Chevy SS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,815 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well, in the words of one Eddie Vedder, have I got a little story for you.

It started on a cool breezy day in October, at the last show of the year. The Covered Bridge Festival is held every year in October, in Madison County Iowa. Yes, that one with the book and the movie and Clint Eastwood. Anyway, they also have a car show on the last day of the festival. Normally pretty busy, the show was a bit lighter than usual as the day started out fairly cool and windy. Couldn't speak to the festival on the Winterset town square as I never left the car show.

When the show ended and the awards were announced (no awards for the blue beast that day), I went about packing up for the drive home. Law enforcement had a large presence when I left, directing traffic and such. Small talk with a local officer, gave him a hard time about letting a Mustang go ahead of me, to which he replied, "Sounds like you'll catch him pretty quickly." I smiled and turned right onto Hwy 92 eastbound. Upon my turn I noticed a state trooper with a car pulled over, and another further down the road. After all, what's a town festival good for if not a large gathering of people form other small and large towns offering up reasons small and large to take their money from them? What other profession offers you the opportunity to take money from the very people that employ you under threat of arrest and incarceration? I digress. So I pass the first trooper, offer a courtesy wave, and continue down the road. I'm not one hundred feet past him when his tires spit gravel as he rolls out from behind his current now previous stop to accelerate to me and hit the lights. I begrudgingly pull off onto the shoulder, more because of the dusty gravel on the treated tires than anything else.

So the trooper comes up on the passenger side, we exchange pleasantries, and he asks if I know why he stopped me. FYI, the answer is always no. If you offer a reason that wasn't the reason, it is now part of the reason, and part of the extortion that follows. So I offer this answer, and he replies "I pulled you over because you have no front plate." I apologize, and explain that I remove it for car shows, have it in the trunk and would be happy to put it on. He says "I'm not worried about it. I need you to put your front windows up about four inches for me." "For what?" "Because I need to check for tint." My response, the he seemed less than pleased with, was "I'll put my windows up for you against my will, but with all due respect, if you don't have probable cause, and I don't consent to the search, it seems to me that without a warrant this is an unlawful search." Uh oh. He slowly leans forward, from two hands on the passenger side window sill to one forearm, with the other hand apparently holding his service weapon down in the breeze, and says "You'll put your windows up four inches or I'll take you to jail for interference." Wow, okay then. So I do, and he retrieves his who knows how dirty probably never re-calibrated meter from his car, and while putting it over the window that he didn't wipe or check to see if it was free of debris says "You have to understand, I have the right to inspect every vehicle that I pull over. Headlights, tail lights turn signals, etc."

He writes me a warning for the plate, and a ticket for "DARK WINDOW OR WINDSHIELD" section 321.438(2). Section 321.438(3) will be part of my telephone presentation some five months later. The fine for said ticket is $50.00, plus $60.00 court costs and a $17.50 "criminal surcharge". So now I'm a criminal, good to know. Court date 11/20/19. I'll be there.

So November 20th rolls around, I take a 34 hour reset at work, and show up to court. I see the magistrate, plead not guilty, and he asks "So you removed the tint?" My response was "I didn't remove anything." So a pretrial hearing is set. I ask what that is and am told that it involves both sides sitting down and discussing the merits of the case and perhaps coming to an agreement before a trial. Fair enough. Pretrial hearing set for 12/18/19.

Again on December 18th I do a reset at work, show up to the Madison County Courthouse, and wait for this hearing to take place. About thirty minutes past the hour the county attorney comes out in the hallway and announces my name. She asks "So you want to plead not guilty?" "Yes." is my response. "Just so you know, if you got a break on anything else you'll be charges with that as well." she says. Really, you can charge me with something I wasn't originally ticketed for after the fact? Mental note taken. Trial date set, 03/11/20. If you've not noticed, there is a pattern here. Middle of the week, middle of the day, every scheduled appearance. Add the not so veiled threat in there and it is clear that they just want you to pay up and move on. Ummm, no.

