Tinted Windo Laws..

[redlegacygt]

so i got a ticket saturday for my tint.. however something odd happend in the process... my rear window is 35% and the other 4 were 20%( because the old tint got messed up so i put 20 on to see how it looks before i got new tint all the way around).. anyway, the cop pulled me over and approached my car, i had my driverside window down, and my passanger side up. He told me the tint was to dark by looking at my back windows.., never asked for me to role up my driverside and he didnt walk around to the passanger side.. he also didnt use a UV meter (or whatever they use) to check it. He then proceeded to tag me for 1 window and let me know that the back window's are ok, but that "he was are more worried about the driver and passanger windows :?: "... So my question is, can they give out tickets without asking to see the driverside window and do they have UV test the (maybe not in PA).. i looked at a website about PA tinting laws but didnt see anything about UV meters.. anyone have any ideas?

[redlegacygt]

also, here's a website the i just found and started reading.. it might interest others who have tint in this state and others...

http://www.berksweb.com/users/dmv/tint/

[Huffer]

If he didn't use a UV meter you can fight it - the light coming into the car means the appearance of dark tint can throw them off.

A UV meter slides over the window edge and measures it that way - it's the only way to determine the light restriction.

[GrassyKnoll]

If he didn't use a UV meter you can fight it - the light coming into the car means the appearance of dark tint can throw them off.

A UV meter slides over the window edge and measures it that way - it's the only way to determine the light restriction.

I agree. I am also confused because it seems PA allows up to 70% tint. If this is true, than you are well below the legal limit. I am not sure why he would hastle you over this but the laws in NH are different. People get ticketed frequently for tint violations because there is no tint allowed on driver / passenger windows.

That being said, I would definately fight it because I can't figure out what law you have b0rked. If for some reason I AM reading the law wrong and you were in violation, I would say the best way to fight it would be to legalize your window tints. It's no fun being in violation of the law because you always have that to worry about and it will draw the wrong kind of attention from the 5-0. You may as well not give them something to pull you over for :smile:

I have no tint on my front windows and 35% on back sides and back. I think it looks fine after I took the tint off the front 2 for NH state law but that's just my personal opinion.

[redlegacygt]

If he didn't use a UV meter you can fight it - the light coming into the car means the appearance of dark tint can throw them off.

A UV meter slides over the window edge and measures it that way - it's the only way to determine the light restriction.

yeah he didnt use one. I even pointed out to him that the tint was falling off the damn window. (literally there was a 1-2 inch gap at the top of the passanger side window, and like said, he didnt check that window. He just looked from the driver side so he was basically looking from the inside out.. I just thought the fact that he said he didnt car about the back windows, but just the driver and passanger sides and then not check them was odd.. Not to mention the fact that i passed 2 other state troopers and didnt get stopped.i also pass a state police barrick everyday and sometimes the state police escort me into work and havent had any of them say anything about it... just seems odd to me..

[Wiscon_Mark]

As long as it was legal tint (which it was, right?) fight it!

edit: wow, looking at the laws...you basically can't tint anything legally. I don't even think stock tint is technically "legal" in PA. 70% is ridiculous...

Anyways, as he didn't do it correctly, I would definitely take it to court, it's a silly ticket anyways.

[RadeOn]

I agree. I am also confused because it seems PA allows up to 70% tint. If this is true, than you are well below the legal limit
70% allowance is virtually no tint. To comply with that windows have to pass through no less than 70% light. His tint was allowing only 20%.

I would not try to argue in court about the UV meter if there's nothing in the law about those. And one does not need a meter to tell that you are well outside the legal limit, it 70% allowance is to be considered the law.

Looking at your link, I would say that arguing that tint below 70% is legal would be a better option.

[d1giPhux]

I would fight it.. chances are that you will win since there is no proof that your tint is over really.. besides his word against yours.

