This burns my soul

[cuzzbubba420]

If you go to court he'll probably just throw the Patriot Act out there.... I don't think he needs a warrant just to check the tint on the window since that is why he was pulling her over.. Don't get me wrong, I think it's but in the end what can you do but

However, after reading again you do have some valid points man and I only know about FL laws which normally you have to be riding pitch black to get pulled over..

[cuzzbubba420]

For double post, my bad..

[Cali 2 Balti G]

Dangeris.

How dark is your wife's tint?

[dangeris]

According to the light meter it was 25% in the front, 5% in the rear. But keep in mind, I've had this car for about 4 yrs now with the tinis and never had I once had any problems during inspections, which I know they have guidelines to follow.

[Cali 2 Balti G]

Maybe the inspection guys have done you a favor. It seems that PA has one of the toughest tint laws - according to percentage - that I've seen. It seems this is the point you are arguing - that there is no tint law in PA.

Here is a website I did a quick search on - and they list the allowable percentages by state - here is what it shows for PA.

http://www.tintlaws.com/laws/PA/

70% light transmission - is really, really light. So it's easy as heck to pick out a car with only 25% tint. It seems to me - that is all the probable cause that was needed to test your windows.

Let us know how you make out with this one.

[121traffic]

I can quote the internet too. Here's the source, right?

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

First off, way to fault the cop for being employed and following the instructions of his supervisors. So let me get this straight...do you have a problem with him, or your PA legislators and executive branch?

Here's where the problem lies, though. It's a little phrase known as "plain view." It's part of any officer's basic fourth amendment search and seizure law. Findlaw describes plain view as:

"Somewhat similar in rationale is the rule that objects falling in the ''plain view'' of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure without a warrant 104 or that if the officer needs a warrant or probable cause to search and seize his lawful observation will provide grounds therefor. 105 The plain view doctrine is limited, however, by the probable cause requirement: officers must have probable cause to believe that items in plain view are contraband before they may search or seize them."

I've been trained to think of it in three prongs. Do I have lawful reason to be in a position to observe the evidence? (i.e. I'm in someone's house on a report of a disturbance and I see marijuana on the table.) Am I using special technology to "view" the item? (Am I using some sort of drug detection wand to find the weed? haha) Was the evidence discovered by chance, and not by any manipulation on my part? (Did I "knock over" a pile of mail because I suspected that there was a marijuana pipe hidden under the bills.)

As I stated, plain view allows me to seize items as evidence when they are in (for lack of better terms) "plain" sight. That means if I see marijuana in your center console, I can pull you out of the car in order to seize it. I'm in a lawful position to view the marijuana (I've stopped you for traffic), I'm not using any special equipment to do so (i.e. peering into someone's window from 200 yards away with binoculars), and I didn't manipulate anything in order to bring the weed into view. At that point, I seize it as evidence based on my knowledge, training, and experience as to what marijuana looks like. I can THEN use a presumptive narcotics ID kit to confirm that the substance is indeed marijuana.

The officer in your case had probable cause to contact your wife. PA law, as you stated, makes it illegal for tint or glaze to prohibit someone outside the vehicle from seeing inside. I will grant that the 25% is going to be subjective, but you posted that your wife's got limo 5% on the back windshield. He got behind your wife and confirmed, indeed, that he was not able to see inside! That's the whole point behind "limo" 5% tint! There is the officer's probable cause.

So he pulls her over, and there is evidence to support his charge....the physical existence of your wife's tinting. He's got two choices. He can either remove a section of it to book in as evidence, or he can take a physical measurement to just how dark the tint is. Here's plain view again. The tint is visible to the world, and it's now evidence in the violation of driving with windows that are too dark. Just be thankful he didn't go with the first choice. So he took a tint reading, just like if I seized drugs in plain view and chemically tested them, just like if I arrested you for kiddie p0rn if you had it laying on your backseat.

There's your lesson for the day. I'll bet it holds up in court. Bad cop, no donut, huh Johnny Law?

[maxentropy]

Got about to page two when this entire thread became TL:DR.

My two cents is the fact that cops are people too. Think of them in this way and you'll be sure to understand them more. Understanding them more means potentially seeing the world through their eyes and understanding why exactly they pulled you over and how you can talk your way out of any fines/tickets.

