![]() |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||
| |||||||
| | |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
Tinting citation while driving out-of-stateWhat is the name of your state? WI I am really puzzled!! I live in Wisconsin and my car is registered in Wisconsin. My windows are tinted 35%. Wisconsin law is 50%. I received a ticket while I was driving thru IOWA for having my windows tinted too dark. The state trooper ticketed me for violating Wisconsin tinting law...that my tint was below the 50% that Wisconsin dictated. It just doesn't make sense at all. How can a state trooper in another state enforce Wisconsin law? The fine is only $36.50 but the thought of paying for an unjust fine just irritates the crap of out me. Any thoughts? Should I fight it? Thanks. |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| Some people will have you argue that Iowa is illegally restricting interstate commerce, but ask them to provide some cases where that argument worked before trying it yourself. $36 is cheap and IMHO not worth the fight. For a state by state breakdown, from the International Window Film Association (IWFA): [url]http://www.iwfa.com/iwfa/Law_Chart/State%20Law%20Chart%203-18-05.pdf[/url] |
|
#3
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
|
|
#4
| |||
| |||
| [url]http://home.pcisys.net/~bpc/auto_law/tint/tint_pa.html[/url] [url]http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/1999/980196-1.htm[/url] [url]http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lws04.htm[/url] [url]http://www.abfa.com/ogc/news8.htm[/url] [url]http://www.alexandrialawlibrary.com/reddismiss-2-ord.htm[/url] [url]http://www.google.com/search?q=window+tinting+interstate+commerce[/url] BTW, I'm not saying its right or wrong, just that the fight isn't worth it. |
|
#5
| |||
| |||
| Are you absolutely sure that the Trooper cited you for violating Wisconsin law? I've heard this story from people before that were mistaken.
__________________ When did they stop adding fluoride to the water, and start adding STUPID? |
|
#6
| |||
| |||
| Recent events in Georgia's supreme court held that the state's auto tinting law must apply equally to residents and non-residents alike. The whole law was thrown out and re-wrote. Seems like most states would be the same. By the way: tint laws in most states (WI included) read NET. Net = film applied to glass equals total visable light transmitance (VLT) If the IWFA site has it correct, then even a 50% film applied to the driver and passenger glass would "meter-out" at less than 50%. On the positive side, police sometimes give these kinds of tickets in lieu of a real moving violation. If that is the case, you owe the cop a thanks. |
|
#7
| |||
| |||
| The trooper DID cite me for violating Wisconsin law. He even said that I was violating WI law by tinting it 35% vs the legal 50%. I was not speeding or violating any traffic law. The ticket is clearly marked that it is for tinting my windows too dark. Here's something else that's interesting: While reviewing the ticket, the trooper wrote on the ticket that the car I was driving was a 2004 Honda. My car is actually a 2005 Toyota. I'm not sure if this minor mistake is enough to get me off. Thank you for all the reply. It really helps in making an inform decision to fight the ticket or just pay it and move on. |
|
#8
| |||
| |||
| Legend has it that minor technical mistakes regarding the auto/driver do not void the ticket. Might see NOLO Press publications ticket defense book. Still hard to believe the officer could enforce the WI law. |
|
#9
| |||
| |||
| Minor clerical errors on the ticket are irrelevant if the officer can still reasonably identify the Who, What, When, and Where. In your case, the ticket claims you were driving a Toyota, rather than a Honda. So you might try to attack the Who by putting him on the stand, and asking him to identify the offending vehicle for the court. If he can, that he mislabeled make on the citation is irrelevant. If he can't, the case should be dismissed. |
|
#10
| |||
| |||
| And don't forget, contrary to what many say, judges are not "liberals" waiting to let law breakers off on technicalities. They are 90% plus former prosecutors with a decidedly pro-police mindset. The mistake was made in good faith. It isn't like he lied to get a search warrant or something. |
![]() |