[redlegacygt]

yeah i'll prob fight it just to see what they say. the worst that could happen is that i have to pay it.. i wasnt going to argue the UV meter as much, just mention that it wasnt used and that the only visual check on the 2 front windows was inadequate... atleast i believe it was..

[RadeOn]

How much is the ticket anyway?

[Huffer]

Make a BIG point on the UV meter not being used. That will rile the court a huge deal, because the cop is essentially creating a court case without any unbiased and unprovable evidence.

That pisses me off - people pay these guys with tax money to USE the tools they've bought (again with tax money) - and then they DONT use them and end up creating frivolous cases which cost taxpayer money and waste your time and the court's time.

The UV meter is IMHO your best defense.

[Kraziken]

I agree with Radeon. 70% tint? I had my wife's car done with a 35% tint and it hardly looked like anything was changed. Factory tinting could violate that law.

20% does look dark. I've been hassled before but just got a warning, and that was from a cop that did have a tint meter.

I hate it when they come up with random shit laws "To protect" the public. Limo tint or 5% should probably be illegal, but 20% is fine.

[d1giPhux]

Yea, definitely make a big deal about the UV meter.. thats what will get you off. Also make sure to mention what time of day it was.. if there was clouds out, and just say that it doesnt help anyone by not having it being read by a proper meter.. because then you arent even sure what the tint is exactly. No evidence = no case.

[Perdue]

If the legal limit is 70% in PA, I would think it would be hard to argue that your windows were not under the legal limit. There's a huge difference between 20% and 70%, which is what most cars are stock IIRC. It's a difference than can be seen with the naked eye...there's no tint meter needed for that. Truthfully, if you had taken the tint back off and had them redone with the same tint as the rears, I doubt anything would be said. Pay the ticket if it's a ticket ticket. If it's a fix it ticket, get a razor and get to scraping.

[Wiscon_Mark]

I highly doubt stock tint is 70%. Our Odyssey's tint is probably 35% or 25%, it's pretty dark. 70% really is basically nothing...

[Perdue]

We're talking passenger cars here. Most SUVs, Vans, and Trucks come with tinted rear glass. Usually, it's legal to have anything behind the front windows tinted (here, as dark as you want) in those vehicles. Cars for some reason are a different story.

[RadeOn]

Making a big deal about UV meter to me does not make a lot of sense (unless its required somewhere in the legislature, which I doubt). Its not a speeding case, where once the event is over - there's no way to check. Even thought burden of proof is on the officer, judge might ask you to show pictures of your car, if you claim that your car is not beyond legal limit.

If they were required to use meters - they would have to be required to measure tint even before the car is stopped, to have legal grounds for a stop (unless officer told you that you were stopped for some other reason, and then he would have to use meter). Because of that - point about the officer not having a proper look at your front windows also seems weak to me - he had a look at them when he decided to stop of you.

Meters can be good evidence, when the tint is close to legal limit, which is not your case, if you believe 70% to be legal.

I would try to argue that 70% is not the legal limit in PA, but that's me.

[dodik]

i think there is a confusion somewhere in here on that magic 70% number

what i mean is that 70% is how much light could be reflected which is another words 30% of light goes thru. no since you said you had 20% on plus 5% built in into any auto glass after like 1990 you had 15% light transmittance.

so if you take off that 20% and put 35% on you can argue that your car was dirty AND it wasnt sunny outside therefore officer mistaken AND since he didnt use any tools he has nothing to back his findings up. also when you get 35% tints make sure to take a lot of pics on sunny days and bring them to court with you. Good luck.

oh and 70% is not really existent i've tinted all of my cars and a few of my friends cars myself and did quite a bit of research and never heard of 70% tint. maybe they dont sell in NY or something but a nice layer of dust from everyday driving will give you more UV protection.

