Is this a good defense to a window tint ticket?

You seem to be attempting to argue that states should not have the authority to regulate anything about cars. This is not, in fact, how it works. California, for example, has different emissions standards than the rest of the country. So, scratch that one.

As for the right to privacy extending to window tint...well...you can't really be serious. It's a very silly argument that super-dark window tint is a deterrent to crime. Tee hee.

This is what the judge is going to say:

1. It does not infringe upon the Federal Government's exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce because there's no rule that says you cannot import a car from Texas -- it simply says you cannot have window tint, so your choices are (a) leave the car in Texas, or (b) have the tint removed.

2. How does it violate your right to due process? You get your day in court, so how have you been legally harmed?

3. Where's your proof that the law is being arbitrarily enforced? That burden is on YOU. The officer writing the ticket does not have a burden to show that he is not arbitrarily enforcing the tint law.

4. The expectation of privacy argument is a non-sequitur. Katz v. United States deals with wiretapping and therefore does not apply equivocally. The court found that a person who goes into an enclosed phone booth and closes the door has a reasonable expectation of privacy as to his/her conversation, but nothing else. If Katz had been observed smoking a joint in the phone booth, he would not be able to claim reasonable expectation of privacy. The law allows for searching a person's home with a warrant, or by "plain view," and under exigent circumstances. Similarly, the "plain view" rule applies to vehicles, which may also be searched if the police have probable cause of a crime and may also be searched under exigent circumstances.

5. Your argument that window tint should be used as a deterrent to theft is also a non-sequitur because (a) there is no proof that window tint is a deterrent to theft, and (b) more importantly, window tint has been shown to limit visibility, which makes the presence of window tint a safety issue.

6. When you get a drivers license, the fine print says you agree to abide by all the rules and regulations of any jurisdiction in which you operate a motor vehicle. Doesn't matter in which state the drivers license was issued -- you have a responsibility to obey state, county, and local law wherever you're driving, and ignorance is no excuse.

7. Most states will issue you a "fix it" ticket for the lack of proof of insurance. If you go in to the police precinct within ten business days and show them proof of insurance, they'll tear the ticket up. Regardless, the law requires you to have proof of insurance on your person or in your car at all times when operating a motor vehicle.

BOTTOM LINE: The only thing the judge is going to care about is whether you actually committed the alleged offenses, and I can chisel it in stone for you that he's going to take the word of a police officer over yours. And as you can already see, your attempts at legal maneuvering are going to get shot down. The end result is you'll not only end up paying all three tickets, you'll end up paying additional court costs as well.

I tend to think the officer could make a safety inspection, however, I also tend to think that you did not violate the law. What code section were you cited for? If it was VC 26708(a)(2), that statute prohibits driving a vehicle with anything affixed to the window which obstructs or reduces the driver's clear view through the side windows. However, if the window is rolled down, the driver's view is not obstructed. I think it is at least arguable that this statute was not violated. Probably won't do you much good, though, since your big problem is the speeding ticket, and you probably want to drive with the window rolled up sometime, so you might as well have legal windows put in now.

other states dont care about what other states laws are. the rule of thumb is that you follow the laws of the state you are in even if you are visiting.

its not a good defense.

edit: your comparing marriage to a traffic ticket? come on. do you really think you will get away with this? dont call me out unless you have a valid response.

Pay the fine. When you're in public you have no expectation of privacy. The tint can also be used to hide things that are illegal. Your logic isn't logical.

At traffic intersections, being able to make eye contact with other drivers is useful.

At traffic stops, an officer's ability to see into your car might keep you from being ordered out at gunpoint.

It will be hard because you will be fighting state law. They won't care what the law is in other states. However, you have a good case. I'd say go for it. What do you have to lose?

You certainly have the chance but you might have to take it up the food chain. As far as I'm concerned, you are right. As long as you can see through your windows, it shouldn't matter if someone else can see into the car.

Liberty is wasted on many.

lp