LOL ... well, where I work there are bigger things to worry about than tinted car windows. Like I said, many MN laws are poorly written, and the tint law is one that simply defies logic to me. The law was written originally to protect law enforcement when approaching vehicles, and yet the State puts in an exception .. and allows the exception to not only tint the cargo area, but the rear windows as well. So of course, as criminals do, they started driving the exceptions .... which is why the gang bangers all roll around in Explorers, Escalades, Suburbans etc. And apparently the legislators determined that only the front passengers could ever be armed in a car, and the rear passengers would never shoot a cop .... it's just silly, and goes to show how detached from reality most law-makers are.
If you drive anywhere in central MN, especially around mille lacs, and you see a trooper. Roll your windows down as fast as you can. Window tint is a "pet peeve" of every single trooper up here. So is loud exhaust and bumper height (I don't think height will be a problem here). I've won well over 30 warnings but somehow ZERO TICKETS with my last 4 vehicles.
You wouldn't last in the southern states, then. That's where I'm originally from, and I travel to nearly all the states. I hate it when I can't pick my nose in private!LOL
Simple: look at the title of your car. If you have the 5 door, it states SW as classification. Not sedan. SW stands for station wagon. Take that to a judge and see how they decide..... I have an 03 WRX [SEDAN], and a 13 WRX [SW]. Pretty much seems like a slam dunk to me. ESPECIALLY when you see the Honda Crosstour coming off the line with 20% on the back seat and rear glass.
I have been following the law for 30 years now, and the verbiage has not changed(for a description of the van) but the cars have. Vans, SUV's, wagons and crossovers are more aerodynamic today. The concept is cargo compartment in the passenger compartment, without some steel to separate the two. The size of the wagon is debatable, but if you read the law, it favors the cargo compartment.... If you follow the cars coming from the factory, the ones with the 20% on the rear, it's all about cargo compartment. Look at the Kia Soul. Very small, but tinted dark on the rear portion.. The dodge Magnum..not an extremely squared off wagon, AND it's a hatch wagon. The Honda crosstour, just a rounded off Accord that's tinted dark on the rear. The PT Cruiser....not really square at all, 20% on the rear. The list goes on... so it comes down to the legitimate cargo compartment and cargo carrying ability.... In addition, the law does not specify the volume of cargo carrying ability, or headroom for that matter.
While I respect your position as a law enforcement officer, and the dangers you have assumed by taking the position, I wonder why Texas, Montana , California or Washington state or....etc. have not considered officer safety? It seems to me that Texas is as wild as it gets, and some of the most aggressive police officers in any state(Texas Rangers). They allow anything behind the driver on ANY car and a 35% film on the front windows. Or Montana allowing 25% net on the front windows.? It seems to me this is the same argument as Permits to carry a concealed weapon. Why is it that people who are otherwise law abiding citizens not allowed to have tint. We should have a permit for it. A permit sticker that is obvious to law enforcement on the rear of a vehicle. On the glass or on the bumper or trunk of a car. If no permit, then no tint darker than 50%. One should have to apply through the Sheriff of your county, and pass a background check, etc... Also, the law was written to protect law enforcement: If that is truly believed to be so, why have I never been pulled over at gunpoint? Or asked to get out of my vehicle over the PA system of a squad car? I am not trying to be a smart ass, or D-bag. In fact, I am just trying to talk about it in a logical way. Emotions like, "well I just don't like it when....." should be left out of the discussion.
I believe every officer worth his salt will tell you that this is not used in policy writing. If we had cops writing laws they enforce, the world would make more sense.
You could even tie it to your driving record. 3 moving violations, not only do you lose your license, but your tint permit, too....(for a longer period of time) Incentive for drivers to do well.....
I agree with you completely ... and most cops I know also agree with you. In fact, I'll do you one better and say flat out that there should be no permit .. the tint law should just be gone or re-written to allow darker tint. Minnesota's tint law is silly, and serves no purpose what-so-ever .... I was simply pointing out one of the "intentions" when the law was written, which was officer safety.
Does the state profit off of tint tickets? If so... They may be losing out on a large chunk by changing it.
I had 35% on my wagon, and lasted nine years without incident. Lived in minneapolis and saint paul. I move out to the burbs and got pulled over in plymouth on 169. It tested at 42% and the officer all but admitted he was looking for gangbangers or street racers. He seemed sad that i was in a suit with a toddler in the back seat. I agree, all in all if you are in an area where cops have real crime to worry about, they will leave you alone. That cop in plymouth can eat a dick.