Sure some cops let the 'power' get to their head because they are young and naive, and a small handful of cops enjoy pulling people over with tricked out cars because they are simply jealous, and other cops are older and don't appreciate loud music bumping through neighborhoods or loud mufflers, etc.

The point is, use common sense and remember that the cop that pulled you over is a person like you too. They may be a pain in the *** sometimes, but usually if you treat them with respect and give them the benefit of the doubt, they tend to surprise.

[cuzzbubba420]

Yes they are people to and I'm sure some of them will let you out of tickets..etc... The fact is they are taking people's cars from them for street racing (which is illegal) and in the end they are still paying a car payment for something they no longer have. I can't argue with fines, traffic schools, points and all that crap but claiming someones ride is just

[maxentropy]

Yes they are people to and I'm sure some of them will let you out of tickets..etc... The fact is they are taking people's cars from them for street racing (which is illegal) and in the end they are still paying a car payment for something they no longer have. I can't argue with fines, traffic schools, points and all that crap but claiming someones ride is just

Like I said, some cops do take things too far. However, when two or more people are racing neck and neck at 120+ mph, and I was a cop, I'd confiscate both vehicles. If you want to be a racecar driver there is such a thing commonly referred to as a racetrack.

PS- I live in PA as well, but just outside of Philadelphia and I am more than likely going to be getting 25% tint.

[dangeris]

I can quote the internet too. Here's the source, right?

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

.....There's your lesson for the day. I'll bet it holds up in court. Bad cop, no donut, huh Johnny Law?

First off...for some one who has only 12 post on this forum, you've come off to EVERYONE as a BIG SOB and a Bigger a$$*LE to boot. What do you think I'm a teenager pimping out his ride or something? I don't think so...Good for you that you can quote the internet too, moron but what you forgot to mention is that if you read all the statues and laws regarding tints in PA that is mentioned in the website, it's the PA Department of Motor Vehicle that is "interpreting" the FMVSS 205 and claiming it as law! Hell, even the letter from the the PA DMV stated it. They're also instructed not to pull over out of state vehicles with tints! Whats up with that?

Here, I'll quote the internet for you 121, I don't think you read it.

http://www.berksweb.com/users/....html

In the 2nd paragraph, it clearly states that even PENN DOT admits that no PA Statute prohibits tint permitted by FMVSS205. Go a head a click on the link entitle "the Department's interpretation". It's pretty interesting how PA decided to interpret a federal safety standard into what THEY think it means, THEN enforce it as law.

Furthermore on the bottom left hand of the ticket in section 62 under "special activities the officer has written down "Smooth Operator". I asked my State Police friend what this meant and he chuckled and it all made sense to him why she got the ticket. Apparently Smooth Operator is a "activity" or "operation" here in PA (not sure anywhere else)where a State Cop NEEDS to give out as many tickets as he can to fill his quota thus generating revenue for the state. Revenue for the state by persecuting the innocent! Hmmm...Interesting!...Ain't that some ****!!!!!!!

Modified by dangeris at 8:24 PM 3/9/2008

Did you understand what I wrote in here... Even my good friend who is a PA State Tropper for 18 years said that this a bogus ticket and the "smoothoperator" code that was placed in the "special activities" section of the citation, is just a ploy to generate revenue. As he stated...Pull anyone and everyone over that YOU think is in violation of the law.... But as the website stated, He had no probable cause.

I'll repeat it again and listen closely 121! My wife was driving on the right hand lane, NOT speeding and the trooper was sitting in the median facing towards the oncoming traffic when she passed him..... Facing the oncoming traffic!..You have to be blind not to see the driver of any vehicle coming towards you or passing you. She wasn't speeding and I appreciate your statement that having the windows tinted was all trooper needed to pull up behind her.

Oh I will be fighting this citation and I will try my hardest to beat it...with a little help of my State trooper friend.

So there's your today's law lesson!

BTW,..I thought you were done on this thread. Why don't you post something more useful that we can all benefit from like installing a super charger on a VQ35 instead of hanging out here and posting snide comments that people.

