Two traffic citations in 1 1/2 months for Window Tint, California

[zoomzoomers]

Like you I have several family members, including my brother, who is a LEO (in federal/state/city) capacities. I've had many of these converations with them. This is what I usually get from our conversations...

Let me put it to you in a very simple realistic way. If it's legal for you to drive along the fwy within the posted speed limits, would you feel you've been wronged if you got pulled over and cited? Probably yes, right?

Well, whether you had more time to fix the initial ticket or not, it was, and is, within the legal authority of the LEO to cite you again. Why do you question his right/authority to do what he/she has the legal authority to do? If you're asking/pleading/crying for a break then do so at your best, but don't go crying about it when the other person doesn't grant you your request, especially when it's within their authority not to do so.

People are people. Don't be surprised/upset when someone does something to you when you give them a reason. You've obviously given the cop a reason by breaking the law. What did you expect? Sure he was't the pal you were hoping him/her to be, but just be glad he/she didn't make it his/her mission to check on you every day until you did correct the infraction and give you a new ticket each day until you did correct it. I've seen this happen.

So the moral of the story??? Don't give a cop a reason to ruin your day. If you break the law, no matter how insignificant, be prepared to pay the price. If you're not willing to pay the price, don't break the law. Simple.

This is on a tangent, but if you don't like the tint laws in CA, by all means, vote for a law maker who will overturn the law and make it legal. If not, obey the law or pay the price.

[86_Otaku]

I usually log into the superior court website and extend the ticket to the last possible min and take my sweet ass time getting it removed and checked off. If CHP or LAPD wants to waste there time handing out lame ass tickets, that's on them. Not my problem. I really think they can be doing better work out on the street, but that's my opinion. Most of my run-ins with the law have been friendly. I run with no front plates, tinted windows on all my cars and I have no problem getting pulled over for it. Yah it's my fault if I get popped, but it's also my choice. It's really sad how things are in LA county, and if I had a choice I would move far far away, but until then I keep my eyes open and fingers crossed.

[DoomsdayJesus]

Originally Posted by milhouse

Funny then that it's the cops, not insurance companies or AAA, lobbying for tint laws. 20 may be a night hazard - I couldn't tell you. But 50 or 75 aren't and are not allowed in most states that have laws. They ban all tint (NY, NJ for instance). And last I checked there was no prohibition on sunglasses when it's dark. Seems like that would more dangerous than all the others.

Your statements are total non sequiturs.

Show me one ounce of evidence that this is the case aside from your say-so. It's a completely bullshit argument from top to bottom that tint laws are somehow tied to race. It has everything to do with overactive lawmakers in nanny-states legislating pet peeves. I can at least understand the need of police officers needing to see inside vehicles so people can't conceal a threat (which is why mirrored tints are often banned). And in cases of really dark tint, safety at night.

[milhouse]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayJesus

Your statements are total non sequiturs.

Show me one ounce of evidence that this is the case aside from your say-so. It's a completely bullshit argument from top to bottom that tint laws are somehow tied to race. It has everything to do with overactive lawmakers in nanny-states legislating pet peeves. I can at least understand the need of police officers needing to see inside vehicles so people can't conceal a threat (which is why mirrored tints are often banned). And in cases of really dark tint, safety at night.

I like that you are so worked up over this.

It's the only logical result when you rationally and objectively review tint laws.

Let's start with facts:
1. Police are the primary, if not only, group who advocates for limiting/banning car tints.

2. In a majority, if not the totality, of states that have anti-tint legislation, there are limits on (1) front windows and (2) windshield tint. (1) Rear windows and (2) rear windshields are not subject to any limit. They can be as dark as you want.

3. As far as I am aware, no non-police groups have lobbied for any sort of restriction on tinting. If I am wrong, please let me know.

4. Insurance companies and non-police highway safety groups (AIA, IIHS) have been the primary drivers for car safety regulations. IIHS has a list of safety topics on their website. Tint is not listed. Apparently they don't find tint to be a safety issue.

5. Police departments and related lobbying groups do not have a history of advocating for vehicle safety measures.

So the logical conclusion here is that police departments do not want the windshield or front windows tinted for *some* reason. But that they do not care about the back seat or rear window.

IIHS lists 25 safety topics on their website and their position on those issues, from DWI to Bumpers. As a (the?) primary automotive safety group, they do not identify tinting as a safety issue. So I think it's pretty clear that tint is not a safety issue, as no legitimate automotive safety group has addressed it (but if I'm wrong, please let me know).

