I would just call a local traffic ticket lawyer / defender and get a free consultation. If 35% all around is legal in your state and you had it professionally done, get proof of that and you should be good.

Also, if MB installed your tint for you - have them deal with it. They aren't supposed to do any 'illegal' modifications to the car. Imagine a corporate lawyer showing up to a municipal court for a tinting ticket lol they'd probably ask 'em for an autograph

 

My understanding is that if a tint is 35% then that means only 35% of light goes through. So the lower the number, the darker the tint is. In that respect the officer is correct is saying that if the reading is 31% then 69% of the light is blocked. Maybe the law in your state requires 35% and not 31%. The only potential way you can challenge this is ask for proof when the meter uses was last calibrited.

 

My understand is that if a tint is 35% then that means only 35% of light goes through. So the lower the number, the darker the tint is. So the officer is correct is saying that if the reading is 31% then 69% of the light is blocked. So in that respect maybe the law in your state requires 35% and not 31%. The only potential way you can challenge this is ask for proof when the meter uses was last calibrited.

Oh I intend to ask the following:
1) was the officer certified in the use of the device?
2) when was it last calibrated?
3) how was the ambient light at the time? (it was cloudy in the morning)
4) did he ask if my window was dirty or had any sort of grime on it before using the device?

I think that would establish some doubt... especially the last one.

 

First, and I'm sure you know this, but a 35% tint means that you are allowing only 35% of the light through the window. So, a reading of a 31 would suggest that you've tinted your windows to allow 31% of "light transmittance" -- or that your windows are 69% darker than untinted glass.

Second, take a look at this off of the Illinois General Assembly's website: Illinois General Assembly - Illinois Compiled Statutes

I excerpted a portion of the law for you but you might want to read through more of it on your own just to familiarize yourself with it:

(625 ILCS 5/12-503) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 12-503)
Sec. 12-503. Windshields must be unobstructed and equipped with wipers.
(a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle with any sign, poster, window application, reflective material, nonreflective material or tinted film upon the front windshield, except that a nonreflective tinted film may be used along the uppermost portion of the windshield if such material does not extend more than 6 inches down from the top of the windshield.
(a-5) No window treatment or tinting shall be applied to the windows immediately adjacent to each side of the driver, except:
(1) On vehicles where none of the windows to the rear of the driver's seat are treated in a manner that allows less than 30% light transmittance, a nonreflective tinted film that allows at least 50% light transmittance, with a 5% variance observed by any law enforcement official metering the light transmittance, may be used on the vehicle windows immediately adjacent to each side of the driver.
(2) On vehicles where none of the windows to the rear of the driver's seat are treated in a manner that allows less than 35% light transmittance, a nonreflective tinted film that allows at least 35% light transmittance, with a 5% variance observed by any law enforcement official metering the light transmittance, may be used on the vehicle windows immediately adjacent to each side of the driver.

So, it looks like what you're allowed to do is, in part, based on the tinting of the rear windows. If the rear windows also revealed a 31% light transmittance rating, you should be allowed a 35% tint on the front (with a 5% variance). My understanding is that our windows (stock) have a 5% tint on them -- don't take my word on this though, it's only what I've read online. Assuming that's true though, if you add a 35% tint you're effectively creating something darker when you layer a 35% tint over a 5% tint. I'm guessing that's how you got down to "31" but if the law allows for a 5% variance, you are arguably within that variance. What window did the officer use to get his 31 rating? Keep in mind that many cars leave the factory with a darker tint on the rear windows.

Third, and most importantly, this is not legal advice. You might also want to call a local Illinois lawyer to see if you've got a defensible position but, on its face, it certainly seems like you might have the building blocks for something. A local lawyer should also be able to guide you on what to do with the tint pending your trial date. How far off is that date?

Good luck with everything and let us know how things turn out.

-Eric

 

The meter they used: Laser Labs Window Tint Meter w/ Case M100

I notice looking at the picture that the reading "31" that I saw was Total Light Transmitted. Which means that in fact yes it falls within the 35% (+/- 5%) light transmittance. Also in both cases #1 and #2 of the statute the level of tint on the front windows that is allowed is governed by the level of tint from the rear windows. BUT the cop never checked the rear windows. He only checked the driver side front window.