[dangeris]

PS- I live in PA as well, but just outside of Philadelphia and I am more than likely going to be getting 25% tint.

IF you do get 25%, I wouldn't travel up to Binghamton on 81 north. 25% is what I have and my wife got pulled over with.

[maxentropy]

IF you do get 25%, I wouldn't travel up to Binghamton on 81 north. 25% is what I have and my wife got pulled over with.

I thought you had issues due to the 5% Limo tint on the back of your wife's ride? I drive through Binghamton quite a bit due to family living up near Syracuse, NY. I don't want to attract too much attention to me though, so perhaps 30% or 35% is in order.

[LongBeachCoupe]

Dangeris... If i remember correctly, you arent one of the "young bucks" (im 25) in here... and therefore you would have more experience with police (to some degree, ive been stopped over 50 times).... But what we DO know is that unless theres a camera rolling... its a state trooper's word against a "vagrant" lol... I got lost in the grit of the argument... but by bringing the car on the road, isnt the window in PLAIN SIGHT? and a "dark look" is more than enough for them to check the window... Maybe you shoulda hit me up for some of the FOP chatchkies, incase the statie is a drinker and appreciates donations to the fund lol... My time is too valuable to fight non-point tickets, i save my fight for the big ones... p.s. i just sent in my dumb surcharge check to NYS... what a scam.. I pay tickets, and spitzer goes and spends the money on high-price-hookers!

Also, the color of your car makes a big difference... a white car shows the tint, a black car doesnt...

On the "smooth operator" note... if you want to bring down the house... start posting in PA forums all over and get 3 or 4 more tickets with that on it to back it up... I cant believe that a LEO would be dumb enough to put a code on a ticket that the driver can see... if i got a ticket with that written on it id def throw a fit to some degree as it does indicate some "funny business"

And if your friend cares about his future as a LEO... id leave him out of it!

[dangeris]

Dangeris... If i remember correctly, you arent one of the "young bucks" (im 25) in here... and therefore you would have more experience with police (to some degree, ive been stopped over 50 times).... But what we DO know is that unless theres a camera rolling... its a state trooper's word against a "vagrant" lol... I got lost in the grit of the argument... but by bringing the car on the road, isnt the window in PLAIN SIGHT? and a "dark look" is more than enough for them to check the window... Maybe you shoulda hit me up for some of the FOP chatchkies, incase the statie is a drinker and appreciates donations to the fund lol... My time is too valuable to fight non-point tickets, i save my fight for the big ones... p.s. i just sent in my dumb surcharge check to NYS... what a scam.. I pay tickets, and spitzer goes and spends the money on high-price-hookers!

Also, the color of your car makes a big difference... a white car shows the tint, a black car doesnt...

On the "smooth operator" note... if you want to bring down the house... start posting in PA forums all over and get 3 or 4 more tickets with that on it to back it up... I cant believe that a LEO would be dumb enough to put a code on a ticket that the driver can see... if i got a ticket with that written on it id def throw a fit to some degree as it does indicate some "funny business"

And if your friend cares about his future as a LEO... id leave him out of it!

Yes I am older but I honestly have gotten less than 3 tickets in my whole life. The last one I got was before I went into the military. I was in the Army for 16 years, 12 of those in 3075th Ranger Battalion in Ft. Benning Ga but most of those years we were deployed. Bring some of those FOP stickers with ya if your going to the NYC car show. I'll get them off of you then Thanks

Oh and I do plan on keeping my friend out of it. I don't want him to jeopardize his career over this.

[LongBeachCoupe]

I didnt think of that! Ill def be bringing some plates, stickers and other stuff to the show for you guys....

[dangeris]

Sweet!

[AZhitman]

Great thread - Props to 121 for doing what he does, AND taking the time to educate and inform...

I always LOL @ people who make broad generalizations about LEO's, yet don't have the balls or the mental toughness to even pass the first week of Academy.

What do you call a cop out of uniform? Usually, a car nut, a family man or woman, a friend, a cool person you'd hang out with on the weekends. Throw on the badge and all of a sudden all those things are forgotten.

I get a kick out of all the boo-hoo'ing in here.

