATVs are imported and would be foreign vehicles subject to 46.2-602 under which we could not issue a permanent title or registration until the applicant submitted documentation from the feds that the vehicle met federal safety requirements.
Under 46.2-1048, any registered vehicle after 1973 cannot be operated on the highway unless it is equipped with air pollution control systems meeting federal requirements. I seriously doubt that this Joyner has any air pollution control system.
I understand that if we title and register this as a reconstructed vehicle, it still needs to pass a state safety inspection. This is a chicken and egg situation, however. Just like the sate inspector who already passed it as a motorcycle just because Jake falsely obtained a motorcycle title and registration, even though the state inspector knew it wasn’t a motorcycle. The inspector and the state trooper turned it back over to DMV because we issued it the title and registration.
If we title and register this vehicle as reconstructed for the highway, the State Police and safety inspectors are likely going to pass it if it has the obvious safety equipment even if it is an inherently unsafe highway vehicle because it doesn’t meet federal safety standards and will never be submitted for testing to meet those standards.
Further, LES has

a criminal case pending on this exact individual and vehicle because after a real DMV CSC refused to title the 4 wheel ATV as a motorcycle, he went to a DMV Select and lied on the application that it was a motorcycle to get a MC title and registration illegally. I am not sure what impact inspection and titling this same vehicle as a reconstructed vehicle will do to that case.

A quick google finds some states that specifically allow ATVs to be converted and some that specifically prohibit it. I strongly recommend that we do not set any precidant until we are sure that is what we want to do and we establish some guidelines.
I have scheduled a meeting for Friday Internally and will try to get a Stat Police representative to attend as well.

I am holding off on the Davis Buggy inspection until this is further resolved.

Thanks, Don”

---

Email From William Childress to Don Boswell from which the above was the response.
Don:
These vehicles are dune buggys. They can be registered as such in Virginia. The MCO for this particular vehicle shows that it is an ATV and states that the ATV is for off road use only. However, this vehicle does not meet the definition of all terrain vehicle (46.2-100) in Virginia and are most certainly isn’t a motorcycle!
We would title this vehicle as a Reconstructed Vehicle…materially altered from its original construction by the removal, addition, or substitution of new or used essential parts (46.2-100). The definition also states that the vehicle shall retain its original vin, line-make, and model year.
I guess the key for us (Vehicles) is that once the vehicle has been reconstructed, it has to be inspected by LES, pass that inspection and then pass a safety inspection. Passing the safety inspection would determine whether or not the vehicle was road worthy or not.
A meeting to include State Police, DMV legal, LES and VSA is welcomed.
Let me know when and where this meeting will take place. Wm.