Busted for Illegal Tint Out of State. Need Your Help!

[Barwick]

Why do you think helmet laws are unconstitutional? What provision in the constitution are these laws violating?

You're asking the wrong question, and, no disrespect, but showing a lack of understanding about how the Constitution works, which is unfortunately too prevalent in our society today, hence why we have so many "good idea" laws that government forced upon us, but was never given Constitutional authority to do. I mean, the Constitution doesn't prohibit goverment from writing laws about what types of cheeseburgers people can eat, but it's understood that the government can't tell you "you have to eat only soy burgers" or "it's only all-beef patties for you".

It's not "what part of the Constitution prevents them from doing that"?

The real question citizens need to ask is "What part of the Constitution ALLOWS them to do that?" The US Constitution is an exclusive document, meaning "If the Constitution doesn't say you can do it, then you can't". And it's written in a broad sense, so it covers a wide range of things (such as provide for the national defense, instead of "contract for the construction of firearms, contract for the construction of naval vessels...")

A real good overview is actually on a blog, http://keepusfree.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_keepusfree_archive.html

That's the archive of some of the original posts...

 

[Barwick]

That's the problem... most people don't know when they're placing other people at risk. A line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise people take it to the extreme. If you want to kill yourself, fine. The "government" really doesn't care... but please don't tie up the highway with traffic because your feable carcass is smeared across the road

They've done study after study after study on this, and they've found that except in very rare circumstances (like suicidal people), people will rarely go faster than they can reasonably control their car. And if they are going faster than they can reasonably control their car, it is obvious to everyone around them, and at that point they can be stopped by a police officer. There's some sections of I-75 around here where you could go 140 mph easily, and have zero problems. There's some sections of the same highway where you've got to slow down to 55 to safely navigate.

There's a really good site put together by the National Motorists Association: http://www.motorists.com/issues/speed/dornsife.html

 

[MsM8tress]

Since I posted to this thread, I have been in 4 different states, inquired with the local and state authorities, and basically, we are screwed, pretty much at their mercy. Yup, they can make us jump thru the legal hoops of each state you pass thru. I will keep checking, and searching for concrete laws, but it is all so wishy-washy, that even the authorities aren't sure, they know what they would do, but as far as a solid law, I have not found one yet.

If anyone uncovers anything solid, post it!

Smooches!
MsM8

 

[macboy]

Tint is a sticky subject, because it involves the safety of officers. If the officier cannot see into your vehicle as he approaches it, he doesn't know whether you are reaching for a gun or something.

I live in Ontario, Canada, and tint is legal here (don't know to what %). A friend of mine got busted for illegal tint after being pulled over for speeding, and although he tried to fight it, he still had to pay the fine. Both the ticketting officer and the judge told him the same thing: if you had just rolled down the windows when you were pulled over it wouldn't have been an issue. All that they cared about was whether the officer could see you when approaching the vehicle. In some states, if the officer can't see you as he approaches, you'll be greeted with the business end of his pistol, not his smiling face.

Though it can't help you this time, next time, roll down the windows.

 

[MsM8tress]

Hi Hottie!

Crack your window, please! If I even see a cruiser, first I try not to pass them (had one try to have a slowdown contest..), if they are approaching me or hanging out in the middle, I immediately take action, mash both windows, throw back the sunroof cover, and flip the interior light on...crack the windows, that is childs play!

Things that make ya go....PLEAAAASSSSSEEEEEEEE!!!!!!:

I dont want the cop to think I have a weapon, but shouldn't the cop approach every auto as if the driver had a weapon?

What are the stats of cops getting shot/stabbed/tazed. etc.... from an an auto with tint, BEFORE any interaction has occured vs normal pull overs on vehicles without tint BEFORE interaction has occurred....is it the tint, or the intint?

Vans, Truck beds, Behemith SUVs, oh my!
(ok that was a smart_ comment, but still funny...and true!)

more thoughts but no more time...add yours, pro or con, either way, I dont mind mind expanding...

See Yall

MsM8

 

[Fla02LS]

Hi Hottie!

Crack your window, please! If I even see a cruiser, first I try not to pass them (had one try to have a slowdown contest..), if they are approaching me or hanging out in the middle, I immediately take action, mash both windows, throw back the sunroof cover, and flip the interior light on...crack the windows, that is childs play!

Things that make ya go....PLEAAAASSSSSEEEEEEEE!!!!!!:

I dont want the cop to think I have a weapon, but shouldn't the cop approach every auto as if the driver had a weapon?

What are the stats of cops getting shot/stabbed/tazed. etc.... from an an auto with tint, BEFORE any interaction has occured vs normal pull overs on vehicles without tint BEFORE interaction has occurred....is it the tint, or the intint?

Vans, Truck beds, Behemith SUVs, oh my!
(ok that was a smart_ comment, but still funny...and true!)

more thoughts but no more time...add yours, pro or con, either way, I dont mind mind expanding...

See Yall

MsM8

Wow...are you actually siding with the police???? Werent you the one blasting them for the way you have been treated in the past? Have you seen the light.

 

[brentalan]

She has had bad experiences with cops in the past but she is a smart girl and she knows the police are there to protect us and that all of them are not bad. Her advice is good - for both the police and the driver.

 

[MsM8tress]

Wow...are you actually siding with the police???? Werent you the one blasting them for the way you have been treated in the past? Have you seen the light.

lolololol....breath....lolololhahahhhahahahlololol...gasp gasp....lolololol tearing up.. bawling......lolololololololol hehhehhehee..... pant..gasp; breathe.....lolol...

Your soooo cute...

Smooches

Debi

 

[MsM8tress]

She has had bad experiences with cops in the past but she is a smart girl and she knows the police are there to protect us and that all of them are not bad. Her advice is good - for both the police and the driver.

My goodness, I am totally flattered! Brent has been in the passenger seat while I drove, and also put me in it, I must tell ya Hotties, Brent is an awesome driver, we, no HE, only used 1/4 of a tank of gas from Richs to OHare! AND delt with me !

Thank you Brent, that means a lot.

Debi

 

[Fla02LS]

My goodness, I am totally flattered! Brent has been in the passenger seat while I drove, and also put me in it, I must tell ya Hotties, Brent is an awesome driver, we, no HE, only used 1/4 of a tank of gas from Richs to OHare! AND delt with me !

Thank you Brent, that means a lot.

Debi

Ummm.......ok?

 

[DLS8K]

What are the stats of cops getting shot/stabbed/tazed. etc.... from an an auto with tint, BEFORE any interaction has occured vs normal pull overs on vehicles without tint BEFORE interaction has occurred....is it the tint, or the intint?

Think about that statement and I am willing to bet you will find the answer to your own question. In case you can't, I will answer it for you.

Window tint is not a catalyst for violence against the police.

 

[mholhut]

However, it is the catalyst for the police to use more caution at a traffic stop.

Police are at a total disadvantage at traffic stops, especially at night... and tint doesn't help. However, rolling down your windows and turning on your interior light helps. You generally know that it's a police officer stopping you, whereas he has know idea who are, or anyone else that might be in your car. You also have to be conscious of your position in traffic... drunks love slamming into cruisers for some reason.

 

[macboy]

What are the stats of cops getting shot/stabbed/tazed. etc.... from an an auto with tint, BEFORE any interaction has occured vs normal pull overs on vehicles without tint BEFORE interaction has occurred....is it the tint, or the intint?

Think about that statement and I am willing to bet you will find the answer to your own question. In case you can't, I will answer it for you.

Window tint is not a catalyst for violence against the police.

Nobody said window tint is a catalyst for voilence.

Put yourself in the place of the officer. You know that you have to deal with all kinds - all kinds. You know that fellow officers have in fact been shot and killed by armed drivers. You absolutely must make certain assumptions about the occupants of the vehicle until you can see otherwise. If you, as the officer, can't see their hands, you have to assume they have or are reaching for a weapon, because sometimes that does happen. If the vehicle occupants roll down the tinted windows and put their hands on the wheel, then you as the officer can see that they aren't a threat and you can feel more secure in approaching without having to draw your weapon.

It has everything to do with intent; you have to demonstrate to the officer that you have no intent of threatening him/her, and you can only do that by making yourself visible. Unless you do that, the officer can only assume that you are a threat, even though >99% of people are not. Think about it.

