Window tint. only breaking the law if the officer cant see you

[BajaBoy]

why was the last thread closed?

anyway one had the question of the front windows being completely down from leaving the garage to parking on private property... there is no broken law.

If the officer has a clear view of the driver what exactly else are they looking for? that is what the law is about correct?

not trying to be an ass but think of this.

I owned a jeep rangler. My soft top was all completely tinted (front soft windows too) These are not oem.

But say those windows were in the trunk Not atatched to the doors i could honestly still get a ticket? No. because no law in broken.

That would be exactly like having blacked out windows in a mustang, roling them down befor leaving the garage.. PULLING the fuse and going on your way. Officer or driver would not be able to put them up. Its like they arnt even there.

This is kinda just like off road flood lights, can have them. Just cant be turned on while on public roads. (and those covers that makes them "legal" could be compaired to that fuse for the tint)

am i wrong here? We all know this law is so that the officer has a visual of one.

 

[FordSVTFan]

why was the last thread closed?

Because it ran its course and was degrading into a pissing match.

anyway one had the question of the front windows being completely down from leaving the garage to parking on private property... there is no broken law.

So your question is, "if no one sees your violation, it isnt a violation?" It still is a violation even though the police may not enforce it on private property.

If the officer has a clear view of the driver what exactly else are they looking for? that is what the law is about correct?

That is one purpose of the law. There are other purposes, such as driver visibility during times of reduced light and the safety of other drivers because of that artificial impairment.

am i wrong here? We all know this law is so that the officer has a visual of one.

Yes you are incorrect. You may feel this is the only purpose of the law, but then you would be wrong. I suggest you find the time and research the legislative intent behind the tint law in N.J.

 

[FastEddie09]

That is one purpose of the law. There are other purposes, such as driver visibility during times of reduced light and the safety of other drivers because of that artificial impairment.

These things are COMPLETELY irrelevant if the windows are down.

 

[jman511115]

I think what he's trying to get at is that even though the window is down, it will be up sometime, impairing visibility. And the law is the law.

 

[DRTHV8R]

you are still breaking the law.. you have just not been caught to be punished for it.

 

[FordSVTFan]

These things are COMPLETELY irrelevant if the windows are down.

Really? Based on what legal theory? The windows being rolled down does not vitiate the law or negate its enforcement.

 

[STG]

Really? Based on what legal theory? The windows being rolled down does not vitiate the law or negate its enforcement.

Yeah, yeah you just graduated from law school. This could be the first time vitiate has appeared in an SVTP post!:lol:

Nothing better than newbie J.D. vocabulary.

 

[BajaBoy]

thanks, wasnt tryin to be a pita just like many laws there are "grey" area's.

 

[dogmush]

thanks, wasnt tryin to be a pita just like many laws there are "grey" area's.

I'm not seeing the grey area here. There's a min % Light transmission. Above that, you're OK. Below that, you're not. The law says nothing about windows up or down. Show me the grey here.

Windshield: No tint is allowed on the windshield.
Front Side Windows: No tint can be applied legally to this window.
Back Side Windows: Any darkness can be used.
Rear Window: Any darkness can be used.

 

[Grabber]

Adding to the thread.

In IL, Tints of any kind in the front windows are Ilegall. However, I've read, that if you need tints, for medical reasons, that could fly. Can anyone verify this?

 

[Mike's_98_Snake]

Here, in PA we're stuck with at least 70% light transmittance all around. Which, is basically just the factory glass. :rollseyes


New Jersey Window Tint Law - TintCenter.com

New Jersey Tint Law Enacted: 2003
HOW DARK CAN WINDOW TINT BE IN NEW JERSEY?

Darkness of tint is measured by Visible Light Transmission percentage (VLT%). In New Jersey, this percentage refers to percentage of visible light allowed in through the combination of film and the window.

Windshield No tint is allowed on the windshield.
Front Side Windows No tint can be applied legally to this window.
Back Side Windows Any darkness can be used.
Rear Window Any darkness can be used.

HOW REFLECTIVE CAN THE TINT BE IN NEW JERSEY?

Similar to sunglass lenses, some tinting film contain metallic elements that help in reflecting incoming light and reducing the glare and heat generated by visible light.

Front Side Windows No metallic or mirrored appearance.
Back Side Windows No metallic or mirrored appearance.

OTHER NEW JERSEY RULES AND REGULATIONS

Restricted Colors No colors of tint are explicitly banned.
Side Mirrors Dual side mirrors are required if back window is tinted.
Certificate Requirements Manufacturers of film do NOT need to certify the film they sell in the state.
Sticker Requirements No sticker to identify legal tinting is required.
Medical Exemption State allows medical exemptions for special tint. For more details about the specific terms of the exemption, consult your state law.

 

[FastEddie09]

Adding to the thread.

In IL, Tints of any kind in the front windows are Ilegall. However, I've read, that if you need tints, for medical reasons, that could fly. Can anyone verify this?

This used to be the case........but they stopped allowing this a few years ago. You must have the doctors note on file prior to the suspension of this "loop hole"

 

[GTFlow]

This used to be the case........but they stopped allowing this a few years ago. You must have the doctors note on file prior to the suspension of this "loop hole"

Is this an IL law? My wife has a doctors note on file here in MO allowing her to have darker than legal tint but not below 15% on her windows.

 

[Kobra Khan]

When these laws are made most of the important view points from citizens are not even considered. That's what America has allowed itself to be succumbed to.

