Got a ticket

[Scott]

Got pulled over 2 days ago for having dark tint on my car. The legal limit here in MN is 50% (very light), my back windows is at 5% (limo) and my fronts are tinted to 37% (medium).

Highway trooper pulled me over in MN and fined me $101 dollars and said I had to get ALL the tint removed within 2 weeks. I just smiled and took the ticket.. The problem here is that my car is registered in ND where that tint is legal. I am living in MN for college only and do not have to have my car registered in MN and don't have to follow some of there 'strict' car laws... I will probably have to apear in court to fight the ticket. Which a online lawyer and a police offer (I work with one) say will be not problem at all. The judge will get very upset with the ticket and rip the cop a new a-hole for waisting the states money and the judges time so they say.


Anyways so today I got my front's tinted darker. They are now at about 25% . Had to get my other window tinted since it got smashed in so figured why not go a little darker since it was only another $20 for the other window

[rant]
why can't we tint our cars as much as we want? the stupid thing is, if the tint came from the factory it's ok, if it on a SUV/VAN/Truck it's ok. But not on a car. Cops say they are scared of being shot because they cannot see in the windows. WTF? Why are suv's/trucks/van legal to have limo tint all around? Which would you be more scared to walk upto, my car or a pimped out escliade with 5 heads moving inside?

[Mstenger404]

its the world we live in.
dont worry scott, its just not your year, just wait.

[DevilDog#1]

My my P! Keep us posted. Heck scan the dang ticket and let us see even.

[HellBoy]

why can't we tint our cars as much as we want?
Because the law says you can't, if you don't like it talk to your state senators.

the stupid thing is, if the tint came from the factory it's ok,
Standard in Massachusetts too.

if it on a SUV/VAN/Truck it's ok. But not on a car.
That seems odd, wonder if that's actually true.

Cops say they are scared of being shot because they cannot see in the windows. WTF?
State Trooper George Hanna, Massachusetts State Police died as a result of a bad guy hiding in a backseat where the windows were of a very dark tint.

Why are suv's/trucks/van legal to have limo tint all around?
Limo (again I don't know about the others) because they are vehicles for hire. The police officers business is with the driver usually not the passengers. The front windows cannot be tinted to pitch black only the passenger compartment windows.

Which would you be more scared to walk upto, my car or a pimped out escliade with 5 heads moving inside?
Why would an Escalade (SP?) be any different threat wise? All m/v stops are considered "unknown threats" by all law enforcement officers.

Hope this helps.

[DevilDog#1]

How come they don't just give the cops those heat seeking infrared xray looker uppers military uses to see through the walls? Bet they've made them compact enough now.

[Scott]

I know it's the law. Sadly, no one really has the power to change it, most just break it. Reading around the internet about people in MN and there tint there are many ways around it. Mine just happens to fall under the cop didn't have the right to pull me over in the first place because I am not registered in this state, and do not fall under MN's tint laws. According to the MN statues it is against the law to pull someone over without something being 'wrong'.

It is true (at least in MN that a van/suv/truck that is NOT considered a coupe or sedan is able to have tint on their back windows to an unspecified amount.

Most vehicles can be considered a limo also, which can have an unspecified amount of tint on the backs. Here is the Minnesota Statutes definition of a limo:

"Subd. 35. Limousine. "Limousine" means a luxury passenger automobile that is not a van or station wagon and has a seating capacity of not more than 12 persons, excluding the driver. "

That's a little broad really. The only thing the law could fight on that is what is luxury, because in the tint law it states that limo's are exempt from the tint laws (along with vans/trucks/suv's)

Luxury defined (webster):
a : something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary
b : an indulgence in something that provides pleasure, satisfaction, or ease

My car add's alot pleasure and comfort (for me) with alot of satisfaction and I do have the "luxury" of power windows, door locks, leather seats, bucket seats when they aren't necessary for me to have.

Why would an Escalade (SP?) be any different threat wise? All m/v stops are considered "unknown threats" by all law enforcement officers.

Great point, but why are van's/suv's/trucks exempt from the law? It doesn’t matter what kind of van/truck/suv it is either. It could be a dodge caravan used for a soccer mom, she is exempt from the tint law here. Can't a cop get shot from walking upto a truck/van/suv with dark windows?

The only type of vehicle that really fall's under the law is a sedan coupe, but by the definition of a limo, any sedan or coupe could be considered a limo...

Here is the MN statutes if you want to read it: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/168/

Are you a cop?

[HellBoy]

Originally posted by DevilDog#1
How come they don't just give the cops those heat seeking infrared xray looker uppers military uses to see through the walls? Bet they've made them compact enough now.

It's called Microwave, and only the Gov't boys get those. Lol

Panther, I am a Police Officer. In Mass. I can stop you regardless of the state your registered in, I would venture to say MN is very similar. Once in that state you have to abide by it's laws. Sry to say.

Where in MN? I have relatives all over that state, been there 4 times.

[Lakie]

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/169/71.html

Check Subd. 4.

" Glazing material; prohibitions and exceptions.
(a) No person shall drive or operate any motor vehicle
required to be registered in the state of Minnesota upon any
street or highway under the following conditions:"

Emphasis added, you say in your first post that your car isnt registered in MN, as long as it isnt meant to be registered in MN i read it (usual discalimer, not a lawyer, not a resident of the US yada yada" it dosent apply to you...

[Scott]

I'm near the twin cities area, in Eden Prairie.

It is true that if my vehical was registered, or required to be registered in MN that I would be liable and have to pay the fine and remove the tint, but I am not, and do not, and cannot be fined for a ticket if it's legal in the state I am registered in. I am not saying that I could not be stopped for anything (ie, moving violation), there are just certain things that I cannot be ticketed for (IE, Tint to name one of the very few).

According to Mass. law you cannot pull someone over for tint in Mass if the vehicle they are driving in is not registered in Mass.

Chapter 90: Section 9D. Windshields and windows obscured by nontransparent materials
ref: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/90-9d.htm
This section shall not apply to:
..
..
(6) a vehicle registered in another state, territory or another country or province.

Originally posted by Mike
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/169/71.html

Check Subd. 4.

" Glazing material; prohibitions and exceptions.
(a) No person shall drive or operate any motor vehicle
required to be registered in the state of Minnesota upon any
street or highway under the following conditions:"

Emphasis added, you say in your first post that your car isnt registered in MN, as long as it isnt meant to be registered in MN i read it (usual discalimer, not a lawyer, not a resident of the US yada yada" it dosent apply to you...

Exactly what I was reading for 12 hours, and that applies to any state I have looked up.

[Lakie]

Damnit, stop editing

yeah, although unless im missing comething the law in massachusets wont apply at all to a MN court, since i doubt that law has any precedence value in other states..

But what could be useful is a case based on very similar legislation can i think be used as whats called non binding precedence...

[Scott]

hehe was reaserching mass law for awhile.. didn't see your post till after I posted ..

interesting stuff

[Lakie]

of course you could be really gutsy and argue that the exemption for tints on different types of vehicles is Ultra Vires the equal protection clause in the fourteeth amendment of the the US Constitution

Not sure how far youd get, but it would be amusing...

[Scott]

HellBoy, since you are a police officer, would you think it would be a bad thing to stick your hands outa the window so the officer could see you have nothing in your hands and that you are not a threat if you have dark tint? I thought about doing it the last time but I don't want to make him afraid or pull his gun you know? I know police are slow to approach my car, i've been pulled over twice.

I am not really tinting to piss the cops off or break the law, I do it because my light blue eyes are very sensitve to light (don't believe it if you don't want to)... If there is glair I cannot see anything and am blind for a little while after. I consider tint (maybe not 5%, but %30 cause you can still see pretty clearly inside) to be more of a safty feature. How can you see if your driving a car at night and a big truck or semi pulls up behind you with his bright lights? Expecially in a city like Minneapolis where the ammout of car's behind you is endless..

[Scott]

Originally posted by Mike
of course you could be really gutsy and argue that the exemption for tints on different types of vehicles is Ultra Vires the equal protection clause in the fourteeth amendment of the the US Constitution

Not sure how far youd get, but it would be amusing...

can you explain a little more?

[the þrox™]

I have illegal tint all around, as cops approach i roll down the window, its the best way to avoid it, but its a big hassle, almost not worth it.

[Lakie]

Like i said, it would be a gutsy argument...

The relevant part is the last line of section 1 amendment 14
"1. No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So the argument becomes that by discriminating the law to extend tinting to only some vehicles, it violates the equal protection clause. Since a citizen that owns one car is exempt from the law but another is limited by the law.
Since the citizens have similar circumstances (as in, it dosent fall under the category of a 3yo equal protection being violated because they cant drive or drink or vote) in as much as they all have common road going urban vehicles, it might be an equal protection violation.

Typically this is used in matters of racial and gender specific natures, racial segregation in schools ended because it was a equal protection violation..

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...pcscrutiny.htm

[HellBoy]

I like where your head is at Mike. Good post. Steve I'd say that if MN has a similar law to Mass' Chap.90 Sec. 9D then you'd win the appeal at the ticket hearing. Question is, is it worth the time to travel back? Also do you currently reside in MN or ND? If you're living in MN as a resident there are only a few exceptions to you having to register your vehicle in MN. Such as being a student, that you reside there less than 6 months a year. Check on that.

[Scott]

I do reside in MN as a student. I checked with an online lawyer and they said I should not be required to register my vehicle here. Right now I am in MN so I will appeal the ticket. But even if I was in ND I would drive back to appeal. It's only 4 hours each way. I will never admit guilt for something that is legal. The ticket is $101 and the tint costs about $350, and $50 to get it removed.

I would love to submit your argument to the MN senate Mike, but since i'm not registered in this state I don't think I can speak against it? Maybe I can ask them look at it though, as it really does seem that since others are exempt then the same laws should apply to all 'citizens'

[Lakie]

if you were going to do it youd argue it at the appeals hearing, im not sure of the finer points of the US legal system but what would have to happen is a court to rule the relevant section ultra vires the constitution, then the legislature would look at it and decide if to pass a new section, you could always go straight to the legislature but that aint going to help with your ticket unless they pass and backdate the changes...

taking it to the appeals court chances are 1 of 3 things would happen

1. At the mention of the word constitution the judge would have to bounce it up to a higher court. In alot of countrys they only let the more senior state courts and federal courts look at matters involving constitutional interpretation..

2. Youd win on the Equal Protection grounds, chances are the state would appeal and youd end up in the federal supreme court....

3. The judge laughs you out of court with the equal protection argument, then youd have to appeal to the relevant court, again chances are youd end up at the supreme court...

I wouldnt be relying on it if you do appeal, the only way id bring it up is if it ends up looking like he/shes going to let the state win with the "Im exempt" argument just as a last ditch attempt and to get it on the court transcript so if you end up appealing or the state appeals (which is unlikely IMO unless you win on equal protection) then you can use it later on, cause in appeals you usually cant bring up any new arguments cause your arguing that the judges decision based on the arguments presented was wrong...

Although if i were you id be looking into more before i start thinking about it as a serious argument, cause for all i know there are cases that says that equal protection dosent extend to citizens motor vehicles or something like that. My observation is based on what i think the 14th amendment to mean, im not sure hows its been interprated by the judges through the years and what it actually means now...

[Scott]

I'm not really going to go any further then saying i'm not registered in the state, your argument is just really interesting.