PA Window Tinting Ticket

[ecmst12]

This happened in Montgomery County, PA.

I was pulled over on 1/25/06 for no reason other then the officer thought my window tinting looked dark. My car was inspected, registered, and I was not doing anything illegal. She told me my tinting looked like it was less then 70% and she was going to give me a "faulty equipment notice" which gave me 5 days to remove the tinting. She then went to her car and came back with a tint meter and said (as I remember), "This is a tint meter and I'm going to use it to test your windows." I do not recall that she asked my permission. The tint meter showed that only 9% of light was getting through. I KNOW this to be wrong; I would not be able to see anything out of my windows if that were really the case! So she gives me the card and says I have to remove the tinting. I don't believe that my tinting is actually in violation, so I do nothing, figuring that I'd just fight it if they wrote me a ticket.

After 3 weeks I thought I was in the clear, but today a ticket finally arrived. Tomorrow I am going to get my windows checked by a local tinting shop and see what that says. Meantime, I have been doing all sorts of research on what precise law I violated and almost immediately I came across this site:
http://www.berksweb.com/users/dmv/tint/
Which is basically a discussion on how poorly written PA's laws are on this subject and how there is no stipulation in any actual statute giving any percentages, only stating that tinting can't prevent someone from seeing inside the vehicle through the front side windows - which is completely vague and practically unenforceable! Also note that tinting is not part of the inspection process - meaning that a car can pass inspection (mine did) and supposedly still be in violation of this item. That really doesn't sit right with me, an inspection sticker is supposed to mean that my vehicle complies with all the laws in the inspection code, isn't that the whole point of the inspection process? So that is just a point to make me angry. Finally that there is no provision in the law saying that tint meters can be used (the way there are provisions for the use of radar and vascar to measure speeding) to measure tinting and cite tickets. So there's no regulation on the kind of meters that can be used or how often they need to be inspected/calibrated, officers don't need to be trained to use them, nothing like that.

My actual questions are this:
1. If I get the tint measured tomorrow and it comes up somewhere less then 70% but more then 9%, can I still get the whole thing thrown out for the officer using faulty equipment?
2. If I say that she didn't explicitly ask me for permission before testing the windows, and she says that she did, will the judge automatically believe her? Or would she need to have a tape recording or other objective evidence proving that she asked me?

I still think that ultimately I could get the charge dismissed on the merits (or lack thereof) of the law alone, but I can't afford a lawyer to argue those for me, and I'm not crazy enough to try it myself, so I'm hoping that one of these 2 points will be enough to get rid of the ticket. I just can't believe my state's laws on this matter are so terrible! Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[mdljhu]

Living in PA, and belonging to a group of "auto enthusiasts" who commonly have tinted windows, I certainly agree with you on how poorly the laws are worded concerning what is "legal tint". However, you're not going to get anything thrown out by arguing that she didn't ask for your permission to check the windows. The general rule of thumb is simply this: if an officer can't see into your vehicle, you are more than likely going to get stopped, and they are going to measure it exactly how they did in your case. Also, if you try to argue that your tint is really 20% and that the ticket should be thrown out for saying 9%, you're not going to get a friendly result either. The reason dark tint is frowned upon is because it makes an officer's job a lot more dangerous. If they can't see all of the occupants inside a vehicle when they pull it over, they have no idea what to expect when they approach it (and they already have enough problems with this without tint). Though you can usually get away with lighter tints (no darker than 30%), you're basically gambling when you put any tint on your windows in PA.

 

[ecmst12]

I actually didn't put the tint on the windows, I got the car used and it was like this when I got it. I have no idea how dark the tint is, and of course I got wrapped up in chores today and didn't get a chance to go to the shop. I'll make it this week though. At any rate, from my guesstimation by how much darker it looks out the side windows then out the windshield, I think it can't be darker then 50% at the most. It's not like they're totally blacked out, you can see into the car at least a little even at night.

I actually tried to get the tint removed after I bought the car, and I was told that it couldn't be done without damaging my rear defroster, so I decided to live with it. I have black leather seats so the tinting has definitely helped me not injure myself in the summer! But the real point is if I have an inspection sticker, that should mean that my car is street legal, shouldn't it?