Another Wednesday, another reset. This time, a suit and tie. That suit used to fit a whole lot better... Anyway, I walk in, go in the magistrate's office/small hearing room where I was told the trial would take place. He asks if he can help me, and I explain that I am there for my trial. He checks the computer, perhaps the court docket, and apparently sees nothing. He asks for my name, looks it up and tells me "It looks like your trial date was changed to April 8th." Of course it was. My response was "I can't speak to the state of the union, but the state of your county isn't good." "How's that?" he asks. I explained to him that I had been given a ticket after an unlawful search under threat of arrest, threatened with additional charges should I choose to go to trial, and missed three, now to be four days of work, which adds up to about two grand for a $127.50 ticket. I told him that the county and the court at this point were losing money, as the sixty dollar court costs had long since been blown on appearances and paperwork and county attorneys and you the magistrate. He then asked defensively "What do you think my role in this is?" "At this point you are in the unfortunate position of being across the bench from a disgruntled citizen who's tired of being jerked around for a bs ticket that should have never been written." He then suggested that I confirm my address with the clerk of court as I should have been notified. They still had my previous address on file from the ticket and we had moved. Not sure why the correspondence wasn't forwarded by the USPS, but it is what it is.

April 8th never happened, as by this time the world was (and is) dealing with a pandemic. I received court documents rescheduling my trial for 05/13/20. Those documents showed to be e-filed on March 20th. That didn't happen either. Not long after receiving those documents I received yet another letter from the county, e-filed on march 31st, that said "Due to unavailability of the State's witness, the trial scheduled herein shall be converted to a trial scheduling conference." You've got to be kidding. So I call the clerk of court office, who I should have noted after the change of address, is a very nice group of people. They understood my frustration, and suggested a call to the county attorney's office to work things out. Ah yes, the call. The culmination of the five plus month debacle, and fortunately for you the reader (if any of them remain), the end of this post. Don't get me wrong, there's still a lot to cover, but there's meat on the bones anyway.

I call the county attorney, and get the gentleman listed on the website as being that person. He explains that the person that's handling my case isn't in and he will have her call me. I responded "Her. Okay, that must be the her that threatened me with additional charges if I take this to trial." "I'm sorry?" "Never mind, I'll deal with that when she calls back." She called later that day, and for a brief time I explained my frustrations to this point, and the fact that the court now wanted me to show up for another hearing before trial. I told her that the court was welcome to have that hearing without me, and to let me know the date and time that is set for trial, and I will be there. I'm now going to be out about two grand, and another five hundred for a conference wasn't necessary. In all honesty, all of this cost me nothing but time and gas money, as I usually reset in the middle of the week and work the weekends. I have more choices on gate times and runs, miles and money.

"I'll tell you what." I said. "I'm probably a fool for doing so, but I'm going to lay out my whole defense for you right now, which will either make it that much easier to prosecute me, or help you to come to your senses and dismiss the charges." She responds "You could probably just remove the tint and we could dismiss the case." I told her that any thought that I had of altering my car or pleading guilty was erased, and my resolve cemented, when she threatened me with additional charges in the hallway. At this point she goes speakerphone. Good, the boss is now listening. I explained that my fourth amendment rights were violated, under threat of arrest. I explained that she had threatened me with additional charges, jerked me around for months, and should dismiss the case based on the unlawful search and any evidence being used against me being illegally obtained. She explained that she had reviewed the case and was confident in their position. I said, "That's fine, but if doing an unlawful search under the guise of a vehicle inspection is to become the norm, you and your office are going down a slippery slope." "How so?" she asked. I explained that the ticket was written under Iowa penal code 321.438(2), and that 321.438(3) says that " Every motor vehicle except a motorcycle, or a vehicle included in the provisions of section 321.383 or section 321.115 shall be equipped with a windshield in accordance with section 321.444." (.383 is slow moving vehicles, .115 are antique vehicles. .444 says no one will sell or operate a vehicle without safety glass). "There is now Iowa law or provision that requires side windows, which is why you see jeeps with plastic windows, or no windows or doors at all, legally, so how can the inspection of something, that I'm not even required to have, be used as a legitimate reason to perform an unlawful search? Using this logic, does than mean that law enforcement can force me to open the trunk to inspect the spare that I'm not required to have, or search under the seats to inspect the airbag wiring that I'm not required to have?" Silence. "Look, you have to understand, if I had window tint, I would have it simply to protect my investment, nothing more. I understand that the law was written to keep law enforcement safe, but first, if they didn't feel safe they wouldn't pull you over simply because of the thing that makes them feel unsafe, and second, again, if I had window tint I would always travel to and from car shows with my windows down to prevent unease on the part of law enforcement and debacles like this one. "Well, clearly you do have window tint, it was measured at thirty percent on the ticket." "With all due respect ma'am, any evidence obtained unlawfully is I believe in your line of work referred to as "fruit of the poison vine", inadmissible in court, and therefore doesn't even exist." "Let me put you on hold." Click. ... "Thanks for holding. Did you say this is a show car?" "Yes, I take it to car shows." "So it's not your daily driver, you don't drive it to work and such..." "No, it is not my daily driver, doesn't see rain, snow or winter service. I may drive it to work occasionally, usually if there is a cruise night afterwards." "Okay, since it's a show car, how about this. We'll dismiss the case if you pay the sixty bucks court costs." My response was "While I would love to actually have my day in court that everyone always talks about, because I believe my defense and my case to be sound, I will accept your offer, simply because the whole charade has cost me too much time and money already."