[redlegacygt]

the ticket was only for $107 which isnt bad because he could have got me for all the windows... however if you would have seen my tint that day, it did look darker then usual because of the cloudiness outside. Not to mention when i passed him, i know i had my driverside window down more then half way because it was hot as hell and i dont have AC.. So if he has to see the front two windows, then he faild to do so and just went off my back windows, which according to him "he wasnt worried about" .lol i'll likely mention the UV meter, but wont make it a mainstay of my case just because it says nothing in the laws about it.

[Perdue]

I'm trying, but I fail to see any real case in your argument. If the legal limit is indeed 30%, then you're still illegal. Dunno about you guys, but it's not hard for me to tell 35% tint and 20% tint apart...especially when placed side by side...even more so on a cloudy day. There's a difference of over 57% (yep, I broke out the calculator).

Best bet would be to scrape the tint and take good pictures, either with or without new, legal tint. Print the pictures off, at Kinkos or Walmart if you have to, and take them to court. They may drop it all together if you show proof that you've fixed it.

[Wiscon_Mark]

i think there is a confusion somewhere in here on that magic 70% number

what i mean is that 70% is how much light could be reflected which is another words 30% of light goes thru. no since you said you had 20% on plus 5% built in into any auto glass after like 1990 you had 15% light transmittance.

so if you take off that 20% and put 35% on you can argue that your car was dirty AND it wasnt sunny outside therefore officer mistaken AND since he didnt use any tools he has nothing to back his findings up. also when you get 35% tints make sure to take a lot of pics on sunny days and bring them to court with you. Good luck.

oh and 70% is not really existent i've tinted all of my cars and a few of my friends cars myself and did quite a bit of research and never heard of 70% tint. maybe they dont sell in NY or something but a nice layer of dust from everyday driving will give you more UV protection.

Nope, sorry, you're wrong.


In Pennsylvania, 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 Must allow more than 70% of light in.
Back Side Windows Must allow more than 70% of light in.
Rear Window Must allow more than 70% of light in.

That would be 70% tint - 70% of the light gets through. It's very very light tint.
http://www.tintcenter.com/laws/

[RadeOn]

I'm trying, but I fail to see any real case in your argument. If the legal limit is indeed 30%, then you're still illegal. Dunno about you guys, but it's not hard for me to tell 35% tint and 20% tint apart...especially when placed side by side...even more so on a cloudy day. There's a difference of over 57% (yep, I broke out the calculator).

Best bet would be to scrape the tint and take good pictures, either with or without new, legal tint. Print the pictures off, at Kinkos or Walmart if you have to, and take them to court. They may drop it all together if you show proof that you've fixed it.
I agree - take it off, and take pictures to court.

As for visually distinguishing 20 vs 35 - try that when they are both reflective.

[Perdue]

Looking through the windshield or through a down window solves the reflectivity problem. Still no valid argument.

[ivwarrior]

Tint tax, pay up. :grin:

[redlegacygt]

but what im also trying to saying is that if he tells me he's only worried about the front 2 windows, why did he not check, the front two windows? he never asked me to role up the driveside, and never walked over to the passenger.. thats what i dont understand. I know my tint was illegal, but i do understand that if he's going to give me a ticket for it, he should atleast make sure that the "only windows he care about" are looked at. i've talked to a couple troopers about it already and they both agreed that he either should have used the UV meter on the front, or atleast asked to roll the driverside up....


ps. the tint was removed that day, i had actually planned on it since it was mostly hanging off. it was off so bad that i didnt even need to use a razorblade and just pulled it right off...

[Huffer]

its a moot point - if he didn't use a meter, he can't accurately judge the tint level.

[redlegacygt]

its a moot point - if he didn't use a meter, he can't accurately judge the tint level.

and he couldnt judge the tint level on the front widows if he never looked at them. lol..

[Wiscon_Mark]

You've got a case Astin, take some pictures, and tell it like it is.

Except don't mention that the rear tint is illegal.

[redlegacygt]

yea i plan on it, and either way it turns out, atleast i'll learn something :lol: