It's a subjective observation easily qualified and quantified. For instance, and not limited to, a photo to prove the "squealer" left a tire mark on the road. There are lots of ways to qualify an accusation.However, I wonder what the SOP is for an officer to cite someone for "stunting" or "squeeling the tires" at the light. Do they need corroboration on their observation?
In my case I asked FIVE times in court for Bercic to qualify and quantify his subjective evidence however I was shut down by the JP (who clearly didn't get where this was going) who told me "that's not what you've been charged with" and "not relevant", when I asked. All he (Bercic) had to say was that he "heard a loud exhaust" and that it "sounded twice as loud as stock".
I notice in Kelowna they have been discussing ditching the noise bylaw in favour of a provincial testing standard (similar to what the VPD say Bercic should have been using). Interesting. I am all for it.