But the police are suddenly interested in tint as a safety issue (from a driving perspective)? Yet they are not against tinting the rear glass or backseats? The exact locations that mitigate blind spots? That doesn't make any sense. In addition, every cop car on my area, state and local, has at least rear seat and back window tint. Most have front tint as well, (but since when do cops obey the law?). So the safety excuse doesn't hold water when (1) police have never shown interest in any other highway safety issues; (2) the actual highway safety groups have not identified tint as a hazard; and (3) there are no restrictions on tint where it would have the most effect (if, as someone claimed, it's to make merging safer). So it's pretty clear the safety argument is bullshit. No one besides cops think it's an issue.

Now cops can legitimately argue that it is a safety issue when they need to approach a vehicle that is tinted. I would have no argument against this, though I think it is unnecessary. It is indeed safer for an officer to approach a car where he can see the driver. There is a concern that they could be ambushed. And while these occurrences are very rare, happening every few years at most, there is a huge problem with their approach to solving this barely-existing problem - they allow the back seats to be completely blacked out. So they could just as easily be ambushed from the rear seats, while having a clear view of the front seat. So if police departments lobbied for no tint anywhere, maybe I'd buy the officer safety argument. Or, what would make the most sense, require drivers to roll down their window before they approach the car. But they don't do this.

They apparently only want to be able to see the driver. They only care about who is driving, and not who is on the back seat.

So tell me, why else would they care what the person who was driving looks like?

[DoomsdayJesus]

Originally Posted by milhouse

I like that you are so worked up over this.

It's the only logical result when you rationally and objectively review tint laws.
[lots of words/opinions -facts]

I like that you consider yourself an authority on the issue when you can't answer simple questions or provide one shred of evidence to make your case.

You don't know what logic is or you would have stopped after I called you on your non sequiturs. There was a ton of speculation in your line of reasoning and zero proof. You sound like someone making the case that their oil additive adds horsepower because their butt dyno says so. Put up or shutup, you're needlessly injecting a profoundly retarded issue into this without a lick of evidence aside from wild speculation.

Tint laws have nothing to do with race. You made a stupid claim, you got called on it, admit it and move on.

[milhouse]

As an attorney who has worked on more than my share of civil rights cases, I'm comfortable with my statements. But keep thinking the police care about your safety if it makes you sleep better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[butdamnbrian]

Wow.. This thread is full of great material!

First a guy who is angry cops lit him up for tint a second time. Second time is on you brother! Then guy tells everyone to read more closely, as if that's going to change folks' entrenched opinions. The only thing to read closely here is the ca vehicle code. Unfortunately, the vehicle code is pretty clear. As @PMok says, if you wanna play, be prepared to pay. No judgment here on the merits of the law, but we can all agree we know front tint is a risk and raises extra scrutiny from chp. If the ticket freight and/or trouble of tint removal (and I know it sucks from exp) is too much, then don't run front tints. Or run them, and pay the fine we all know will result. The nail that sticks out gets hammered. Accept that.

Then a self-proclaimed attorney from New Jersey pops into a NorCal thread (why?) to opine on chp profiling tendencies, and everyone argues his logic is terrible. Actually it's his persuasive writing that is terrible; I suspect he didn't mean to contradict himself and that he just needs to spend some time with style guides. Or he's a law student. In any event, he does raise one good point, sort of - chp will absolutely profile you if you are violating the vehicle code. They may not automatically assume you are a minority (some might), but they will probably jump to the conclusion that you don't respect the vehicle code or don't know it. If you're driving a tinted twin, chp will rule out the latter and assume the former. But seriously, let's hope for the sake of aggrieved victims of civil rights violations in NJ that our guy doesn't write his legal briefs over tapatalk.

Just like front tinters, if you call yourself an attorney to validate your arguments in a car forum thread, you are a nail asking to be hammered.

[uEih]

Originally Posted by finch1750

Yup why i went to 50% tint on the front. Got popped 2 days after getting 35% on the front. I still have 20% in the rear.

Did you get caught at night time? I find the 35% to be light sometimes, depending on how the light hits it. I can see in very clearly in the daytime that's for sure but the tint is noticeable.

Also I couldn't make it out to the toy thing this past Saturday, if there's another one like planned maybe i'll be able to make it to that one.

[uEih]

Originally Posted by butdamnbrian

Wow.. This thread is full of great material!

First a guy who is angry cops lit him up for tint a second time. Second time is on you brother! Then guy tells everyone to read more closely, as if that's going to change folks' entrenched opinions. The only thing to read closely here is the ca vehicle code. Unfortunately, the vehicle code is pretty clear. As @PMok says, if you wanna play, be prepared to pay. No judgment here on the merits of the law, but we can all agree we know front tint is a risk and raises extra scrutiny from chp. If the ticket freight and/or trouble of tint removal (and I know it sucks from exp) is too much, then don't run front tints. Or run them, and pay the fine we all know will result. The nail that sticks out gets hammered. Accept that.

Then a self-proclaimed attorney from New Jersey pops into a NorCal thread (why?) to opine on chp profiling tendencies, and everyone argues his logic is terrible. Actually it's his persuasive writing that is terrible; I suspect he didn't mean to contradict himself and that he just needs to spend some time with style guides. Or he's a law student. In any event, he does raise one good point, sort of - chp will absolutely profile you if you are violating the vehicle code. They may not automatically assume you are a minority (some might), but they will probably jump to the conclusion that you don't respect the vehicle code or don't know it. If you're driving a tinted twin, chp will rule out the latter and assume the former. But seriously, let's hope for the sake of aggrieved victims of civil rights violations in NJ that our guy doesn't write his legal briefs over tapatalk.

Just like front tinters, if you call yourself an attorney to validate your arguments in a car forum thread, you are a nail asking to be hammered.

I'd hate to lose my front tint, I really enjoy them.. It's only 35% and at certain angles with certain light it's not even noticeable. Just gotta keep an eye out and be prepared to quickly roll down your windows if you wanna be safe I guess.

[SnyperSuicide]

Originally Posted by uEih

I'd hate to lose my front tint, I really enjoy them.. It's only 35% and at certain angles with certain light it's not even noticeable. Just gotta keep an eye out and be prepared to quickly roll down your windows if you wanna be safe I guess.

I actually just received a ticket for tint as well. My boyfriend was speeding in my car (going 82 in a 65 MPH area, it was the middle of nowhere going toward Mammoth) and he got a ticket for speeding and the cop was nice enough to give me a chicken shit ticket for tint and not having my license plates on (I heard cops tend to leave cars with paper plates on alone).


Anyway, I know there are certain ways around the tint ticket. I'm taking 2 different medications that make my skin sensitive to the sun. I had my doctor write a note for me. I don't know if it'll work but I've read on the DMV website that it should...


(10) Sun screening devices meeting the requirements of Section 26708.2 installed on the side windows on either side of the vehicle’s front seat, if the driver or a passenger in the front seat has in his or her possession a letter or other document signed by a licensed physician and surgeon certifying that the person must be shaded from the sun due to a medical condition, or has in his or her possession a letter or other document signed by a licensed optometrist certifying that the person must be shaded from the sun due to a visual condition. The devices authorized by this paragraph shall not be used during darkness.


http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm




We'll see how it goes. I still have to find an officer to sign the ticket off...

[uEih]

Originally Posted by SnyperSuicide

I actually just received a ticket for tint as well. My boyfriend was speeding in my car (going 82 in a 65 MPH area, it was the middle of nowhere going toward Mammoth) and he got a ticket for speeding and the cop was nice enough to give me a chicken shit ticket for tint and not having my license plates on (I heard cops tend to leave cars with paper plates on alone).


Anyway, I know there are certain ways around the tint ticket. I'm taking 2 different medications that make my skin sensitive to the sun. I had my doctor write a note for me. I don't know if it'll work but I've read on the DMV website that it should...


(10) Sun screening devices meeting the requirements of Section 26708.2 installed on the side windows on either side of the vehicle’s front seat, if the driver or a passenger in the front seat has in his or her possession a letter or other document signed by a licensed physician and surgeon certifying that the person must be shaded from the sun due to a medical condition, or has in his or her possession a letter or other document signed by a licensed optometrist certifying that the person must be shaded from the sun due to a visual condition. The devices authorized by this paragraph shall not be used during darkness.


http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm





We'll see how it goes. I still have to find an officer to sign the ticket off...

I heard that medical condition thing is hit or miss. Mostly miss though. You weren't running a front plate? CHP/Cops usually let you go if you're running the dealer plates, etc. since you haven't registered the car yet. But front plates I think most of the time depending on the time they wanna pull you over to see if there's anything more that they can get you for. I got pulled over for not having a front plate but that was at a time where everyone was getting out from the bars, got tested and of course had 0 since I waited very long to drive but his main reason was the front plate. Just told me to put it on and let me go. I don't need to give them a reason to pull me over so I'm gonna run a front plate. It wasn't a pleasant experience even though I was fine.

[PMok]

Originally Posted by SnyperSuicide

I actually just received a ticket for tint as well. My boyfriend was speeding in my car (going 82 in a 65 MPH area, it was the middle of nowhere going toward Mammoth) and he got a ticket for speeding and the cop was nice enough to give me a chicken shit ticket for tint and not having my license plates on (I heard cops tend to leave cars with paper plates on alone).


Anyway, I know there are certain ways around the tint ticket. I'm taking 2 different medications that make my skin sensitive to the sun. I had my doctor write a note for me. I don't know if it'll work but I've read on the DMV website that it should...


(10) Sun screening devices meeting the requirements of Section 26708.2 installed on the side windows on either side of the vehicle’s front seat, if the driver or a passenger in the front seat has in his or her possession a letter or other document signed by a licensed physician and surgeon certifying that the person must be shaded from the sun due to a medical condition, or has in his or her possession a letter or other document signed by a licensed optometrist certifying that the person must be shaded from the sun due to a visual condition. The devices authorized by this paragraph shall not be used during darkness.


http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm




We'll see how it goes. I still have to find an officer to sign the ticket off...

Yeah, nice try but the tint won't work under 26708.2 if you read it.

Sun Screening Devices: Requirements

26708.2. Sun screening devices permitted by paragraph (10) of subdivision (b) of Section 26708 shall meet the following requirements:

(a) The devices shall be held in place by means allowing ready removal from the window area, such as a frame, a rigid material with temporary fasteners, or a flexible roller shade.

(b) Devices utilizing transparent material shall be green, gray, or a neutral smoke in color and shall have a luminous transmittance of not less than 35 percent.

(c) Devices utilizing nontransparent louvers or other alternating patterns of opaque and open sections shall have an essentially uniform pattern over the entire surface, except for framing and supports. At least 35 percent of the device area shall be open and no individual louver or opaque section shall have a projected vertical dimension exceeding 3/16 inch.

(d) The devices shall not have a reflective quality exceeding 35 percent on either the inner or outer surface.

[finch1750]

Originally Posted by uEih

Did you get caught at night time? I find the 35% to be light sometimes, depending on how the light hits it. I can see in very clearly in the daytime that's for sure but the tint is noticeable.

Also I couldn't make it out to the toy thing this past Saturday, if there's another one like planned maybe i'll be able to make it to that one.

It was late afternoon, basically fully light and was chp somewhere in kern county. I was asking for it basically.

Keep an eye on the toy drive thread as I am planning for at least one other meet (or time I will collect at least)

[SnyperSuicide]

Originally Posted by PMok

Yeah, nice try but the tint won't work under 26708.2 if you read it.

Sun Screening Devices: Requirements

26708.2. Sun screening devices permitted by paragraph (10) of subdivision (b) of Section 26708 shall meet the following requirements:

(a) The devices shall be held in place by means allowing ready removal from the window area, such as a frame, a rigid material with temporary fasteners, or a flexible roller shade.

(b) Devices utilizing transparent material shall be green, gray, or a neutral smoke in color and shall have a luminous transmittance of not less than 35 percent.

(c) Devices utilizing nontransparent louvers or other alternating patterns of opaque and open sections shall have an essentially uniform pattern over the entire surface, except for framing and supports. At least 35 percent of the device area shall be open and no individual louver or opaque section shall have a projected vertical dimension exceeding 3/16 inch.

(d) The devices shall not have a reflective quality exceeding 35 percent on either the inner or outer surface.

Originally Posted by uEih

I heard that medical condition thing is hit or miss. Mostly miss though. You weren't running a front plate? CHP/Cops usually let you go if you're running the dealer plates, etc. since you haven't registered the car yet. But front plates I think most of the time depending on the time they wanna pull you over to see if there's anything more that they can get you for. I got pulled over for not having a front plate but that was at a time where everyone was getting out from the bars, got tested and of course had 0 since I waited very long to drive but his main reason was the front plate. Just told me to put it on and let me go. I don't need to give them a reason to pull me over so I'm gonna run a front plate. It wasn't a pleasant experience even though I was fine.

I really have no idea what's going to happen with the tint thing. When I got pulled over, I explained to the cops I did have a condition and all he did was ask if I had a doctors' note...


Luckily, my next door neighbor is a cop and hopefully he'll be cool enough and just sign off on it for me.


As for the plates, I just gotta suck it up. I mean, I know it looks soooooo much better with out the plate in the front but oh well. What are you gonna do? It just sucks all the cops around where I live don't really care about tint or license plate matters. I had to get a ticket in a middle of nowhere town on the way to a wedding.


C'est la vie.