Someone hurts a family member of mine while street racing, they'll be BEGGING for a cop - to PROTECT them.

p.s. For those of you who feel you've been "wrongly accused" or cited unfairly, that's what the courts are for. Use them.

[LongBeachCoupe]

"if the glove dont fit, you must acquitt"

[cuzzbubba420]

From I can tell you are the one "boo-hooin" with this cry-baby post....

[dangeris]

Great thread - Props to 121 for doing what he does, AND taking the time to educate and inform...

I don't know if 121 ever served in the military but I've served in two 2 conflicts and have been in firefights beyond belief. Nothing is more scarier than dropping into a hot zone at night via parachute and all you can see is muzzle flashes from the ground and bullets whizzing by you! I'm not knocking down LEO, in fact, I have lots of friends who are LEOs. But none of them (that I know of) abuse their power given to them while on the job...but like I said...not that I know of!

[LongBeachCoupe]

Call of Duty 4 style eigh? Someone in the military is different than a LEO... dont think im pro military or anything (Im pro IDF!)... But power is just asking to be abused... Ask #9 aka elliot spitzer... (wow, im so glad hes gone)....

LEO's abuse power just like anyone else, although the only ones ive found abusing it are the ones who are in "nickle and dime" areas where a MISSING FLOWERPOT makes the front page of the "local tribune"... A real LEO is shooting for a Felony stop... and a mayors commendation... Not looking to stop a car for tint... This town i am talking about is FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP NJ... where a tint or lighting ticket is MANDATORY court appearance, and the fees start at $34 (when i was there) and double each infraction... i stopped going thru their town when i had to show up and pay over $250 because of tinted windows!

[maxentropy]

LBC: What was your tint percentage at the time when you got raped in Jersey?

[adidas2go]

dont think im pro military or anything

whoa buddy...

[121traffic]

First off...for some one who has only 12 post on this forum, you've come off to EVERYONE as a BIG SOB and a Bigger a$$*LE to boot. What do you think I'm a teenager pimping out his ride or something? I don't think so...Good for you that you can quote the internet too, moron but what you forgot to mention is that if you read all the statues and laws regarding tints in PA that is mentioned in the website, it's the PA Department of Motor Vehicle that is "interpreting" the FMVSS 205 and claiming it as law! Hell, even the letter from the the PA DMV stated it. They're also instructed not to pull over out of state vehicles with tints! Whats up with that?

LOL call me a moron and as*hole all you want, but I've backed everything I've said with facts that you HAVEN'T succeeded in disputing, and I've done it without resorting to personal attacks (other than a little sarcasm).

Everyone? I've come off to "everyone" as a big SOB? Hmm. I'm pretty careful about what I post. I even apologized for referring to someone as a "brain-giant" in a roundabout way in my first post of the thread. In fact, The ONE person (Dr. Feelgood) who has disagreed with me in a pretty respectful manner, I was okay with and I even said I don't have any personal problem with that point of view. All I said was that when you put your viewpoints out there in a d!ck-ish manner, I'm going to be a d!ck right back. I take issue to those that are being crybabies and insist on making broad assumptions about cops in general, or even the cop that wrote them a ticket, stating that he's an ******* just because he's enforcing law. Am I a bigger d!ck than the guy who said "F*ck the fuzz."?

And what does my post count matter? I never assumed a thing about you. In fact, if anything, I would have guessed that you were anything BUT a teenager since you were talking about your wife. Did my comment about quoting the internet bother you? I just wanted to point out the fact that you didn't cite any reference in your posts. People need to know where information is coming from, lest the info is wrong and they attempt to utilize it to get out of a ticket. I would go so far to say that your information is wrong.

Here, I'll quote the internet for you 121, I don't think you read it.

http://www.berksweb.com/users/....html

In the 2nd paragraph, it clearly states that even PENN DOT admits that no PA Statute prohibits tint permitted by FMVSS205. Go a head a click on the link entitle "the Department's interpretation". It's pretty interesting how PA decided to interpret a federal safety standard into what THEY think it means, THEN enforce it as law.

Actually, maybe you'd like to not paraphrase and post what the document you linked to actually says. Here:

http://www.berksweb.com/users/dmv/tint/fmvss205.html]http://www.berksweb.com/users/....html[/URL]] Even PENNDOT admits that no PA Statute prohibits tint permitted by FMVSS205, but they claim that it is "... the Department's interpretation that the FMVSS205 prohibits tint below 70%."

