Non-correctable tint ticket question

[AE86_Hachi]

Hello,
My girfriend was driving my car the other weekend to a wedding (an NSX, pretty much a show car so I rarley drive it). On her way back from the wedding she was pulled over for front window tint. Upon inspecting the car the officer also noted that I was missing my current registration sticker on the plate. The car is properly registered, it appears that someone stole the sticker while the car was parked overnight at the wedding(yes I know I should have slashed it). So the officer wrote up a citation and sent it to my address as I am the registered owner of the car. The citation had two violations listed.
A) missing registration sticker (correctable, should not be a problem)
B) Tint violation for front windows (non-correctable)

Since the citation was sent to me by mail as I was not in the vehicle at the time I did not get a chance to ask the officer what I needed to do to resolve the situation. I have a court date set however the little check box that states something along the line of "further information to be mailed" or something like that (dont have the ticket infront of me at the moment) is not marked so I am assuming I will not get any further information before my court date.

Basically I am wondering what I need to do before I see the judge. I know I need to pull the tint off but since this is not marked as a non-correctable violation, do I need to/should I get a statement from an officer saying it has been removed. If so, is there a specific form that I need?

Thanks
AE86

[jaybb]

An officer would certainly know a lot better than me, but when I had the problem with the officer who cited me five times (four of which were non-correctable), I took all my tickets to the judge, explained that my lease had expired and was no longer in possession of the car. The judge just dismissed the violations as a whole.

In your case, I'd fix the tint, plead not-guilty and set up a court date to explain it to a judge. Then when you arrive in court, you can explain that the tint was fixed and you were never given a chance to correct the violation.

[Fish'nChip]

In your case, I'd fix the tint, plead not-guilty and set up a court date to explain it to a judge. Then when you arrive in court, you can explain that the tint was fixed and you were never given a chance to correct the violation.

Why should you be given a chance to fix it when it was an intentional/deliberate violation? The officer checked the NO box for a reason. You should fix the tab issue and pay the fine for the tint. If you don't remove it....then fine, but you will run the risk of getting another citation. It is just like speeding, carpool etc. (without the point on your license of course)

The window tint thing is completely out of control in this state!! The idiots at tint install shops tell people it's legal to put tint on the front windows and 99.9 percent of people that get the tint put on their car do it only because they want their car to look cool! What part of IT'S ILLEGAL does everyone not understand. The problem is that most judges/courts don't have a clue on how to handle correctable violations. If it says "correctable" in their computer then they think they have no choice but to make it a "fix it."

Example, if you drive around with a broken taillamp for 4 months and you get a ticket, per the Vehicle Code, it should NOT be a correctable violation. Reason: Persistent neglect

Excuses for window tint:

1. I bought it that way.
2. I thought you could have 70% tint
3. An officer told me that it's legal if you can see throught it.
4. My husband/boyfriend did it.
5. My car is from ________ (<--put any state here)
6a. The guy that installed the tint said it was legal. (Of course he did, you big idiot....he wants to make $$$$$)
6b. By the way, when you get the ticket you will have to get it removed. Most people think you have to take it back to the tint place to have the same guy take it off. Of course he will charge you and get even more $$$$$ from you. SUCKER!!!

FYI: All you need is a hair dryer and about 3 minutes per window to do it yourself.

I am getting tired of it. I am going to send an email to my state lawmaker to create a separate law just for applied tint. The problem with the law now, is that it is just a generic "don't put anything on your windows law." There needs to one that has NO correctable option AND will carry a point count after a second conviction.

See jaybb got lucky and got a stupid and/or spineless judge. He committed several infractions and wasn't held accountable. OH WELL!

[jaybb]

Wow I didn't mean to raise tensions. As I've mentioned, I really didn't have a choice, I bought my tinting in Florida and my lease was up in 2 months. BMW would charge me $1000 to remove the tint. Seemed pointless if you ask me for 2 months. Not sure what I did that was so "wrong" or how I committed multiple infractions. Seems to me that if an officer cites somebody for tinting, there should be some leeway before the SAME officer will stop and cite the person AGAIN within a week. All of my violations were written within 6 weeks.