Now lets look at the facts.

1. Tinted windows allow your car to be cooler when it sits out in the sun, thus increasing the comfort level, resulting in better driving and less chance of an accident during the day. Unfortunately, this advantage is offset, because the windows cause a driver to have less visability at night.

2. If you cant see in, you don't know if there's anything worth stealing. Tinted windows = less of a chance of something being stolen. FACT.

3. Visuall appearance. Let's face it, tinted windows make a car look better.

There's a solution to all this, but the technology is not yet available. Basically, what's needed is some form of coating on glass that can function such that it is dark during the day, and not dark during the night.

If officer safety is such a big concern, then shouldn't tint on limo's be illegal as well? Since when does a Limo not have to abide by the same rules as any other vehicle? Gee....I wonder why that is.....

Once again, the governemnt putting themselves in a situation where a law can be questioned because it wasn't created properly....

The bottom line is that people that want tint, will pay the tickets and take the risk. This results in more money given to the city through tickets, and why the hell would the city get rid of a law that's feeding them money. Another situation where the hard working citizen is getting screwed simply because they want to have something that benifits them in more ways than one. How surprising. It's time to do something about it.

 

[mswaim]

You just gotta love all of the energy devoted to the issue of window tint. :shrug:

Coupled with a lack of knowledge of the legal system, legislative process and how fines are distributed makes for entertaining reading. Afterall, I've always enjoyed fiction over all other venues.

 

[Kobra Khan]

Talking about window tint doesn't really take much energy.

Fact of the matter is that certain counties and the law that resides there don't give a damn about window tint, as indicated by the number of vehicles in that area that have tint on them, while other counties do care as indicated by reports showing the revenue gained through window tint tickets. Do the actual number of cars with window tint on them really go up or down each year? That would be an indicator of wether or not people care. Doesn't matter if it's a state law or not, each county treats the law with a different level of enforcement.

Police in my area are understanding of the fact that it's hot and humid as hell. They aren't going to give someone a hard time weather the tint is 5% or 30%. Other areas that I've been to however, make it a point to issue tickets, while another city less than 10 miles away with exactly the same type of demographics could care less.

The fact that the range of enforcement is so wide in areas of equal population characteristics is why people think the law is so silly.

 

[exdeath]

Ideally it would be that you're expected to roll down windows when confronted by law enforcement, and take increased responsibility for a collision at night if the visibility was considered to be a factor. But government and power are never ideal.

Instead we live in a Minority Report world where it's acceptable to have laws that punish people preemptively who haven't actually caused anyone harm yet, on the assumption that they will just because someone else doing something remotely similar did.

eg: a suspected and treated guilty until proven innocent mentality, and even if you are innocent after the fact well fine you anyway just to save face because we are always right and "it's the law". Ever carry a gun and someone asks if you're a cop, as if to imply that you are either a cop or a bad guy if you have a gun? These are the people stuck in "the matrix" who influence lawmakers.

And we put up with it instead of rallying and presenting an unstoppable force to our legislation to change it, or because some people have the mentality that if the law doesn't affect them who cares. Eg how many non smokers care about laws that ban smoking on private property?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Similarly if you don't smoke, you won't go out marching to stop smoking bans on private property, likewise the majority of the public couldn't care less about window tint and probably aren't even aware of such a thing. Thus little laws like window tint are easily passed and hard to challenge. And even if they are, most would likely support it because of the above described Minority Report mentality because they don't know what the "free country" term they spout all the time really means.

What often seems to be common sense (eg: making things safer, keeping crime low, etc) is often at odds with liberty (taking away from 99% of the people who know they can't see with the windows up at night because 1% were idiots and tried to sue the tint installer for causing a collision) and the sheep cling to anything that has the word safety attached to it without thinking, hey, couldn't they just roll down their window if they couldn't see and we only punish the stupid people?

 

[Kobra Khan]

Ideally it would be that you're expected to roll down windows when confronted by law enforcement, and take increased responsibility for a collision at night if the visibility was considered to be a factor. But government and power are never ideal.

Instead we live in a Minority Report world where it's acceptable to have laws that punish people preemptively who haven't actually caused anyone harm yet, on the assumption that they will just because someone else doing something remotely similar did.

eg: a suspected and treated guilty until proven innocent mentality, and even if you are innocent after the fact well fine you anyway just to save face because we are always right.

That's why fair LEO's refuse to pull cars over everytime they see illegal tint. They understand that the law is a little far fetched to begin with. The fact that the law varies from state to state just makes it even more unaccepted.

I agree that it's dumb to punish people preemptively. Doing this causes more harm that good. With that said, I'm going to provide us with a list of facts, and lets see if we can find out if it's the NBA or NFL!


36 Have been accused of spousal abuse
7 Have been arrested for fraud
19 Have been accused of writing bad checks
117 Have directly or indirectly Bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 Have done time for assault
71, Repeat... 71, Cannot Get a credit card due to bad credit
14 Have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 Have been arrested for shoplifting
21 Currently Are defendants in lawsuits, and
84 Have been arrested for drunk driving In The last year

Can
You guess which organization this is?

Give up yet? . . Scroll down,










Neither,
It's the 435 members of the United States Congress. Yep, the same group of idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line. What a fine role models they are, L O L!

If there is another life form out there that has visability to our poor decision making, the reason why we haven't been invaded yet is because of our entertainment value to them.:lol1::lol1: