ha ha.. they just want you to be safe.. I needed that humor..

 

If legal limit of light is 30%, and yours was 32, that means you're safe. Higher the #, the lighter the tint.

 

I could be wrong, but I believe it was the degree of tint. The degree of light that has to pass is 70%, and as mine impinged on that by 2% (meaning only 68% of light passed through) I got slapped with the fine.

 

It may not be worth your time.. But if you show up in court just question :

1) their calibration methods,
2) when the meter was last calibrated,
3) what is the accuracy of the meter..
4) Was the office trained on how to use the instrument.. Does he have a certification..

Unless they can answer in court most likely a judge will dismiss.. Most of this kind of BS tickets is based on the fact they can get away with it.. and no one challenges. It costs them more to maintain this kind of equipment than it is worth so they just work off the fact that no one challenges.. and the burden is on law enforcement not you..

You are so close you are less than 10% over which is most likely within the error band of this kind of equipment ( I do optics engineering).. and to even get a valid number it would have to be used under specific controlled conditions...

Not sure I agree with the comments that 32% is transmissive measurement.. I believe it is probably measuring light attenuation through the window.. So higher number indicates higher level of tint.. But when you do that kind of measurement you have to do two, an ambient and a through the glass. And you have to be very careful in the direction as it is easy to get bad measurements if they aren't oriented right. Doubt seriously deputy fife could do the measurement reliably. I've got technicians who do this for a living and can't get repeatable measurements.

 

You misread me. I mean that they want to be safe. They want to be able to see into the car and see who is driving, etc. I make sure to roll down all my windows when I get pulled over to make sure they see all that.

 

Thanks scatkins, this is helpful. I am contemplating showing up in court. First I don't think the officer will, but in addition to this the above makes sense. It was a bright sunny day and we were stopped while many cars were passing (intermittent flickering light from shadows), etc...

 

97c2s993, sorry to hear. I got stopped over the summer at night about 5 minutes from my house and was told that my tints were illegal (I have 35% tint on the side and rear windows). Also within a few days of the end of the month. 4 cops surrounded my car like I was some sort of criminal, and they were extremely rude. Ultimately, and fortunately, I was let go without a ticket after I presented a PBA card that I carry. I guess it's a risk we have to take driving with tints in NYC. Sure makes the car look better, though . . .

 

Oh, yes I did interpret your comment wrong..

 

Good tip. But if they whip out the meter, then I guess it is of no use. I did not know they carry such a meter.

Agree with 1 ticket per window is harsh. It it not like anybody will drive around with only one tinted window! If you drive a sedan, you can get 4 tickets then?

The downside of driving a Porsche. Bet you they won't bother with someone driving a tinted Chevy Cavalier!

 

Yeah I really have a hard time seeing how such a haphazard check using this kind of equipment could stick..

Even the breathalysers, which are extensively used are routinely challenged based on calibration and methods used to sample cause a variety of accuracy problems. I've listened to a DUI attorney that recommend if required, submitting to the portable breathalizer option (in Calif, we can chose which method) as opposed to urine or blood test simply because they were the least reliable and easiest to challenge in court. It just goes back to creating reasonable doubt...

Not advocating irresponsible behavior, it's just that many sensor based instruments aren't nearly as accurate as people think, and when they get used to test hard legal thresholds (i.e. BAC) it is a slippery slope unless accuracy (by the instrument itself and how it is used) is maintained. Doesn't mean that they can't give you a ticket anyway, but how many people take the time to fight it..so it's a good source of revenue.. (not suggesting DUI's are about revenue.. I mean things like fix-it tickets and parking violations..)..

I seem to recall even issues with even getting a speeding conviction years ago when you were within about 10% of the limit since mechanical speedometer accuracy and the combination of tire inflation could easily get you 10 to 15% off. Thus the old rule of thumb staying less than 10mph over the limit usually kept you from getting stopped.. (at least that is what I was taught and seems to have always worked for me)...

I'm pretty supportive of traffic cops, as they have a tough job and deal with so many a-holes.. But writing people up for this kind of thing is pretty chicken...

Hope you take the time to beat it...

 

i am not a fan of tints. i had them when i was younger ,got it out of my system.
i dont want to do anything to attract additional attention and give the police a reason to pull me over. currently my two sons have tints on their cars. i tried to discourage them,they wouldnt listen. my problem with tints has always been this. why are licensed shops who are regulated by local government even allowed to stock and install something that is clearly defined as being illegal in that area? they should be restricted to only sell and install levels that meet local limits. drivers can then get tints, and cops cant get in their face,or their wallet.a clear and more importantly legal compromise,that sounds simple enough.

 

So much of the aftermarket stuff and mods I see for cars in general I'm sure doesn't comply with vehicle laws.. A lot of the bling lighting and attention seeking items ( you know it screams look at me look at me) I see all over cars I know aren't legal..

I think in general law enforcement tends to look the other way most of the time.. Just out of practicality.. But you are always going to be at risk as you make more of a spectacle of yourself and seek attention.. I remember getting hassled with my 69 camero with fat tires that extended just slightly out of the wheel wells.. Cops with their tape measures were common..

But the problem with heavy tints on a car just scream I don't want you to see in.. To a cop A nice but stock 700 series BMW means nothing.. On a blinged out Acura with a gigantic spoiler and thumping base and heavily tinted it means as a cop you are probably going to find interesting things inside...

 

If 70% is legal then there are legal tints. So no reason not to tint and get the IR and UV reduction. Its just a matter of picking the right shade to avoid legal harassment.
A cop wont bother you with 70 since it will be undetectable to his eye. Also back window is legal to go darker. However, I like the back window light to allow seeing cars at a distance via the RVM.

Tint is popular because of how much cooler it keeps the car interior and driver. There is plenty of subjective and objective testing that proves this.

 

I am a little confused... 30% is legal. But you are at 32%. Why did you get the tickets? Also, why two? one for each window?!

In Illinois. You can either do all 4 windows 35% or higher tint or no tint on the front 2, but darker tint in the rear.

 

You helped him meet his ticket quota!