[Your Mentor]

Jaybb,
Tint is a sore subject with some officers in California. It's one of the most disregarded laws in our state; perhaps almost as much as speed violations. Many people in our state are cited, remove it, get the ticket signed off, and then reapply tint. This phenomina is lost on many judges who just toss it if the violator gets it signed off whether or not the officer made it dismissable. An officer is compelled, by law, to make such mechanical violations dismissable if there is no evidence of persistant neglect, the violator is willing to correct the violation, and there is no immediate safety hazard. If any one of those elements exists, the officer is then compelled to make it non-dismissable. This process seems to be disregarded by most courts; perhaps because of congested court calendars. So, as you might guess, some officers really get miffed by tint. Certainly, if you leased it in Florida and the tint was provided as a legal option there, you are in a difficult position. Removing tint, however, is extremely simple and anyone can do it without taking the car into a dealer. If BMW says they will charge you for removing it, you need to explain that it is illegal to have the tint in your state of residence and take that to the highest person possible. BMW dealers in California are well aware it's illegal to apply the tint on the front side windows and windshield. If you're going to return the car to a California dealer, which I imagine you will, they would be pretty petty to charge you for something that is illegal in their own state.

Understand that some officers consider tint a personal safety hazard and therefore look upon it as a personal threat. Understandably so. From a traffic safety point of view, tint seriously restricts your side vision during hours of darkness. You risk being broadsided every night you drive (and broadsides are usually fatals on the receiving end).

YM

[Fish'nChip]

Sorry....I guess it did sound that way. I was just trying to make a point.

You have to look at the big picture. There is a reason for each law in the Vehicle Code. All need to be treated equally and be enforced/followed without discrimination. All drivers need to be held to the same standards. Speeding=infraction, tint=infraction, Cigarette out window=infraction, Broken windshield wipers=infraction.

As far the "grace period" goes the Vehicle Code requires you correct violations immediately. (24004 VC) Generally you get a court gives you a date...but that date is a final date to provide proof of correction NOT to correct the deficiency. Every time you operate a vehicle which is not in compliance (headlight, tint, broken seatbelt, no front plate, cracked windshield, etc.) you commit another violation. Most officers...including myself usually give you a reasonable time to take care of the issue but it is NOT required. What is reasonable...well that all depends now doesn't it.

One day...ok
Two days....mmm ok
Three days.... mmm get it fixed but ok
1 week.... citation #2 and so on.

As always YM, is 100% correct. For me it is not specific to tint. It is just a simple disregard or lack of respect for the law. Window tint just happens to be extremely easy to detect and is a deliberate violation.

It is just like when someone is speeding, they see an officer on the side of the road, slow down, pass the officer and speed back up. WHAT IS UP WITH THAT? (However they failed to see the airplane above them :biggrin: )

FnC

[Fish'nChip]

Wow I didn't mean to raise tensions. As I've mentioned, I really didn't have a choice, I bought my tinting in Florida and my lease was up in 2 months. BMW would charge me $1000 to remove the tint. Seemed pointless if you ask me for 2 months. Not sure what I did that was so "wrong" or how I committed multiple infractions. Seems to me that if an officer cites somebody for tinting, there should be some leeway before the SAME officer will stop and cite the person AGAIN within a week. All of my violations were written within 6 weeks.

Oh, I forgot ;)

1. You always have a choice.
2. The vehicle code says what is right and wrong
3. leeway for tinting - just tint? What about brakes?lights?registration? and the thousands of other violations?

[jaybb]

I agree with you, I argued with BMW forever, they just said it was like $995 or something. While I know that it's probably a sore subject, being a student it was just a lot of money for 2 months of driving. The car is long gone though and no more violations. :smile:

[redhead]

I brought this (the law) up in another thread, but I would like to explore this more I guess.

We all know the Tint shops due this. We all know the law that states that it is illegal to place tint on the side/front windows.

That being said,

If you, as an officer, are on a beat and see a tint shop, would you/do you/could you/why don't you/etc. stop on in and just say "hi"? If you see the violation happening, you could ticket them right then and there, correct? Or do you have to have a reason to walk in to their doors?

[cal911gal]

I brought this (the law) up in another thread, but I would like to explore this more I guess.

We all know the Tint shops due this. We all know the law that states that it is illegal to place tint on the side/front windows.

That being said,

If you, as an officer, are on a beat and see a tint shop, would you/do you/could you/why don't you/etc. stop on in and just say "hi"? If you see the violation happening, you could ticket them right then and there, correct? Or do you have to have a reason to walk in to their doors?



While the law does state " no one shall apply....tint, etc" I would think that without a warrant, some businesses would consider this a violation of their rights and likely sue. Because in CA, we know how popular suing is :smile:

I rather like your idea Red, yet, something inside me says 'hmmm, not quite kosher" - but I can't quite articulate why, exactly.

[retchp]

There is a principle in the law called the "reasonable man" theory. What would a "reasonable man" do in a given situation?

A reasonable CHP officer would not leave his assigned beat and walk into a private business and begin a rant or try to arrest or cite workers and employees and customers.

Just imagine what the press would have to say about that officer. Not to mention his supervisors! And they would be right, because the officer is being unreasonable.

There are plenty of violations out there without going around and making trouble for yourself as a road patrol officer. Besides the vehicle code does not apply on PRIVATE Property (in most cases) which a store is.

If a private business is really out of line and doing terrible things which happen to be illegal too and a complaint or complaints comes in there are officers in local PD, SO, CHP, DOJ offices etc. that are fully trained and staffed to deal with that sort of thing. Just selling/applying window tint does not rise to that level however.

Yes they know it is against the law to sell/aply in certain darknesses and locations. They do it anyway because they can and they want your money. People know it is illegal so they do it anyway because they think it looks good and they won't be stopped.

When they are stopped by an officer and cited they have no cry coming to them. The legislature made it illegal for good and valid reasons. If the public was allowed to do or have anything they decided was cool on their cars it would look like a Barnum and Bailey circus parade out there.

[redhead]

Besides the vehicle code does not apply on PRIVATE Property (in most cases) which a store is.
I think that more then anything summed up my train of thought, and how it was on the wrong track.

With that being said, I was not suggesting an officer leave their beat, but rather if an officer is working an unincorporated part of town/beat, why not promote more of a proactive practice then a reactive. As YM said above, its a sore subject with officers/officer safety/etc....

But, again, that was answered above. Thank you for the reply.

And Cali, I think Ret summed up what you were trying to say ;)

[cal911gal]

And Cali, I think Ret summed up what you were trying to say ;)

Yep, he sure did! Thanks for the clarification Ret!

[Officer_Grady]

jjbb, a BMW for college? Dang, I took public transit, eventually got a hand me down Chev. BMW, are your folks looking for s stepson?

[PeckerHead]

How about this for a thought....

Go to DMV and get your expiration sticker.

Remove the tint yourself. It's a medium weight plastic with glue on it. A lot of times you can pull the entire sheet off in one try. Once the tint is removed, wipe the inside of the window down with acetone or nail polish remover (takes the glue residue off.)

Take the car to your local CHP office and have the front desk officer inspect it and sign off your ticket (he'll sign off the back of your yellow copy.) Ask him to indicate both of the violations were corrected. Make a photo copy of the front and back of your ticket (just in case!) and submit your corrected ticket to the court. When you appear in court (you may be able to take care of it without an appearance) pay the fine or processing fees and chalk it up to a lesson learned.

Take two asprin and call me in the morning:smile:

[SB 405]

jjbb, a BMW for college? Dang, I took public transit, eventually got a hand me down Chev. BMW, are your folks looking for s stepson?

Not just college Grady....USC:badgrin: nice cars are a pretty common sight around that campus.