Less than a week later, I received a court document that states "Upon the State's written motion and inthe interests of justice, the above captioned case is dismissed with costs assessed to the Defendant pursuant to the agreement between the parties... IT IS SO ORDERED".

In the long run, if I had tint, it would still be there. I question myself on the agreement, but tell myself that it was the prudent thing to do. I'm not a criminal, nor one with disdain or hatred toward law enforcement. I am however, one who believes in our great democracy, and the rights afforded it's citizens through the United States Constitution, it's amendments and the bill of rights.

God Bless America.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,815 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
I should have noted that there is no provision in Iowa penal code 321.438(2) that allows for, or says anything about, "show cars" or the fact that somehow the law doesn't apply to them. The county needed an out, and I was nice enough to give them one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Nice job Perry Mason would be proud.

Also I dont understand how every state south of us are ok with having tint. And there LEO
Seem to be still safe or no more at risk because of it.

It's just a money grab. I have the permit for window tint but gave up doing it just so I wont be hassled constantly. Glad you got mostly out of it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
WELLL I have a LOTTA experience dealing in traffic courts!!! I used to teach "Traffic School" here in Cali,,, many years ago!!! I was a bit more unconventional than most at it!!

The first rule in ANY traffic stop/detention/ARREST,, IS THIS!!!! YOU ARE UNDER ARREST... PERIOD!! Dont't think so,,, try leaving the scene!!! Won't go so well!! Think you need to be MIRANDIZED??? HAHAHA,,, NOPE!! Even if you DO get mirandized,,, even the statements made prior to that admonishment are admissible statements against you!!!

RULE NUMBER ONE,,,, ITS YOUR RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT!!! EXERCISE IT!! SHUT THE F UP!!!

Now that said,,, be courteous,, and inform the officer that you will cooperate in the provision of required documentation, license, registration, proof of insurance and so forth,,, but will not respond to any interrogatories (questions) posed out of the presence of an attorney!!! You KNOW your rights!! ESPECIALLY,,, when that first question is a deliberate, intentionally intimidating entrapment attempt (Do You Know Why Im Stoppin YOU BOY!!)!! NEVER STIPULATE BY ANSWERING THAT ONE!! My usual response goes like,,, No officer,, its your responsibility to inform me of your reasonable suspicion,,, in pursuit of a probable cause!! You tell me why you pulled me over!! ( I am litigating one of these too just now!!!). I know,,, I know,,, this is a royal pain,,, HOWEVER,,,, I like you in this one Jonathan,,, will go to great lengths to protect my legal rights,, and yes,,, I have dealt with cops that have come unhinged over this approach,, because I TAKE CONTROL OF THE SITUATION,, by operation from a position that cannot be intimidated!! YES, I have had to "take the ride" on a few occasions!! In every one of those instances,,, the officer has not prevailed,, in fact quite the opposite,,, they got schooled!!!

I know this will also not sit well,,, BUT,,,, these "Infraction" cases,, hold the exact same weight as full blown criminal proceedings!!! In other words,,,, HIRE AN ATTORNEY!! I Know, I Know,,,, it can expensive!!! BUT think of it as following the old adage,,,, " A Person who represents himself,,, usually has a fool for a client"!! If you can find a decent traffic attorney (We have hundreds in Cali that do nothing else! Its INCREDIBLY lucrative here at about $300++ a case, and under an hours work!!) it would have been cheaper than the overall financial loss in the long term!! You would also,,, not have to appear in court, until it perhaps went as far as a trial!!

IF you had done that I can confidently assure you that it would have been dismissed out of hand from the jump!! The last thing they need and want is a fight with an experienced lawyer, in a public court/hearing situation,, where other uninformed sheep are shivering with fear over any encounter with the legal system,,, and ready to pay or beg for time to do so!! They do not want you to show them how to empower over the Traffic Intimidation Courts!!!