At any rate, I read a transcript of a case where the tint meter reading was thrown out entirely just because there was no legal justification for the officer being allowed to take such readings, so if I can show that the meter was wrong/broken, that should account for something. And no officer should ever do ANYTHING to you or your car without asking permission first; if I hadn't been so flustered about getting stopped in the first place, I would have remembered that and told her no.

 

[justalayman]

I actually didn't put the tint on the windows, I got the car used and it was like this when I got it. I have no idea how dark the tint is,

Then how do you syand by your statement in your first post:The tint meter showed that only 9% of light was getting through. I KNOW this to be wrong;
Your is a subjective judgement, the officer used a meter to measure.

At any rate, from my guesstimation by how much darker it looks out the side windows then out the windshield, I think it can't be darker then 50% at the most.

Here again, your guess.

It's not like they're totally blacked out, you can see into the car at least a little even at night.

Apparently the cop didn't think so. You will have to prove otherwise it would seem.

I actually tried to get the tint removed after I bought the car, and I was told that it couldn't be done without damaging my rear defroster, so I decided to live with it.

So what prevented you from removing the illegal portion of the tint? (the side windows)

But the real point is if I have an inspection sticker, that should mean that my car is street legal, shouldn't it?

Is checking the tint part of the state required check?

At any rate, I read a transcript of a case where the tint meter reading was thrown out entirely just because there was no legal justification for the officer being allowed to take such readings,

BS. The officer was stopping you for breaking the law, they have the right to investigate a crime. As well, the intrusion was so minimal the courts wouold more than likely toss your arguement.

so if I can show that the meter was wrong/broken, that should account for something

.
Possibley, the problem is the evidence is still present and can be checked again. You would have to show proof that your tint is indeed not illegal.

And no officer should ever do ANYTHING to you or your car without asking permission first; if I hadn't been so flustered about getting stopped in the first place, I would have remembered that and told her no

Wouldn't have done any good. As stated before, the officer was investigating a percieved crime/infraction. They did nothing improper. If you feel a warrant was required, use that as a defense. It won't get you very far but go ahead and try.

About the only defense you have is the ambiguity in the law. The problem is the PA law tends to allow discretion as to what constitutes the required visibility. The officer will more than likely testify he/she couldn't see inside the vehicle. You will have to prove otherwise.

Good luck!

 

[ecmst12]

The officer couldn't testify that she couldn't see through my front windows before she pulled me over, because she was BEHIND me the whole time, until she pulled me over.

And according to her ALL the tint was illegal, can't be more then 70% on any window. But according to the law that's ambiguous.

At any rate, since you don't believe me about the case that was thrown out, here's a link to the transcript. But of course it's just BS, I must have just made that up
http://www.berksweb.com/users/dmv/tint/case576.html

 

[mdljhu]

It's a 6 1/2 year old case that was thrown out simply due to the fact that both the judge and the assistant district attorney had no idea what a tint meter was or how they worked. It's not case law or mentionable in court, and I'm almost certain that "the state" knows what they are nowadays. Basically, it sounds like one person got lucky because the judge had never tried a case involving a tint meter before, and the ADA was not prepared to back it up scientifically.

 

[ecmst12]

Well it was also because the officer hadn't had any training on it and it wasn't an "official" piece of equipment. I think that it's still the case that there's no regulations for training in the use of this meter or how often they need to be serviced. I hope it won't come to that though.

 

[justalayman]

Well it was also because the officer hadn't had any training on it and it wasn't an "official" piece of equipment. I think that it's still the case that there's no regulations for training in the use of this meter or how often they need to be serviced. I hope it won't come to that though.

Well that would only make a differnce if the reading was the true determination of whether it was a violation or not. As you have quoted for us, Pa law does not detail a specific measurement that defines illegal/legal tinting. Again, as you have informed us, PA merely states "only stating that tinting can't prevent someone from seeing inside the vehicle through the front side windows ".

The meter reading would be supportive evidence. The officer can make the actual determination with or without it. It would be similar to the states that allow an officer to ticket for excess speed by visual determination. The radar is merely corroberating evidence.

So actually the case you quoted does not support your arguement. You originally argued to me that it was wrong for the officer to use the meter and that is why the case was dismissed. It had nothing to do with the actual measuring of the defendants tint. So the matter of it being a warrantable action played no part in the case, as you had inferred.

It did get tossed because of an ignorant judge and a poorly skilled pa. The testing of the meter should never have made it to the court, it was irrellevant and the prosecutor screwed up.