[Tom]

University of Spoiled Children

[jaybb]

Haha, never heard that one before. ;)

[PapaBear]

University of Spoiled Children

Aha, and I will bet my crimson and gold that you would love to attend just one class at USC. A fine curriculum and a very presitigious, educational institution. No one paid for my education - well, I take that back - the G.I. Bill, the L.E.E.P. program and a couple of scholarships helped out. BTW, USC does have a heck of a sports program. How about them TROJANS? Call 'em what you want - that school ROCKS :cool: !!!!

Tom

[Tom]

University of Spoiled Children

Aha, and I will bet my crimson and gold that you would love to attend just one class at USC. A fine curriculum and a very presitigious, educational institution. No one paid for my education - well, I take that back - the G.I. Bill, the L.E.E.P. program and a couple of scholarships helped out. BTW, USC does have a heck of a sports program. How about them TROJANS? Call 'em what you want - that school ROCKS :cool: !!!!

Tom

I'm not smart enough to attend college. Whats up with this place on all the "literalness" lately. Geez...can ANYONE take a joke? I'm out. literally.

OBTW GO BEAVERS!!!!!!!!

[PapaBear]

Tom posted:

"...Geez...can ANYONE take a joke? I'm out. literally.

OBTW GO BEAVERS!!!!!!!! "

The BEAVERS won today! Great game. And, yes, we can take a little humor - do you not recognize the rhetorical reply. Lighten up Tom. I too have called USC as you did..........I simply threw a little wry humor your way.

:lol:

Have a good day!

Tom

[015916]

Sorry....I guess it did sound that way. I was just trying to make a point.

You have to look at the big picture. There is a reason for each law in the Vehicle Code. All need to be treated equally and be enforced/followed without discrimination. All drivers need to be held to the same standards. Speeding=infraction, tint=infraction, Cigarette out window=infraction, Broken windshield wipers=infraction.

As far the "grace period" goes the Vehicle Code requires you correct violations immediately. (24004 VC) Generally you get a court gives you a date...but that date is a final date to provide proof of correction NOT to correct the deficiency. Every time you operate a vehicle which is not in compliance (headlight, tint, broken seatbelt, no front plate, cracked windshield, etc.) you commit another violation. Most officers...including myself usually give you a reasonable time to take care of the issue but it is NOT required. What is reasonable...well that all depends now doesn't it.

One day...ok
Two days....mmm ok
Three days.... mmm get it fixed but ok
1 week.... citation #2 and so on.

As always YM, is 100% correct. For me it is not specific to tint. It is just a simple disregard or lack of respect for the law. Window tint just happens to be extremely easy to detect and is a deliberate violation.

It is just like when someone is speeding, they see an officer on the side of the road, slow down, pass the officer and speed back up. WHAT IS UP WITH THAT? (However they failed to see the airplane above them :biggrin: )

FnC

I work in a smaller CHP office and have a relatively small unincorporated community by comparison to some other CHP areas. I found that tint was one violation where I was seeing the same people repeatedly. I would stop someone, and six months later they were looking strangely familiar. "Have you been stopped for tint before?" Their diverted stares should have been the first indication. With my PDA phone, an Excel spreadsheet, and my extremely anal personality, I began to track my tint cites by license plate and DL. I was amazed at how many repeat offenders I was getting. The 24004 VC cites started to fly and the compliance came shortly after. Word of mouth? Perhaps. When you start getting a moving violations on your DL unlawful operation/ window tint, it puts a new perspective on things.

[rraccoon415]

My case is somewhat similar to original poster?s situation, so I?ll use the same thread. I live in CA, but the car was bought in Vegas about a year ago with 5 windows tinted. Honda dealer knew perfectly well that the car will be driven in CA, but he either didn?t know about CA tint law or forgot about it. I didn?t know about the CA tint law myself.