 

[ToddG]

You're asking the wrong question, and, no disrespect, but showing a lack of understanding about how the Constitution works, which is unfortunately too prevalent in our society today, hence why we have so many "good idea" laws that government forced upon us, but was never given Constitutional authority to do. I mean, the Constitution doesn't prohibit goverment from writing laws about what types of cheeseburgers people can eat, but it's understood that the government can't tell you "you have to eat only soy burgers" or "it's only all-beef patties for you".

It's not "what part of the Constitution prevents them from doing that"?

The real question citizens need to ask is "What part of the Constitution ALLOWS them to do that?" The US Constitution is an exclusive document, meaning "If the Constitution doesn't say you can do it, then you can't". And it's written in a broad sense, so it covers a wide range of things (such as provide for the national defense, instead of "contract for the construction of firearms, contract for the construction of naval vessels...")

A real good overview is actually on a blog, http://keepusfree.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_keepusfree_archive.html

That's the archive of some of the original posts...

OK, fine, but you didn't answer the question, or even YOUR question.

The short answer is that helmet laws (an most public safety laws) are addressed as a matter of State law, including State Constitutional Law, which frequently has larger provisions than the federal constitution. As a general matter, most courts would find helmet laws constitutional under a state constitution as permitted under the broad General Welfare clause.

I read your blog. Sounds like a lot of personal complaining to me, unencumbered by an understanding of the Constitution, Federalism, or the lawmaking process. No offense intended, but you may want to take a course in Constitutional law before post more mumbo-jumbo.

 

[MsM8tress]

II read your blog. Sounds like a lot of personal complaining to me, unencumbered by an understanding of the Constitution, Federalism, or the lawmaking process. No offense intended, but you may want to take a course in Constitutional law before post more mumbo-jumbo.

ahhh that is where LVC comes in Hottie

If you have taken it you can enlighten us with your education we can go read and check on what you have provided and continue to learn and share opinions. (yeah I'm out there )

I love the realization that DLSK and mholhut came too: Responsibility is on both sides, neither should be penalized. Getting pulled over only for tint is friggin bogus!

IF YOUR BORED: I was pulled over, violating no moving vehicle laws, after the cop asked for my dl and poi (both windows down, light on roof open), the first thing out is mouth is "..roll your window half way up", cop slides a black box onto my window "...do you know how dark your windows are?" dahhhhhh "Yes officer, is that why you pulled me over?" cop: "Yeah..."

However more times than not it is the tint and not due to ill intint that a driver gets ticketed and in some cases even harassed. Stats involving tint and no tint are welcomed if available..., I mean they did make laws on it after all, what grounds did they use to justify them ? Read on before you get your dander up.

MACBOY said it himself a cop has to take the assumption... so why doesn't he then damnit! He is the one doing the stopping! He should be in control of his stop, control the actions of the driver and if he has any question, tell them to roll down the windows turn on the light or go as far as to make them get out and lay face down before the cop even gets out of the squad, again this is all based one the cops trained judgement.

My post up there was supposed to be a twist pros and con in each thought, and the last is to the tune of Wiz of Ozz " Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!". I love stirring you Hottie sup!

Give LVC some more educated argumentation Hotties, you got me dripping, errrr, oopps..., I mean drewling!

Kisses!
MsM8

 

[Fla02LS]

II read your blog. Sounds like a lot of personal complaining to me, unencumbered by an understanding of the Constitution, Federalism, or the lawmaking process. No offense intended, but you may want to take a course in Constitutional law before post more mumbo-jumbo.

ahhh that is where LVC comes in Hottie

If you have taken it you can enlighten us with your education we can go read and check on what you have provided and continue to learn and share opinions. (yeah I'm out there )

I love the realization that DLSK and mholhut came too: Responsibility is on both sides, neither should be penalized. Getting pulled over only for tint is friggin bogus!

IF YOUR BORED: I was pulled over, violating no moving vehicle laws, after the cop asked for my dl and poi (both windows down, light on roof open), the first thing out is mouth is "..roll your window half way up", cop slides a black box onto my window "...do you know how dark your windows are?" dahhhhhh "Yes officer, is that why you pulled me over?" cop: "Yeah..."

However more times than not it is the tint and not due to ill intint that a driver gets ticketed and in some cases even harassed. Stats involving tint and no tint are welcomed if available..., I mean they did make laws on it after all, what grounds did they use to justify them ? Read on before you get your dander up.

MACBOY said it himself a cop has to take the assumption... so why doesn't he then damnit! He is the one doing the stopping! He should be in control of his stop, control the actions of the driver and if he has any question, tell them to roll down the windows turn on the light or go as far as to make them get out and lay face down before the cop even gets out of the squad, again this is all based one the cops trained judgement.

My post up there was supposed to be a twist pros and con in each thought, and the last is to the tune of Wiz of Ozz " Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!". I love stirring you Hottie sup!

Give LVC some more educated argumentation Hotties, you got me dripping, errrr, oopps..., I mean drewling!

Kisses!
MsM8

Annoying :Bang

 

[pepperman]

Before Debi posts on a subject like this, she does exstensive research and then she posts. Very well said Debi

 

[DLS8K]

What are the stats of cops getting shot/stabbed/tazed. etc.... from an an auto with tint, BEFORE any interaction has occured vs normal pull overs on vehicles without tint BEFORE interaction has occurred....is it the tint, or the intint?


Nobody said window tint is a catalyst for voilence.

Put yourself in the place of the officer. You know that you have to deal with all kinds - all kinds. You know that fellow officers have in fact been shot and killed by armed drivers. You absolutely must make certain assumptions about the occupants of the vehicle until you can see otherwise. If you, as the officer, can't see their hands, you have to assume they have or are reaching for a weapon, because sometimes that does happen. If the vehicle occupants roll down the tinted windows and put their hands on the wheel, then you as the officer can see that they aren't a threat and you can feel more secure in approaching without having to draw your weapon.

It has everything to do with intent; you have to demonstrate to the officer that you have no intent of threatening him/her, and you can only do that by making yourself visible. Unless you do that, the officer can only assume that you are a threat, even though >99% of people are not. Think about it.

I agree......and i was speaking on behalf of the driver. Window tint will make a cop more cautious....however, it will not make a driver into a killer.

 

[mholhut]

ahhh that is where LVC comes in Hottie

If you have taken it you can enlighten us with your education we can go read and check on what you have provided and continue to learn and share opinions. (yeah I'm out there )

When it comes to the law, the constitution, legal rights, etc. I'd take Todd's word for it. And, he's not a cop.

 

[mholhut]

Annoying :Bang

X2

 

[mholhut]

I agree......and i was speaking on behalf of the driver. Window tint will make a cop more cautious....however, it will not make a driver into a killer.

I think that's all we're saying here.

FWIW, I'd like to know how the original poster made out with his appeal.

 

[Motodrew]

I think that's all we're saying here.

FWIW, I'd like to know how the original poster made out with his appeal.

Ya I'm still waiting on getting the correct email address to submit photos. The previous address was invalid. The court date is scheduled on the 5th so I will give ya all the details around that time.

 

[MsM8tress]

I think that's all we're saying here.

AMEN!!!!! However, it should not (but it is what happens) give the local authorities the right to line their purse!

Annoying...maybe, accurate, honest and been unjustly screwed by law officials too many times, YES!

How did court go Hottie?

MsM8

 

[Motodrew]

Well I submitted the photos to the judge. I explained to him over the phone the whole reason I fought this damn ticket was to prevent paying any more money out, so I wasn't going to pay a dealership near $50 to do the job.

So i lied... wait.. I misrepresented the truth.. ya, and told him I met a kid at school who used to do window work and he had the chemicals and tools to do the removal for free. (this way I had an explanation for no receipt of the job). :bsflag:

I believe I have to pay court fees which are $30 or somethin, but since my citation, Iowa court fees have gone up to $50!! Thats crazy! But luckily my ticked was issued before that happened.

I'm still going to get a bill i'm sure. I should of just payed the fine, cause now I know it wouldn't of affected my record. It would classify as a equipment failure and not a moving violation. Oh well. I'm going to hell. :gr_devil: