Double Jeopardy

[Frank]

Mufflers; Prevention of noise. My son has a 2003 chevy car that was purchased new from a chevy dealer with an aftermarket muffler installed by the dealer. The ticket he recieved was for a defective muffler. We had the dealer do an inspection and provide a letter stating that the muffler was in good working condition. The muffler is louder than a stock muffler; however, because of how the ordinance was written the muffler was found to be compliant and the case was dismissed. A month later my son recieved a second ticket, again for a defective muffler. I told my son to fight the ticket and when the City Attorney trys to introduce any evidence or witnesses pertaining to the muffler to object on the grounds of Res Judicata. I argued with the City Attorney about this case already claiming that this was a case of double jeopardy, he claims it isn't, its just another violation of the ordinance. Its the same muffler, on the same car, and the same driver; rather an ongoing alleged violation being witnessed by two different police officers.

[[because of how the ordinance was written the muffler was found to be compliant and the case was dismissed]]

Show that to the court or prosecutor and they normally must dismiss the case if all facts are otherwise the same...

[lwpat]

My suggestion would be to change the muffler. Obviously your son is doing something to attract attention. The best solution is to eliminate the problem.