Amazingly, when the car was registered in CA, the DMV person never said anything about tinted windows after inspecting the car. Well, a week ago I was stopped by highway patrol officer and got 26708 non-correctable ticket. At a time when I was given a ticket, the officer described the procedure like ?remove tint, go to court, show them you removed it, and that?s it?. Only at home I noticed that under correctable he marked ?no? on the ticket. I started reading about similar situations online, and found many discussions on 26708 being non-correctable, and 26708.5 being correctable, etc. So I am totally confused.

I understand after reading this thread that idea of issuing non-correctable tickets is to prevent repetitive offences. Well, from my point of view, my case is the definition of correctable violation. I removed the tint the next day and I have a receipt from the shop that I removed it (I didn?t know the tint was that easy to remove). I was planning to go to the police station to ask them to acknowledge that the tint is removed and then show that proof of correction to the judge and ask judge to decide if ticket should be correctable (as I believe it should) or not.

But I am concerned that police officer would be unwilling to sign off anything, since it says ?non-correctable? on the ticket?
Any advice?

[rraccoon415]

An update: went to local PD, they refused to sign off a ticket, because it is marked non-correctable. Told me to go to CHP office.

Called the court phone number: automated system says that I need to pay the fine $116 and also provide proof of correction. Called CHP and asked if I can get proof of correction from them - was told to call back tomorrow morning. The timing is just horrible - I'm going on vacation on Wednesday, so tomorrow is the last day to do anything about the ticket before the court date.

[SB 405]

Why not try just walking into a CHP office and ask? Wonder why someone would tell you to call back tomorrow to what appears to be a yes or no question?

[rraccoon415]

Why not try just walking into a CHP office and ask? Why would someone tell you to call back tomorrow to what appears to be a yes or no question?
The CHP office is kind of out of my way - I would have to spend about an extra hour to get there on my way to work, so I wanted to call first to make sure I won't waste my time and won't get "it's non-correctable" response again.

I called around 4:30pm today which is a bit late, and the person that picked up the phone after listening to my story said that "the officers who can answer your question have gone for today, so call back tomorrow".

[SweetTaterPie]

I may be wrong, but I believe CVC 26708 (a) (inclusive of window tinting) was added to the violations falling under CVC 40610 (b), correctable/dismissible. However, if the Officer did not check the little box "yes" under 40610 (b), you can still be fined pursuant to the SOP of the jurisdiction in which the citation was issued. In other words, the following can result:
1. If you remove the tinting and present evidence of that to the court, the charge may be dismissed, with a modest court cost assessment.
2. If you remove the tinting and present evidence of that to the court, the judge may find you guilty, thank you for complying with the law, and then fine you the
Full Monty anyway.
3. If you remove the tinting and present evidence of that to the court, the judge may dismiss the case altogether.

and last, but not least,

4. If you walk into court and have to tell the judge the tinting is still on the windows, and if you testify that it wasn't your fault, [insert reason] was the problem,
you WILL be found guilty and you WILL be fined the WHOLE MONTY.

[PeckerHead]

First of all, everyone in California knows tint is illegal. Call the court and ask them to change your court date so that you can appear after vacation (Lord only knows why you didn't take care of this sooner!) The Ca DMV collects revenue, so why would you think a person looking at your cars vin and Federal sticker would care if you had tint? Ever heard of the three P's?

[rraccoon415]

Thanks for the response. I'm hoping it will be either 1 or 3, and not 2, but I guess we'll see. If CHP officer tomorrow refuses to provide me any "proof of correction", what evidence should I present to the court? Receipt from the shop that removed the tint and pictures of the car? I don't really have any other ideas.

I'm obviously not planning for the 4th option. Although it would help if dealer in Vegas knew about the CA law, or DMV officer would notice tint and warn me, it was my responsibility in the end to know the law.

[rraccoon415]

First of all, everyone in California knows tint is illegal.
I didn?t grow up in CA or US, so believe it or not I didn?t know that. If I knew, I would remove it myself a long time ago.
I suspected that it is either illegal or only light tint is allowed, but I was too lazy to go and check the law. Over years I saw noticeable number of cars with various tints on front windows, so I thought that maybe some kind of light tint is allowed. But I agree that I should have known the law.
Call the court and ask them to change your court date so that you can appear after vacation (Lord only knows why you didn't take care of this sooner!)