Like I said I did 35% all around... so that plus the built in tint on the glass itself makes me think the meter is reading correctly. And it's measuring "Light Transmittance".

The court date is in less than a month and I'm not sure if I want to spend the money on a lawyer. I will stop by a local shop that I know and ask what they think (unofficially). But based on how I'm reading the statute it looks like I have a case.

 

IF I were you I would track down an other cop and ask them to do a reading off the clock. Im sure if you explain your situation he would be glad to offer you assistance and get a real answer to your question.

 

Good luck finding an officer who is willing to give you an "off the clock" reading they'd put their name on for you to use against another officer. I'm not sure I'd go this route unless the officer is willing to testify for you.

-Eric

 

For operation you have to wipe clean both sides of glass. This is mine at 20%

Standard auto glass with no film applied

They come calibrated out of the box, to check it's accuracy you use the two slides provided

and the readout is the light that is transmitted

 

Thanks a lot for that. I'm ok with the 31 reading on my glass. I'm just questioning their call saying it's illegal especially since they didn't check the rear windows so they don't know if I fall into the #1 or #2 category as the statute shows...

(a-5) No window treatment or tinting shall be applied to the windows immediately adjacent to each side of the driver, except:
(1) On vehicles where none of the windows to the rear of the driver's seat are treated in a manner that allows less than 30% light transmittance, a nonreflective tinted film that allows at least 50% light transmittance, with a 5% variance observed by any law enforcement official metering the light transmittance, may be used on the vehicle windows immediately adjacent to each side of the driver.
(2) On vehicles where none of the windows to the rear of the driver's seat are treated in a manner that allows less than 35% light transmittance, a nonreflective tinted film that allows at least 35% light transmittance, with a 5% variance observed by any law enforcement official metering the light transmittance, may be used on the vehicle windows immediately adjacent to each side of the driver.

My rear windows will likely show close to 30 light transmittance as well which puts me on category #2. Which should allow 35% light transmittance up front. Thereby 35% all around that I have should be within legal limits.

But since the cop never measured my rear windows my case is that he can't make the call whether my fronts at 31% light transmittance is illegal.

 

What is the penalty in Illinois? Is it a fixit ticket or just a fine?

We have similar tint laws in Iowa, both my wife and I have had tinted windows since early 2000's and only I have had one ticket. I just paid the ticket and went on with life. it was $65 at the time and another $65 for no front license plate. Small price to pay for 1 ticket in 15 years of having tint and no plates up front.

However in Michigan (mid 90's), when I got a tint ticket there, it was a fixit ticket where I had to prove to a patrolman that my tint was removed and they even dismissed the ticket.

Personally, I don't like the tint laws, but I totally understand the officer's point of view, walking up to a car and not being able to see what the passengers in the car are doing would be scary. I'd like to see the law changed to allow tint, but if you're ever pulled over for any reason or an officer is approaching your vehicle, you must drop all tinted windows. Recently been to Vegas and everything is tinted due to the heat and sun they have out there... non-tinted cars are rare.... If they can make it work, surely the rest of the states can, just help out the guys in blue and drop our windows.

 

It's a fix it ticket. and I need to provide proof. My argument though is why should I fix it if it's legal?

 

Well you can go to court. If they find you guilty then you will then get a point on your driving record, the fine will be higher and your insurance will go up. Or since you are on the boarder of being illegal or legal (1) in that variance you could just remove it show the court it was removed and the ticket is dismissed.

Guess it depends on if you are a gambling person.

 

....... put my tint on back in 2014 and I had 35 all around (rear, back and front side windows).
...Any help with this would be greatly appreciated....

.....................

1) You had a professional installation by a Illinois Licensed Shop. Correct?
2) Have you paid them a visit to discuss the Ticket?
3) Is this a State Of Illinois v. Callahan case, or are you dealing with another entity?
:mblogoblack:

 

In MA, the safe way is to have the car tinted by a shop, then you save the receipt. if a police officer pulls you over and complains you show the receipt and then it's the shop who has to replace the tint to complain MA laws.

D.

 

Show the receipt to whom? The officer? An officer isn't going to give a rat's big butt about any receipts you pull from your glove compartment. Unless there's some obscure law on MA's books, they're going to hand you a ticket and say, "tell it to the judge." I'm from Missouri. Please show me the law in MA that allows an operator of a vehicle to drive away without a fine just by producing a "receipt."

-Eric

 

Unfortunately no I had it done unofficially. so no receipt.

 

Unfortunately no I had it done unofficially....

..................

Is it possible for you to have a licensed shop give you a Time Frame + Written Estimate on what it will cost to "Repair And To Make You Legal?"

Are you going to Defend against the State, as far as you know?

:mblogoblack:

 

You mentioned that you felt you were within the law due the +/- 5%. You or someone else mentioned Las Vegas. My point would be would the court uphold a citation if a visitor from Las Vegas, that had 20% windows, or even less light transmission, were to be driving through Chicago. Does Illinois law allow darker tint for Limos and if so why? Is it for the protection of the officer that approaches the vehicle or is the darker limo tint to protect the privacy of the occupants? Either way it then becomes selective, capricious, arbitrary and ambiguous enforcement. I would then remind the judge you were within the 5% variance, THERE IS A REASONABLE DOUBT SINCE THE OFFICER DID NOT CLEAN THE WINDOW BEFORE INSPECTION, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY MENTION THERE WAS NO INTENT ON YOUR PART TO VIOLATE THE LAW. I WOULD OBTAIN A SAMPLE OF THE 35% TINT THAT YOU USED, SHOW THE DOCUMENTATION FOR THE 35%, AND AGAIN PLEAD THERE WAS NO INTENT ON YOUR PART TO VIOLATE THE LAW, HENCE NO CULPABILITY. I WOULD TELL THE JUDGE YOU MADE A REASONABLE GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW. THAT WORDING IS IMPORTANT. GOOD LUCK. In many instances such as this the judge really does not want to penalize someone for something so insignificant and is looking for an excuse to politely dismiss the case. When you use words such as reasonable, good faith effort, reasonable doubt, etc you are giving him the words he is looking for. good luck.

 

Unfortunately vehicle code violations are specific intent crimes

 

That is my point. If there is no intent there is less culpability.

There are four types of culpability which apply to different laws. First is criminally or intentionally, which you did not. Second is knowingly, which again you did not. You made a good faith effort to comply with the law and can show that you thought you had applied 35% tinting. Third is recklessly which you certainly did not and finally, the fourth is negligently, which again you did not. You did not display a reckless or negligent disregard for the law. You acted in good faith. Those are the key words to emphasize to the judge. Be very polite and emphasize that you acted reasonably. Again, that is a key word. Tell the judge you could have installed a darker tint but did not so as to comply with the law. There was no intent and therefore no culpability.

 

That is like saying the cruise control didn't slow the car properly while going down the hill so I didn't mean to speed.

Although you are correct and there is a possibility that the citation will be dismissed the consequences if it is not dismissed out weigh removing the tint, having the citation signed and dismissed and then re-applying tint that conforms with the code.

Now that he is aware that the tiny does not comply your defense would not work a 2nd time and the judge may ask. "So now that you understand that the tint is not legal what have you done to correct the situation. ". When he replies nothing then he has now willfully disobeyed the law.

I am sure that if you read the citation it states on the back that mechanical violations are to be corrected immediately.

It is pretty simple to have the citation dismissed with no fine or conviction simply correct the situation. Then re tint lighter so you are in full compliance with the code

 

@Gerryb

Gerry, the issue in this particular instance, is that the OP does not believe his tint needs correction. Rather, he believes his tint is fully compliant with Illinois law. So, while the citation may require him to remove the tint immediately (under the assumption the tint is unlawful), the OP is arguing that the assumption is incorrect and, understandably, he does not want to incur the cost of removing something that is lawful in the first place. Whether or not he should remove the tint or not pending the hearing is a separate issue. I would call the courthouse to see whether or not this is something you can correct prior to the hearing. In some jurisdictions, issues like this can be corrected without the need for judge intervention.

Last year, I received a parking ticket from a meter maid while I was waiting in line at the parking lot's central meter to enter my spot number and submit payment. The court had a process whereby I could have contested the ticket through the court's administrative office based on the clear mistake. Whether that's possible in this case, I don't know, but it's certainly worth inquiring about on the basis that the law allows for a 5% deviation and the officer's reading of 31 was arguably within that threshold....assuming the maximum tint permitted under law is 35%. If he's not contesting the validity of the reading and merely suggesting that the ticket was drawn in error, it's possible they might allow for this issue to be corrected without wasting the court's time....or not. Again, never hurts to ask.

-Eric

 

This is correct. I'm not arguing the reading. My contention is that the ticket was written in error and I will state that in court that I did not have any intentions to install tint that is out of compliance with state law.

 

Yes I do agree that he is most likely within the tolerance (having not looked up the state statute). I am sure he can go in and contest the citation and not be penalized until a judge hears the evidence and renders his decision.

My point is....

If he goes to court there is the possibility that he is found guilty. Then because it has not been corrected fines are incurred, driving record points are accessed and j durance rates will most likely increase.

If he simply removes the tint and has the citation signed off it will be dismissed and no penalties incurred. The cost to remove and replace the tint would be approximately $50.

My point is the ramifications and costs if he is not successful are much greater (including his time spent in court) than just removing it and replacing it.

But heck if you are right you are right so he may himself feel more comfortable going to court and presenting is case.

I would however make sure that the vehicle code has a variance clause in it. In my state I have yet to see any law that say "not to be xxx but ok if within x% of the indicated xxx". Most of the time the variance is what the officers use as a rule of thumb. (Like not citing if within 5 mph of speed limit ).

I have seen several people go to court and say they were only going 68 in the 65 zone and they don't feel they should have been cited . The judges found them guilty because by their own testimony they exceeded the state maximum speed.

Can the op cite the actual vehicle code section he was cited???

 

Yes I have this concern that if I don't fix it by the time of my court date in order to argue my case I may be assessed the fine, points, insurance increase, and have to end up removing it anyways... I will talk to a local tint shop and ask them what they think if I have a solid enough case or just remove it.

They didn't post the specific statute, the ticket just states 'illegal tint 69%'. I just googled IL tint laws and I'm going based on that...

 

Ok just looked up the statute.

The 5% variance is only for "multi purpose passenger vehicles". And factory applied tint.

As defined by 625 ilcs 5/1-148.3b

A motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less that is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off road operation.

I don't think the CLA falls into the above definition.

 

Ok just looked up the statute.

The 5% variance is only for "multi purpose passenger vehicles". And factory applied tint.

As defined by 625 ilcs 5/1-148.3b............

.........................
Gerry,
Not sure if you are commenting on my last message (01:27PM), or some other post.
Chicago, and some of its suburbs have Different Laws, which must be followed and are more strict than the State of Illinois, as I point out below.
That may be what Clallan has to deal with. I am confident that he will clarify when he can.
:mblogoblack:

 

It is only an equipment violation and dismissed if the violation corrected. "Fix-it-ticket". You can always choose to pay the fine and not fix the mechanical violation. It this is the choice then the points and fines are accessed.

 

Thanks all for the awesome feedback has given me a lot to go with... I'll keep you all informed as things progress.

 

PS- Just in case...............if you don't remove the tint before court..............then don't drive the car to court. A certain someone might be watching for you to leave and tag you again.

BTW- and I forgot to ask, was there an underlying charge or reason for stopping you? IN some states police can only issue a citation for tint type violations if they have stopped you for some other reason. You may wish to explore that also. In other words there has to be a reason for stopping you to explore further or to further investigate. In some states police cannot stop you just because they suspect the tint might be illegal. Again, I would check further to see if that is the issue in Illinois. And, again, good luck!

 

I've been stopped before for a seat belt violation without any other reason besides that. It's just a sad fact of life when you live in The People's Republic of Illinois.

 

This was near my kids school and earlier in the week there was an alert of an attempted luring of a student by someone to their car. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they're being extra vigilant because of that... I'd like to think that's their reason.

 

State Seat Belt Laws

Apparently Illinois is one of the states in which you can be pulled over for a seat belt only violation.

 

Gotta' love New Hampshire - Only state in the Union without a seat belt law for anyone over 18!

I really miss the days when we used to tell the Federal Gvmt. to "F"-off!

Live Free or Die!

 

Amazed that the Feds didn't cut off the federal highway funds for non compliance.