yeah, we send all our customers to andre at the professional. they do a bang up job, and they warraty it for life. after 20 years of tinting in sacramento, they are the standard others should be judged by. we can set you up with an appt when you get your tC.
so i've been looking around and wondering if I should get my front windows tinted. Everybody been saying that it's illegal to get our front windows tinted but in 1999 there was a new law that said we could get our windows tinted as long as it let's 70% of light throught.
There was also a lawsuit involving a guy caught with some marijuana because the officer pulled the guy for tinted windows.
Wallace moved to suppress the evidence found in his car
and the residence, arguing that Leiber lacked probable cause
to stop the vehicle in the first place and that the subsequent
seizure of evidence was the fruit of the unlawful stop. At the
suppression hearing, Leiber testified that the Expedition's
windows were tinted enough to make it "difficult " to view the
occupants inside. Leiber also testified that he had received
and read a flier published by the San Diego Police Depart-
ments's Traffic Division that stated that the California Vehi-
cle Code prohibits any tinting of a vehicle's front side
windows. Leiber testified that he had assumed that the flier
correctly stated the law when he made the stop.
The flier was wrong. California law allows tinting of the
windshield and front driver- and passenger-side windows so
long as the coloring permits a light transmittance of at least
70 percent. See Cal. Vehicle Code S 26708(d) .1
The district court granted the defendant's motion to sup-
press. The court relied on Whren v. United States, 517 U.S.
806 (1996), which held that law enforcement agents conduct-
ing pretextual traffic stops must have probable cause to
believe that a traffic violation occurred in order to detain a
vehicle. The court concluded that Leiber lacked the probable
cause necessary to support the pretextual traffic stop of the
Expedition because Leiber had no "objectively grounded"
legal justification for the stop. The district court reasoned:
[T]he fact that this case involves a pretextual stop
combined with Officer Leiber's (1) repeated mis-
statement of the applicable law regarding window
tinting, (2) failure to even mention the 70 percent
requirement, and (3) failure to explain why the
Expedition's windows were illegally, rather than
legally, tinted, leads the Court to find that Officer
Leiber did not have probable cause to believe that a
traffic violation had occurred.
So with all this done and said, do you guys think 70% is a alright tint ?
(2) The material is not red or amber in color.
(3) There is no opaque lettering on the material and any other lettering does not affect primary colors or distort vision through the windshield.
(4) The material does not reflect sunlight or headlight glare into the eyes of occupants of oncoming or following vehicles to any greater extent than the windshield without the material. (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), clear, colorless, and transparent material may be installed, affixed, or applied to the front side windows, located to the immediate left and right of the front seat if the following conditions are met:
(1) The material has a minimum visible light transmittance of 88 percent.
(2) The window glazing with the material applied meets all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 C.F.R. 571.205), including the specified minimum light transmittance of 70 percent and the abrasion resistance of AS-14 glazing, as specified in that federal standard.
(3) The material is designed and manufactured to enhance the ability of the existing window glass to block the sun's harmful ultraviolet A rays.
(4) The driver has in his or her possession, or within the vehicle, a certificate signed by the installing company certifying that the windows with the material installed meet the requirements of this subdivision and identifies the installing company and the material's manufacturer by full name and street address, or, if the
material was installed by the vehicle owner, a certificate signed by the material's manufacturer certifying that the windows with the material installed according to manufacturer's instructions meets the requirements of this subdivision and identifies the material's manufacturer by full name and street address.
(5) If the material described in this subdivision tears or bubbles, or is otherwise worn to prohibit clear vision, it shall be removed or replaced.
So, technically, tints can be pretty easily used to generate equipment violations. If you aren't in possession of a compliance document, there's a potential ticket right there.
The law specifically says the factory tint on the front windows must comply with the 70% standard, and any additional film must transmit at least 88% of available light. That's why they say tint on the front windows is illegal. It will be hard to comply with this law with any film applied.