The court date is conveniently set for the first day after I come back from vacation. So I can go to the court, I just won't have time to do anything about the ticket after vacation ends and before court begins. But thanks for the idea - I may try to reschedule it.

Ever heard of the three P's?
No.

[Slim]

When you show up to court, bring your car and plead your case to the judge asking for the violation to be changed to correctable. You will have a small admin fee at the least and the $116 at the most. I generally mark tint tickets non-correctable also.

[SB 405]

Why not try just walking into a CHP office and ask? Why would someone tell you to call back tomorrow to what appears to be a yes or no question?
The CHP office is kind of out of my way - I would have to spend about an extra hour to get there on my way to work, so I wanted to call first to make sure I won't waste my time and won't get "it's non-correctable" response again.

I called around 4:30pm today which is a bit late, and the person that picked up the phone after listening to my story said that "the officers who can answer your question have gone for today, so call back tomorrow".

Which is why I say go in. Do Officers work the desk?....if so why wouldn't one of them be able to help you? Sorry guys but it sure reads like the buck is being passed.

[dw]

First of all, everyone in California knows tint is illegal. Call the court and ask them to change your court date so that you can appear after vacation (Lord only knows why you didn't take care of this sooner!) The Ca DMV collects revenue, so why would you think a person looking at your cars vin and Federal sticker would care if you had tint? Ever heard of the three P's?

Ouch.

Get up on the wrong side of the nest today, PH? ;)

[SweetTaterPie]

Thanks for the response. I'm hoping it will be either 1 or 3, and not 2, but I guess we'll see. If CHP officer tomorrow refuses to provide me any "proof of correction", what evidence should I present to the court? Receipt from the shop that removed the tint and pictures of the car? I don't really have any other ideas.

I'm obviously not planning for the 4th option. Although it would help if dealer in Vegas knew about the CA law, or DMV officer would notice tint and warn me, it was my responsibility in the end to know the law.

R'Coon 415:
Your best bet would be digital photos--time and date-stamped--that portray your vehicle's license plate, color, make and model. You'll also want to include photos with multiple angles of all the defrocked (clear) windows. Also, it would be wise to bring the vehicle with you to court. Dependent on where you are to appear, some judges, if persuaded to lend you an ear, will have a bailiff or an officer examine your car to ascertain what you testified was true. These are not certainties; that's the reason I listed four possible outcomes.

[laser_brain]

There was a news topic last week that mentioned a new type of cancer Southern California commuters are encountering. Skin Cancer, mostly on the left side of their face, neck and arms.

Window Tint with UV protection will help prevent this kind of cancer, plain and simple.

I understand the dangers window tint can present to officers. Dangerous people hide behind the darkness of their windows waiting to do something malicious. IMO these people deserve to be tazed after not responding to being instructed to roll down all their windows, place the keys on the dashboard and place their hands on the steering wheel.

Could anyone here give direction on how to change the legislation to make window tint legal? It seems to me that window tint is such an insignificant violation.

[SB 405]

Tinted windows pose a danger for officer safety "plain and simple" Want to avoid cancer,try sun block.

[bcjack]

Order a right-hand drive car and you will balance out the cancer risk...:biggrin:

[WannaBeaChippie]

I feel you with the tinting law, I was directing traffic out at the Airport last night and there was a guy in the loading zone to long. He also had the windows rolled up and the tint was like 3%. Even under the light I couldn't tell he was sitting there or how many occupants were in the car. I needed to tell him to move...but I didn't know what I was walking into. In the long run when an officer doesn't have much time to think it could be all bad.

I didn't understand when I first moved here either I lived in Texas for awhile and tint is legal...until I recieved a citation for it 2 years ago. (Shrug) Just take it off...

