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

[forzajuve]

You have a time frame to take them off, you should not get a second if you are still within the time frame

Agreed. It was the most bizarre thing especially after he physically held it and looked it over.

[CaptainJarvis]

Originally Posted by forzajuve

Yeah, I am just going to remove it from home, get it signed off then see how I am feeling afterwards. Your tinting prices in San Diego are nice! Up here in the Bay Area, they are typically $200 minimum if you want nice work done. I called over a dozen shops in a 30 mile radius of where I live and $200 was the least expensive...lol

$200 for just the two front roll downs? Remember that's all that's illegal in Ca. I got my two fronts done for $50 and it's decent stuff. Been going to the same guy for years and never had a single peel or bubble. Most places will also redo the tint for free or a huge discount if you get a ticket. So if you do have to pay to get it redone find a shop that'll do that for you.

About the officer safety point, it's not that big of deal. Bad things happen during stops with and with out window tint, it's even legal in some states. I worked for the sheriffs dept for 8 years as a corrections officer. Our jail was a mix of sworn deputies and CO's. About 80% of the parking lot had window tint of some kind, up to and including limo. It's just an excuse to pull you over and take a look, a probable cause stop it's usually called. Their fishing for other things like drugs, dui's, warrants etc. You got a guy the second time that was just being a tard. Or you failed the attitude test right off the bat. CHP guys are either really cool or 100% penis there's no in between.

[Re~Mix]

Originally Posted by forzajuve

Moreover, dangerous things happen despite a car having tint or not. So although your emotional reasoning sounds good, logically it nonetheless imposes on other's freedoms and privacy. It is a slippery slope using your logic. Officers would be a lot safer if we didn't drive at all. Perhaps we should stop everyone from driving at night or maybe you're only allowed to drive if you are 30 or older. I am not being flippent, again I have relatives I want to come home every night but even they recognize that you shouldn't chip away at privacy and freedom for safety. Thank you for your point. Bottom line, it seems to me ultimately, California's law of 70% is excessive.

You feel the officers upholding of the law was unreasonable, and excessive...

Let me ask you this? What sort of things are you doing in your car that require 20% tint and this perceived privacy of yours? It sure as hell is not to keep the car cool in the summer since that can be achieved with low levels of tint. On public roads, your privacy and freedom is not the ultimate thing worth upholding. Like I stated before (for example), don't roll with headers, a straight pipe exhaust and tint and expect to go unnoticed.

You got it rough on the two tickets in a row, unjustly so. What makes you want to turn around and tint it 20% again though?

[forzajuve]

We were entirely respectful, and even mentioned my uncle who is an active CHP. I made sure to roll my windows down completely AND out of courtesy to the officer place my hands out in front of myself, on top of the steering wheel, not grabbing on to anything. But it was almost like he didn't hear us or didn't want to. He seemed to be a "drone" or "robot" or in other words a complete 'head full of air' so to speak. But thank you for your point because you could not be more spot on, especially with your extensive history working for the sheriff's department and noticing officers themselves tinting as well. What a shame.

[forzajuve]

Its not the upholding of the law that was unreasonable, it was the second citation that was given to me even though I physically gave the officer my first ticket and showed him complete respect.

I don't plan on tinting it back to 20%. It would be nice, but I think I am just going to bite the bullet and remove the tints on the passenger and driver side. Cooling the car isn't so much a reason and I understand high percent tint can achieve the same cooling goal as well as high SPF to block harmful UV's.

With regard to privacy, I like the fact that no one can "mug" or stare directly at me. I like having my domain to myself, unexposed. I don't like feeling awkward or uncomfortable while I am trying to mind my own business, drive and have a good time. Second, having 3 out of 4 windows @ 20% tint also makes it more difficult to see what is inside my car especially when I am not driving and it is parked. If some stranger wanted to peek inside, they would have to blatantly walk up and press their face into the glass to see anything, which I think is something most people would avoid doing, like perhaps a thief or what have you.

Tinting can protect your privacy and belongings. Potential thieves can be deterred from breaking into a vehicle if they are unable to see any valuables that might be inside. Hopefully, what a burglar can’t see, he won’t steal.

Obviously these are "scenarios" but these scenarios can definitely take place and happen to you or anyone.

[suaveflooder]

Originally Posted by Re~Mix

Part of me doesn't understand why you expect any sympathy. 20% is illegal, you knew that upfront. After the first ticket you drove around for 7 weeks instead of taking care of it.

If you don't want to deal with power tripping officers, don't give them an easy reason to pull you over.

Pretty much any tint is illegal....anything that is legal, you can't really see, so it's pretty pointless.

Originally Posted by Re~Mix

You feel the officers upholding of the law was unreasonable, and excessive...

Let me ask you this? What sort of things are you doing in your car that require 20% tint and this perceived privacy of yours? It sure as hell is not to keep the car cool in the summer since that can be achieved with low levels of tint. On public roads, your privacy and freedom is not the ultimate thing worth upholding. Like I stated before (for example), don't roll with headers, a straight pipe exhaust and tint and expect to go unnoticed.

You got it rough on the two tickets in a row, unjustly so. What makes you want to turn around and tint it 20% again though?

Which, once again, is illegal.

In all fairness, I do agree with you. I got pulled over this week, as I mentioned in my first post for tint and mine you can completely see through both day and night. Even with that, it is illegal. I knew that when I put it on and now I get to deal with the consequences.

It'll go back on the next day though....my baby looks good!!

[wrb]

it sucks to get pulled over for tint... and to make it worse, 2nd one

but it's a gamble that many people play. ANY tint on front windows are illegal, and cops (good or bad) will give you a ticket

good luck with sorting out the problems. hopefully you can just write off both tickets at once after taking out the tint. then pay $50 and move on.

[Re~Mix]

Originally Posted by forzajuve

Second, having 3 out of 4 windows @ 20% tint also makes it more difficult to see what is inside my car especially when I am not driving and it is parked. If some stranger wanted to peek inside, they would have to blatantly walk up and press their face into the glass to see anything, which I think is something most people would avoid doing, like perhaps a thief or what have you. Tinting can protect your privacy and belongings. Potential thieves can be deterred from breaking into a vehicle if they are unable to see any valuables that might be inside. Hopefully, what a burglar can’t see, he won’t steal.[/COLOR].

I hadn't thought of the parked car scenario and you make a very valid point there

[thill]

Originally Posted by forzajuve

I understand your point but I have two uncles who are police officers. I am sensitive to officer's safety by all means. I have spoken with them regarding tint and they have made that point, which I understand and makes sense from their perspective, but at the same time many other states do not have that strict of a law (Nevada for example). Moreover, dangerous things happen despite a car having tint or not. So although your emotional reasoning sounds good, logically it nonetheless imposes on other's freedoms and privacy. It is a slippery slope using your logic. Officers would be a lot safer if we didn't drive at all. Perhaps we should stop everyone from driving at night or maybe you're only allowed to drive if you are 30 or older. I am not being flippent, again I have relatives I want to come home every night but even they recognize that you shouldn't chip away at privacy and freedom for safety. Thank you for your point. Bottom line, it seems to me ultimately, California's law of 70% is excessive.

Is the law excessive? Probably. But the law is the law. Every state is different, but many states that have high rates of crime have tint laws to protect the police. Minnesota tint laws are strict as well, and as much as I wanted to apply 20-30% tint, I did not and followed the letter of the law which is 50%. Sucks that you got two tickets, and I don't agree with the second ticket either, but regardless you will need to remove the tint.

[suaveflooder]

Originally Posted by thill

Is the law excessive? Probably. But the law is the law. Every state is different, but many states that have high rates of crime have tint laws to protect the police. Minnesota tint laws are strict as well, and as much as I wanted to apply 20-30% tint, I did not and followed the letter of the law which is 50%. Sucks that you got two tickets, and I don't agree with the second ticket either, but regardless you will need to remove the tint.

Or just get it signed off by one of your uncle's . OP has two to choose from. Most cops think the tint law is stupid. Only reason they use it is to allow them to pull someone over on suspicion, are new, or just jerks and need to finish their quota. I've had the same % tint on my car for 13 years. Went a little lighter on this one. This is the first time I have been pulled over (well, pointed to the side of the road, lol)

I was pulled over on a slow turn by a cop standing in the middle of the street. He waved 3 or 4 of us over, wrote us all tickets and moved on to the next 3 or 4.

[gily25]

The time to argue isn't on the side of the road, contest it and follow the process. A lot of states will send a form allowing you to state why you contest before you are assigned a court date. In very brief and simple language write that you had already received a ticket and were in the process of correcting.

As far as the tint, touch base with the shop who did it originally they'll probably give yo a deal for repeat business and remove the tint. In CT we were allowed to go darker, my guy just had me pay for the film.

[Gen]

Originally Posted by PORSCHE

Now, for the tint. It's wrong for you to have it.

The police officer's right to LIVE outweighs your desire for privacy, coolness, whatever. The officer NEEDS to be able to SEE you and SEE your HANDS as he approaches your vehicle. The officer's life depends on it.

"Wrong"? On a moral level, it's not wrong at all. Illegal, sure, but morality and the law are two different things.

This probably won't be a popular opinion, but let me say police officers have a fatality rate somewhere around 16 per 100k. Conversely, farmers are at 38.5/100k and garbage men at 25.2/100k. Police are very well compensated, at least in California (60-120k / year), for what realistically requires very little education. In short, they know what they're getting in to.

With that said, does that mean they deserve to be shot at? Of course not, but it should not infringe upon someone's right to privacy while residing in one's own property. In fact, the individual in the car, when stopped by the police, is more at risk of bodily harm or death than the police officer (particularly if one happens to be male, or worse, a male minority).

tl;dr being a cop is pretty safe and well compensated and we shouldn't restrict innocuous rights because it makes police feel better.

[monkeedoo]

OP just to clarify things the date on your original citation doesnt mean you have a free pass until that date expires, thats why you received the second citation. the date is simply for the court , if you dont take care of it by said date it goes into delinquency and you are charged a civil assessment . its like driving around with expired tags , if you receive a citation and continue to drive with expired tags you'll get another ticket . telling the officer you already got a ticket for that is basically asking for another ticket. hope that clears things up for you and you get this sorted out good luck

[forzajuve]

Yes, yes and yes. Thank you for responding with such an articulate response and for providing the statistics as well. Someone finally completely gets it!