You are right, that was all I heard about in the 80's, "It is for officer safety". In principal I agree. In the spectrum where they set the bar is ridiculous. I believe they set it low so they could tell "dark" tint with the unaided eye. That would explain why so many would "get away with" the 35% tint on the glass. They just thought it was close enough(in principal). Also, to a law maker, 50% sound like a compromise. Hell, it sounds like a compromise to me.; but it is of course, NOT a compromise. Texas went through a period of 35% on the front, 20 on the rear of any car. They later changed to a 35% net once the police had light meters. Then the public out cry was too much and they changed it to 35% film or like a 27% net. Now they seem to have found equilibrium. We may be in that same place in Minnesota now. I hope for a change in the law because it is KILLING and industry that would generate millions in taxes and jobs for many people.
I got popped by Maple Grove Police right by Redstone in the Arbor Lakes area. Badge #130. The tint law is silly. I really think we should all start a petition to get the law changed.
Damn! I see him in my area from time to time. He has the website on the side of his truck. I signed it long ago. Can we start another one? Not sure how to do that.
I would be all for starting a new one. It's silly that people are getting popped for even 50%. I agree with some of the people on the petition that MN summers do get very hot and it helps to keep as much heat as possible out of the car. Not to mention discourage smash and grabs from cars. I believe this might be a start : https://www.change.org/start-a-petition
If I got popped for 50% on the glass, without a prescription, I would definitely fight that. The reason is that the 50% rule was never intended to make 50% tint on your glass illegal. When they wrote the law, they only had 50%,35%,20% and 5%. There were no others that had less than 50%. We also had a federal 70% limit for the factory or oem glass tint max(on the front sides, etc...JUST LIKE TODAY! The onset of the meter has police thinking it's just like a radar gun. The number is the absolute. If that were the case, the law would have addressed that. In the beginning of the laws about tint, there only was "film" laws. They did not have the foresight to account for factory tint throwing off the numbers. I have seen a 50% film on a car window that had 70% in the glass and the number it measured was 38%. Having said that: This table is from a third party having nothing to do with Minnesota. They have interpreted all of the states laws in the U.S. and Canada. They have put in a table format the laws concerning each state. I have watched this table change over the years from a "film" law in each state to a "net" law. The reason is factory tint, that was not considered in the beginning of tint laws, was not considered. Now most squad cars have this little meter to prove you have exceeded the limit. Minnesota was so poorly written that they can't even determine beyond a reasonable doubt what was meant by their verbiage. So it is said to be vague. You will notice that in this table. Also, a tint installer must place a sticker on the glass for the tint that was installed. Spec/driver. Why would you do this if you have a light meter to prove 50% net? That was an amendment just before we saw all the light meters show up. And one more thing...it says plus or minus 3%. I would argue 50% tint plus or minus 3 before it is installed. Again, in 1985 the only tints were 50%,35%,20% and 5%. In order to hit 47% net, you usually have to install a 60% film or lighter. Net is what the light meter measures with the film on your glass.
I am working on a petition, but in the mean time I am finding a possible quicker route to change. Here is a link to find your representative for your zip code. Please click and find. Make sure you contact your MN House representative. It won't take but 5 minutes to find, and 10 minutes to tell your story. http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/ Also a quick, personalized note will get the most attention. Please don't cut and paste, but using my ideas is okay. Oh, and only send to House Representatives. Senators can't affect change on this. I am contacting you in behalf of many of my customers and bloggers on MNSUBARU.COM. I am proposing a change to the automotive window tinting law. I am proposing to allow a darker amount(but still safe for police officers) on the front windows and darker on the rear seat area of all cars. I have police officers who agree with me as well as hundreds of frustrated car owners who are law abiding people who want to have something for their money. The current law is so extremely restrictive that is an unmarketable product. If lawmakers such as yourself would just take the time to review the law and make an adjustment to it, we would create jobs and increase tax revenues, while not increasing the danger to police officers. Police officers agree. I propose a hybrid of many states laws: 27% net (35% film is equal once installed on the glass) on the front windows, any or at least 20%(like SUV's have from the factory), and the front windshield top brow to allow down to the AS1 line that is imprinted on windshields from the factory.
Hey Fancyfootwork: Just an FYI: there will always be illegal tint on cars. (Knuckleheads!) Just like increasing the speed limit still has speeders. It would just allow a reasonable amount on your car, even though there are people who will always break the law.
So my question still stands. Does the state profit off of tint tickets? It's easier to ticket someone when the law is how it's at compared to if darker tints were allowed I would guess. Harder to tell the % difference as it gets darker, correct? You would know better than anyone here.
Ehh... I would say that there would still be a number of people with illegal tint... There would be a huge number of people with legal if they allowed 35% on the front and darker on the rear of ANY car. The legal range would explode.
If you looked around, I'd say 1 in 20 cars has a 35% on it. Some of that is illegal, some is with prescription. I'd quess that number would be more like 6 in 10 if they allowed 35%.... I'd still guess 1 in 20 would exceed the limit without a prescription. Same game, just more legitimate people enjoying the benefit/luxury of it.