[Chippysgt]

The way you get laws changed is to have a member of the legislature introduce a bill and then a majority of the Assembly and Senate must approve it and then the governator must sign it. Then it is subject to review by the courts if the constitutionality is challenged. Now before a legislator introduces a bill he has to know if it has a chance of passing. The most important thing he/she can do is get the affected agency to agree that they will support it. In my humble opinion, there is not a snowballs chance in LA that the CHP will ever agree that tinted front side windows should be okay, so there you go.

That will be 5 cents for my civics lesson............:cool:

[23112]

There was a news topic last week that mentioned a new type of cancer Southern California commuters are encountering. Skin Cancer, mostly on the left side of their face, neck and arms.

Window Tint with UV protection will help prevent this kind of cancer, plain and simple.

I understand the dangers window tint can present to officers. Dangerous people hide behind the darkness of their windows waiting to do something malicious. IMO these people deserve to be tazed after not responding to being instructed to roll down all their windows, place the keys on the dashboard and place their hands on the steering wheel.

Could anyone here give direction on how to change the legislation to make window tint legal? It seems to me that window tint is such an insignificant violation.

Windows can be made to block UVA and UVB rays without a colored tint. The danger of tinted windows is vision obstruction at night. Have you ever tried backing up in a car with dark tint in an area that doesn't have bright street lights? If you have, I bet you've rolled down those tinted side windows to take a gander in your side-mirrors.

Incidentally, if people are really concerned about skin cancer, the vehicle code provides for the option of using a sun screen that's removable for driving at night--there's no reason to change the law.

[AyatollahGondola]

I can't help but notice how many people have turned to hiding out in society. The tinting of windows is but one symptom of that. So many people wearing hooded sweatshirts, even when it isn't cold, or during the times they are inside cars is yet another. Remember when you were a little kid and you thought no one could see you if you put your thumb in front of your eye?

[themjnose]

There was a news topic last week that mentioned a new type of cancer Southern California commuters are encountering. Skin Cancer, mostly on the left side of their face, neck and arms.

Window Tint with UV protection will help prevent this kind of cancer, plain and simple.

Section 26708(d) explains a "clear, colorless, and transparent material may be applied" if all of the following conditions are met. 1) The material must have a light transmittance of 88% minumum. 2) The window glazing with thematerial applied, meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR 571.205), including the specified light transmittance of 70% and the abrasion resistance of AS-14 glazing, as specified in that federal standard. 3) The material is designed and manufactured to enhance the ability of the existing window glass to block the sun's harmful ultraviolet A rays. 4) The driver must have in his/her possession, or within the vehicle, a certificate signed by the installing company certifying that the windows with the material installed meets the requirements of this subdivion and also identifies the installing company and manufacturer by full name and street address, or if installed by the vehicle owner, a certificate signed by the material's manufacturer certifying that the windows with the material installed according to the manufacturer's instructions meets the requirements of this subdivision and identifies the material's manufacturer bu full name and street address. 5) If the material described in this subdivision tears or bubbles, or is otherwise worn to prohibit clear vision, it shall be removed or replaced.

Basically you cannot put any tint on the front windows unless it is clear and colorless and transparent, with the proper ceritfication carried with the vehicle at all times. Nothing can be installed to darken in any way the front windows.

Sunscreening devices mentioned in section 26708.2 are only allowed for people with a Dr.'s note and have to be removed for night time driving. 26708.5 related only to safety glass and alo has to meet the standards of the US Dept. of Transportation for safety glazing materials.

Sorry for the lengthy explanation.

I used to work for a window manufacturing company and the material this subdivision is talking about is out there on the market and has been for years. It is clear, no it does not help your car look cool, but if properly installed will protect you from the sun. Sun lotion also works or long sleeves.

Just for info, I am probabaly one of the only officers who still issue a correctable citation (CHP 281) for tint allowing the owner's one chance to correct it. I have been known to 24004 VC an owner for purposfully not correcting the violation.

[AyatollahGondola]

Just for info, I am probabaly one of the only officers who still issue a correctable citation (CHP 281) for tint allowing the owner's one chance to correct it.
you old softy, you.

so you think that people tint windows to look cool? I think they just like to be covered up.