There does happen to be a specific "smoke" statute in Indiana:
Veerkamp v. State, 7 N.E.3d 390, 394–95 (Ind. App. 2014).
The trial court here determined that Officer Wells' stop of Veerkamp was constitutionally permissible because he had reasonable suspicion that Veerkamp had committed an infraction by violating Indiana Code § 9–19–8–5, which provides that “[t]he engine and power mechanism of a motor vehicle must be equipped and adjusted so as to prevent the escape of excessive fumes and smoke.” Pursuant to Indiana Code § 9–19–8–6, violation of Indiana Code § 9–19–8–5 is a Class C infraction…
With respect to Veerkamp's first argument concerning whether he committed a traffic infraction, we note that the Indiana Code does not define the term excessive, and we have never interpreted it in the context of Indiana Code § 9–19–8–5. However, we will give an unambiguous statute its clear and plain meaning. McCabe v. Comm'r, Ind. Dep't of Ins., 949 N.E.2d 816, 819 (Ind. 2011). The Merriam–Webster Online Dictionary defines excessive as “exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal.” MERRIAM–WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, available at http://www.merriam-webster. com/dictionary/excessive (last visited April 15, 2014). Based on this definition, we conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that the smoke coming from Veerkamp's truck was excessive. Officer Wells testified that he could not visibly see through the smoke and that at one point the smoke covered Veerkamp's passenger side tail light. The officer also testified that in his experience visible smoke such as that coming from Veerkamp's vehicle was not “common.”… “Common” is a synonym for the word “normal.” See ROGET'S II THE NEW THESAURUS 180 (3rd ed. 2003). Accordingly, this testimony implied that the smoke coming from Veerkamp's truck exceeded “normal” amounts and was, therefore, “excessive.”
Veerkamp v. State, 7 N.E.3d 390, 394–95 (Ind. App. 2014).