So my calling your statement BS still stands

 

[pacop21]

Interesting read....I enforce these laws and always get a kick out of this.

The tint regulation is in the inspection manual(Title 67 Table X), however it is not enforced by the inspection station. The whole inspection manual is enforceable by the police. The use of a tint meter is just like the use of an alco-sensor that tests your alcohol content on the side of the street. It is another tool to establish probable cause. Neither are established anywhere to be certified or user certified. Unfortunately depending on the judge, he decides whether his court will accept such readings.
But, as you will see in the table, 70% is established for all windows on a vehicle manufactured after 1998. The window on a stock side window reads approx 73%. You know as well as i do you can not get a 3% tint. Therefore, any applied tint is illegal.
Anyone can write about ambiguity of any law as they are all "gray". If they weren't, we would not have lawyers and judges to argue or decide on them.

Hope this helps give some insight. So you know, I only concern myself with tint that I can barely see through or not at all. And that's during the day. Test yourself on tint that you "think" you can see through. Give a friend a toy gun(black and realistic ofcourse), a cell phone, and a hair brush. Tell him to choose one and hold it in his hand on his lap. When you walk up to the closed tinted window(day and night), can you identify what it is correctly without hesitation.
Now you know how we feel.

 

[justalayman]

Interesting read....I enforce these laws and always get a kick out of this.
.
Now you know how we feel.

Nice to see your point of view.

The other thing that I see as a real problem, besides the obvious safety of the police issue, is the vision limiting caused by the dark tinting. The young folk can claim it causes no impairment all they want but it is just not true.

There are enough careless accidents without adding this into the equation.

Now what about those thumping bass speakers the kids use. Legal/illegal?
Those with enquiring minds want to know.

 

[ecmst12]

I think thumping speakers violate noise ordinances in some places, it's just hard to catch them

Anyway I did walk around my car at night and I could definitely see into my car from all sides. Not perfectly, but I could see the outlines of the seats and if there had been a person inside I could have seen the shape of the body. During the day, you can see pretty well into my car. I'm going to take some photos to show the judge, maybe that will help.

I didn't know that a normal window without any tinting was 73%. I just think that if having any tinting is illegal, then the inspection station should have made me take it off. If my sticker doesn't mean that my car is street legal (at least at the time I had the inspection done), then what does it mean? They won't pass you if you have neon lights under your car or colored headlights or any of the other illegal modifications people make to their cars, so I really don't understand why this is an exception.

As far as Table X goes, I've seen it, but the statute also says "unless otherwise allowed by FMVSS205", and that law doesn't mention any percentages that I could find either, only the same standard "does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle through the windshield, side wing or side window of the vehicle."

BTW PACOP21, thanks for your honest and non-obnoxious response. I've noticed that quite a lot of the lawyers and cops on this board are outright jerks to people asking honest questions.

 

[sukharev]

Just go to any car dealership and have them test the tint - having official paper is a solid defense, while you could have taken pictures of anybody's car.

 

[pacop21]

Loud speakers....local ordinance can enforce this in some areas. The vehicle code, no. Very difficult parameters to enforce the vehicle code for noise, this argument is usually for the loud aftermarket mufflers/exhaust. However, disorderly conduct states unreasonable noise and if the local judge accepts it, they got ya.
Ive used DC which usually isnt hard if your smart about it. I cited it in a townhouse complex at 10pm. I could hear the stereo from ten houses away. He was guilty. Again, it depends on the judge. They like to set their own rules, gods.

Rebuttal on tint, the inspection stations dont enforce it. They are not required to. Therefore, it doesnt effect your sticker being valid or not. I like to tell people, it's just like the inspection station doesnt enforce the stop sign. We do. Tint is illegal, just dont do it, or keep it light.

 

[ecmst12]

I know they're not required to, but they should. It's not the same as a stop sign, stop signs aren't attached to your car!

 

[justalayman]

I know they're not required to, but they should. It's not the same as a stop sign, stop signs aren't attached to your car!

This is one of the few things I do agree with you about. If the inspection includes the tint level of the window, when you get your sticker, it should be able to be used as an acceptable defense as to the tint being too dark.

The problem apparently is the courts don't really view the inspection as being worth the money you pay for it.

Just as with many other things in our society, if you want it changed, call the appropriate people and try to get the ball rolling. Your state rep seems to be the right place for you to start.