he is very lawful indeed.
People shouldn’t post technical articles unless they actually know what they are talking about. Spreading misinformation is far worse than providing no information at all.
really though…try to tell that nonsense to the judge after you try to fight the ticket in court. I gaurantee you loose
+1 for a hilarious and through reply.
+1 for using the word promulgate
-1 for MISUSING the word promulgate
+1 for bashing up on these tint idiots
Net score: +2
Good job!
i can remember a time when pancho and i were pulled over in the monte with 35% and five on the doors. the state cop was shittin bricks, he came up with the excuse that we didnt have a turnsignal on and pulled us over. now come on, we all know the stereotypical drug runner drives a black on black g body. soo of course the cop was shitting in tall cotton when he thought he scored a bust. but to his surprise it was just two 18yr old kids a wrench and screwdriver and some sweatshirts in the back seat. so when he asked if we had any narcotics or anything to be worried about we got off scott-free except for the tint ticket.
no im sorry. no tint ticket i recall. sorry, my brains kinda dead. the windows were down i think it was t-tops weather. i dunno. this has no relevence any more haha
good story!
Pitt Undergrad Degree $13K per year
Pitt Law School Degree $24K per year
caleb dropping knowledge on someone regarding laws… PRICELESS!!
The stick figure illustration still makes me chuckle.
Let’s see it again…
I spy: a naked lady getting stabbed, a tree/bush thing, a Village People cop stopping 4 homies in a Chrysler K-Car all complete with mulletts, a blue K-Car cop car running over a HUGE paper, The homies K-Car pulling a big flat trailer, a sad officer in the top corner with a handgun, and a whole bunch of suckaz having a gang-bang in front of a flat row of businesses (including a crack house).
That is alot of information… Although he did take details into account… The X-Rated store doesn’t have windows… lolz
Wow… this shit is recockulous. I cant wait til you get a ticket for your window tint and you roll up into the District Court, thinkin you are all witty… Then the judge shits on your head and embarrasses you in front of the whole court room when you bring in the print out from your out dated vehicle code, that you dont know how to interpret along with that crime scene sketch. After listening to your asinine story, He then holds the tint ticket. And being as embarrassed as you are, you might mumble something under your breath like “fuckin dick”… Although you may have easily gotten away with this in high school, you just really pissed the judge off and are now in hand cuffs infront if the entire court… lol Thats gonna be great, wish I could be there.
And Im sure you didnt come up with this yourself, you probably just cut and pasted it from one of those gay neon boards.
info and picture was picked from different sites
"I like how the second piece of advice is “roll down your windows.” Thanks for the inside tip you ingenious mother fucker. "
-Hahaha funny shit.
Heard about a guy that got a written warning for tint. He was minding his business going 60mph with traffic and the officer pulled him over just to issue a warning. Guy said he saw at least 3 other cars tinted more heavily than his pass by while warning was being written.
Ok… so if tinit is illegal, then he should be happy that he got away with a warning.
Have you ever gone fishing? How many fish can you catch with one hook?
Does fishing with hand grenades count as one hook? :burnout:
Cliff’s at bottom…
Im gonna have to kick the dead horse here and dig this back up. Officer White in Ross is on a rampage again as well as a ton of other shit hole areas that have nothing better to do and even state troopers are taking the time to flag people JUST for tint. Im all for following the law and accepting my punishment if I get caught(which I haven’t been bothered yet bc I have a SUV and my fronts are usually down) but the wording of all this law and code and what not is confusing.
As stated in the first post, 4524 (e)1, updated last on 07/01/09 from the DMV’s website states: “No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sun screening device or other material which does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle through the windshield, side wing or side window of the vehicle.”
So from that it would be my understanding that the rear window(s) have no limitations correct? The word rear, or back isn’t even mentioned.
Now comes some PAcode 175.67 Glazing regulations. (D)4 states: “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). See Table X for specific requirements for vehicles subject to this subchapter. Passenger car requirements relating to the rear window are delineated by vehicle model year in Table X.”
This seems to be what the cops are throwing around, my friend got a ticket and requested information about this law and he was handed 2 sheets from the Ross police. On those sheets were “TABLE X” and PAcode175.67 (D)4 was highlighted. On the other sheet was an article from www.attorneygeneral.gov talking about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards(FMVSS).
Now lets look at what the FMVSS says.
Source www.attorneygeneral.gov/consumers.aspx?id=295
(1)“Any side wing or any side window must allow at least 70% of transmitted light to pass through the window, or an amount of light greater than or equal to the window’s light transmittance percentage at the time of manufacture.”
(2)“The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards prohibit tinting of passenger vehicle windshields and front windows where light transmittance is reduced below 70%, just as in Pennsylvania.”
SO if the FMVSS only regulate the windshield, and front windows, then it has no regulations for the rear windows or else it would be stated. Which brings us back to the PAcode 175.67(D)4 “unless otherwise permitted by FMVSS No. 205” So then table X should NOT apply. Or even so, it should ONLY apply to the front windows, because the FMVSS doesn’t prohibit or regulate tint on the rear. Right?
Im not a lawyer, I didn’t go to law school, I didn’t pull any of this info off some cry babies page because he got a ticket. This is all from the DMV site and the sheets that the police handed my friend. I just think its unfair that this is so widely misconstrued among people and actual POLICE. I have family in the force, as well as a TON of friends who are city cops, and state troopers, all who say the rear(s) are legal as far as they know. And why can’t all these “codes” and “regulations” get on the same page. I mean the DMV’s site and vehicle code wordage should be changed if it is actually the law then you know?
I’ll be going to the Ross station today with my friend (who already removed the tint bc of the $500!!! ticket) to bring this to their attention just to hear what they have to say. I know it wont get me anywhere and they wont stop what they’re doing but maybe they can point something out that Im missing.
Bring on your thoughts.
Cliffs…
4524(e)1 says rear tint is legal, being that it only states front.
PAcode175.67 says bla bla no tint UNLESS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY THE FMVSS 205
FMVSS (per sheet from ROSS police and attorneygeneral.gov) says 70% must pass through windshield and front. Does NOT mention rear at ALL. Which should mean 175.67 shouldn’t apply because the FMVSS permits rear tint.
Fronts are regulated to 70%, rears are not. I dont see how this is confusing and how the police are getting away with this.
officer white sucks
not as much as officer black
Talked to a cop in Ross, he didn’t have to much to say in terms of clarifying anything for me. He was decent about it and talked everything over with me and tried to see where I was coming from. He paused a few times in confusion and then said, “ya it is kinda unclear but table X is what we are told to enforce.”
Idk, hopefully I dont get nailed in my truck bc I dont feel like dealing with the hassle.
they were told to enforce table X but “table X” is not a law…
I love this, I was told that once before too. he pulled me over and we hassled back and forth because he handed me the sheet and said " this is the law"
BUT… when he wrote the ticket he wrote 4524 ss e1. which technically I would have legal tinting. I got it dropped once in court because of that