The author of that page is stating that PA statutes/DMV/whoever are somehow attempting to make 30% the limit for tint, not whether or not PA limits tint that is indeed allowed by FMVSS205. In fact, I saw several references in PA's code that stated that there are in fact EXEMPTIONS to law as provided for in FMVSS205. The page claims that PA derives its tint laws from federal statute. That's simply not the case. The states are by and large responsible for their own legislation.

I don't know about the tinting limit percentage in PA (whether there is one or not), but it doesn't appear that what your wife was cited with had ANYTHING to do specifically about the numerical percentage value of her tint. Therefore, the argument about FMVS205 isn't really relevant. Your wife wasn't charged with a violation of FMVS205. She was charged with PA Code 175.67(d)(4). This code reads:

"(4) A sun screening device or other material which does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by FMVSS No. 205, or a certificate of exemption has been issued in compliance with § 175.265 (relating to exemption provisions)."

Again, does your wife's 5% tint on the back somehow fit in with FMVSS205? If so, please paste the section that exempts her. Again, she was not cited because her tint % was below some acceptable level. She was cited because 5% tint does NOT by definition allow view of the inside of the vehicle! Whether you want to argue that point or not is something to do in court. I would bet that just about any judge with knowledge of tint would side with the officer when they testify that he was unable to see into your wife's 5% rear window.

Did you understand what I wrote in here... Even my good friend who is a PA State Tropper for 18 years said that this a bogus ticket and the "smoothoperator" code that was placed in the "special activities" section of the citation, is just a ploy to generate revenue. As he stated...Pull anyone and everyone over that YOU think is in violation of the law....

Whether or not the Smooth Operator campaign is a revenue generator, I can't say. I don't work in PA. What I would imagine it is is some sort of zero tolerance campaign, much like Click It or Ticket. Just because cops are assigned to a zero tolerance campaign does not automatically make them liars or cheats. Is writing a tint ticket chickensh*t? I would probably say so. I've never written for it unless I bundled it with something else on a jailable offense. Does that mean the cop should be considered an as*hole for writing it? Perhaps. Is he crooked? Hell no. If it's a law on the books, you're subject to it. Most people know that they're asking for it getting 5% tint on the rear window because, are you ready? IT'S AGAINST THE LAW, whether it be for the percentage level (like most states) or because the law says it's prohibited to have tint that you can't see into (as PA does.). And maybe the cop's brass has told him not to contact out of state plates for tint, but unless it's LAW (which it isn't), he is legally justified to do so.

But as the website stated, He had no probable cause. I'll repeat it again and listen closely 121! My wife was driving on the right hand lane, NOT speeding and the trooper was sitting in the median facing towards the oncoming traffic when she passed him..... Facing the oncoming traffic!..You have to be blind not to see the driver of any vehicle coming towards you or passing you. She wasn't speeding and I appreciate your statement that having the windows tinted was all trooper needed to pull up behind her.

The law doesn't say when. So what if he can see her through the front windshield. If he can't see through the back, then it's illegal!

First off, if you really want to get into this, an officer does NOT need probable cause to stop a vehicle. He needs reasonable, articulable suspicion that a violation is being committed. He needs probable cause, however, to charge the suspect. But back to PC, how can you not say that he did not have probable cause? A law/code/administrative directive, on the PA books, says it is illegal to have tinting on your windows that prohibit from someone from seeing inside! Your wife has limo tint, the purpose of which is to prevent outside observation of the vehicle cabin!

Oh I will be fighting this citation and I will try my hardest to beat it...with a little help of my State trooper friend.

So there's your today's law lesson!

Might I suggest hiring a lawyer? The first thing he would tell you is to request a suppression hearing. You don't argue the officer's probable cause at arraignment or trial. You request a suppression hearing in order to dispute the officer's legality of contact.

BTW,..I thought you were done on this thread. Why don't you post something more useful that we can all benefit from like installing a super charger on a VQ35 instead of hanging out here and posting snide comments that people.

I did say I was done. Then I later said I would continue to address additional posts. Honestly, I'm here to learn about my new car, as I don't know a lot about it yet. Something I do know a lot about, however, is fourth amendment search and seizure law, and the goodness of the vast majority of cops out there.

Snide comments that bash people? You mean comments that bash people here? In one post, you've called me a "BIG SOB", a "BIGGER AS*HOLE", and a "moron." Oh well, so what you're saying is that "bashing" people here is bad (which I don't think I've actually done), but "bashing" some poor cop who isn't here to defend his actions--one that didn't do anything outwardly that would imply he's corrupt or inept--is ok? Should I just wait then until I know you won't be here to "bash" you?

[TheBourneAltimatum]

^i would love to read what you said bro. but i am sorry i just dont speak "121traffiic" ’ and this “F*ck just doesnt make sense to me

EDIT: never mind, i guess my browser displayed weird **** for a while carry on....

[121traffic]

And for the record, I'm extremely pro-military and appreciate your service, dangeris. In fact, if I know you were prior service, I'd most likely cut you a break. Some here would consider that unethical (just like cutting other cops breaks), but I'd do it anyway.

[AZhitman]

From I can tell you are the one "boo-hooin" with this cry-baby post....

Couldn't be the influence of poor choices made in life causing you to misinterpret what I posted, could it? Or do you just not read very well?

Gee, big surprise that the "420" fan has a problem with law enforcement... Couldn't have seen THAT one coming, lol...

[AZhitman]

Your wife wasn't charged with a violation of FMVS205. She was charged with PA Code 175.67(d)(4). This code reads:

"(4) A sun screening device or other material which does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by FMVSS No. 205, or a certificate of exemption has been issued in compliance with § 175.265 (relating to exemption provisions)."

Might I suggest hiring a lawyer? The first thing he would tell you is to request a suppression hearing. You don't argue the officer's probable cause at arraignment or trial. You request a suppression hearing in order to dispute the officer's legality of contact.

...and he's STILL willing to help out with a little "insider advice"....

dangeris, might wanna re-think the name-calling, looks like ya might even owe this guy a "thanks".

[Hussain]

everyone has there own opinion and i know i'll probably be flamed for saying this but i personally feel that it's wrong for them to take someones car (if they turn it into a cop car or not). the way i feel is that it's NOT there car and doing that is stilling someones car.... now i know everyone is going to say what if they were racing and could have killed people etc. i say fine the **** out of them and revoke there license, revoke registration and have the car permanently banned from the road. the only illegal modifications on off-road vehicles is stolen stuff. you wouldn't see those same cars on the roads racing again. stilling someones car is wrong in my opinion, doesn't matter if they were racing or not.

i have also seen cops abuse there power. now i'm NOT saying all cops are like this, i've meet very honest cops that would never do this and i like most of the cops in my area but there are cops that are bad. as for the burglary, many cops don't take it seriously in sacramento. when my dad had his computer store robbed on several occasions, the cops that showed up didn't give a ****. or when my friend's store got robbed and he got the people on tape and told the cops he even knows where they live and can show them. the cops said said there would have to be an investigation and didn't even take the tape (just blew the guy off). there ARE good cops and the cops in this forum seem honest BUT not all cops are good. saying all cops are good is like saying all arabs are terrorists. now we all know there are arab terrorists and we all know there are good cops. i'm arab and i'm not a terrorlst. and i'm sure there are many cops that are not good as well (like the ones that caused the LA riots before)

[dangeris]

...and he's STILL willing to help out with a little "insider advice"....

dangeris, might wanna re-think the name-calling, looks like ya might even owe this guy a "thanks".

You're right Hitman. I do owe 121 an apology!

Hey 121,...I'm sorry. After re-reading my post I did personally attacked you and for that I'm sorry! I think with the call from my wife and telling me of what had happened compounded with your last remark of Johhny Law pushed me over the edge.

What I should have done is taken your insight on the situation and used it as advice. Instead, I took it a a personal attack on me . Sorry Buddy.

I am usually an easy going guy who is always eager to lend a helping hand to others. I know you are on this forum to learn about your new car and believe, there is a plethora of knowledge here!

BTW..Thanks for the tip on the suppression hearing too