Any officer citing someone for window tint when their vehicle is registered in a state where it is legal needs to find another job. This person is the officer who is likely creating problems for other officers. We all have worked with that type of officer. You dread having them on your call. Respect for the profession is quite low. This type of policing is why. I can imagine a scenario where you might use it for PC to stop but otherwise. a no go.
This law then is nonsensical. What about rental cars, for example? When I fly into LAX I’m as likely to get an AZ or TX car as a CA one. And some states don’t require a front plate, while CA does. I’m sure there are many more such differences. Your interpretation would let CA cops pull over any car with out-of-state plates on the “reasonable suspicion” that it doesn’t meet CA equipment requirements. I think it more likely that only once an out of state car is required to be legally REGISTERED in CA can state differences in equipment requirements be violated. I humbly ask that you explain this obvious conundrum.
Having no front license plate is unenforceable if the state did not provide it. Cops should not enforce laws in a way that produces absurd results like this.
MN is an exception to this. Read MN statute for 169.71 sub 4 - Windshield
Any officer citing someone for window tint when their vehicle is registered in a state where it is legal needs to find another job. This person is the officer who is likely creating problems for other officers. We all have worked with that type of officer. You dread having them on your call. Respect for the profession is quite low. This type of policing is why. I can imagine a scenario where you might use it for PC to stop but otherwise. a no go.
What if the guy flipped you off, or was just taking a vid of the public areas of your station?
IMHO- a clear violation of interstate commerce clause, and if appealed to a federal court instead of clearly biased state court defendant would win.
This law then is nonsensical. What about rental cars, for example? When I fly into LAX I’m as likely to get an AZ or TX car as a CA one. And some states don’t require a front plate, while CA does. I’m sure there are many more such differences. Your interpretation would let CA cops pull over any car with out-of-state plates on the “reasonable suspicion” that it doesn’t meet CA equipment requirements. I think it more likely that only once an out of state car is required to be legally REGISTERED in CA can state differences in equipment requirements be violated. I humbly ask that you explain this obvious conundrum.
Having no front license plate is unenforceable if the state did not provide it. Cops should not enforce laws in a way that produces absurd results like this.