WHAT YOU ARE POSTING IS A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT, NOT A TECHNICAL ARTICLE
Just because you read on some website that the statute says “or” when you and the internet tint brigade think it should say “and” doesn’t mean you are getting away with anything. The law is not read and interpreted in the way that you suggest, EVER. Spend a few years reading judicial opinions and you will realize why the shit you are saying is about as fucking stupid as it gets.
Most of your post doesn’t make sense in its own right, but let’s go just half a step further and look at what you’re saying about Table X, since that seems to be a focal point. The regulation, 67 Pa. Code 175.67(d)(4), directly references Table X. Let’s read that again, but slow it down. The regulation - that’s what PennDOT promulgates as an administrative agency authorized to promulgate EXACTLY that type of regulation - directly - that means, unlike most of what you’re saying, it is both clear and explicit, instead of fucking convoluted and only implicit for retards - references Table X, which is PennDOT’s administrative clarification of the standards as they are stated in the regulation. You’re right that the idea of some person “not able to see” inside your vehicle is vague, so you know what? Those wily motherfuckers went and DEFINED THAT FOR YOU, YOU STUPID FUCKING TEST TUBE BABY.
While we’re here, let me quote the reference for you, because it is kind of confusing language and I can see how you would miss it: 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…See Table X for specific requirements for vehicles subject to this subchapter.
There are plenty of decisions that contradict most if not all of what you’re saying in your post, but I’ll quote just one on the probable cause of a traffic stop (specifically related to tinted windows, no less) that’s recent, from the Federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (which includes PA): U.S. v. Leal, 235 Fed.Appx. 937 (PA 2007): Leal’s first argument that Trooper Volk did not have probable cause to stop his vehicle is frivolous. Volk testified credibly that he stopped Leal because the windows on Leal’s car were heavily tinted and appeared to be in violation of a provision of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code that prohibits excessive window tint. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 4524(e)(1). A law enforcement officer’s good faith decision to stop a car is “reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.” Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). See, e.g., Holeman v. City of New London, 425 F.3d 184, 190 (2d Cir.2005) (holding that tinted windows alone would justify a police officer’s stop if the window tint was so dark that an officer, acting reasonably, would have suspected there was a traffic violation). If you look into it, you will also find that Leal appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied cert for the case.
I like how the second piece of advice is “roll down your windows.” Thanks for the inside tip you ingenious mother fucker.