That said,,,, I get about an average of 2 a year!! I USUALLY defend myself,, but I have mastered many of the "Secrets" of the Cali traffic court system. I have not paid a bailment, in over 20 years,, and only been unsuccessful twice in that time,,, on my own!! NOW,, THAT said,,, I have hired the Johnny Cochran,, of traffic attorneys about 6 or 7 times,, and been successful in 100% of those cases!!! It usually depends on the officers "Demeanor" and the jurisdiction he enforces. It does take adequate preparation, some common sense knowledge, and a professional appearance and demeanor on your end,, which is of course not a problem I suspect!!

Show up like you mean business, and in my case,, I am ALWAYS asked if I am an attorney!!! My answer is of course No, Your Honor,,, Just a well informed citizen,,, BUT I know a few attorneys,, just fyi!! Usually gets a laugh or a chuckle,,, and then a side bar!!!

One other important metric here is this,,, Well it might be a bit different in you neck of the woods,,, BUT,, cops usually only show at around 60% of the traffic cases that actually go as far as trial. IF they dont show up,, your case must be dismissed at trial. The fundamental principle of confronting the accuser is still intact here in every state of the USA,, last I checked. That one has been good to me too,,, right around 40%!! Certainly better odds than a Lotto ticket!!!

Either way,,, NEVER LET THEM INTIMIDATE YOU!!! That is their ultimate stock in trade!! In your case,,, they were shooting fish in a barrel,,,, cuz they could!!! It had NOTHING TO DO WITH "PUBLIC SAFETY"!!

🐂 💩 :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,264 Posts
I should have noted that there is no provision in Iowa penal code 321.438(2) that allows for, or says anything about, "show cars" or the fact that somehow the law doesn't apply to them. The county needed an out, and I was nice enough to give them one.
Today, only four states — California, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington — allow aspiring lawyers to take the bar exam without going to law school. Instead, they are given the option to apprentice with a practicing attorney or judge (on your Reset Day via the internet).

Bar exam easier in Vermont or Washington. Once you pass you can also practice in DC.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,815 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Nice job Perry Mason would be proud.

Also I dont understand how every state south of us are ok with having tint. And there LEO
Seem to be still safe or no more at risk because of it.

It's just a money grab. I have the permit for window tint but gave up doing it just so I wont be hassled constantly. Glad you got mostly out of it.
I too have the medical exemption. Unfortunately it is only applicable on the vehicle originally tinted if after July 4, 2012. It is a money grab. Even South Dakota allows for tint, and they sure aren't south of us. Seems only state troopers in Iowa enforce the law, I get waves and "nice car" from many a local or county LEO.
WELLL I have a LOTTA experience dealing in traffic courts!!! I used to teach "Traffic School" here in Cali,,, many years ago!!! I was a bit more unconventional than most at it!!

The first rule in ANY traffic stop/detention/ARREST,, IS THIS!!!! YOU ARE UNDER ARREST... PERIOD!! Dont't think so,,, try leaving the scene!!! Won't go so well!! Think you need to be MIRANDIZED??? HAHAHA,,, NOPE!! Even if you DO get mirandized,,, even the statements made prior to that admonishment are admissible statements against you!!!

RULE NUMBER ONE,,,, ITS YOUR RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT!!! EXERCISE IT!! SHUT THE F UP!!!

Now that said,,, be courteous,, and inform the officer that you will cooperate in the provision of required documentation, license, registration, proof of insurance and so forth,,, but will not respond to any interrogatories (questions) posed out of the presence of an attorney!!! You KNOW your rights!! ESPECIALLY,,, when that first question is a deliberate, intentionally intimidating entrapment attempt (Do You Know Why Im Stoppin YOU BOY!!)!! NEVER STIPULATE BY ANSWERING THAT ONE!! My usual response goes like,,, No officer,, its your responsibility to inform me of your reasonable suspicion,,, in pursuit of a probable cause!! You tell me why you pulled me over!! ( I am litigating one of these too just now!!!). I know,,, I know,,, this is a royal pain,,, HOWEVER,,,, I like you in this one Jonathan,,, will go to great lengths to protect my legal rights,, and yes,,, I have dealt with cops that have come unhinged over this approach,, because I TAKE CONTROL OF THE SITUATION,, by operation from a position that cannot be intimidated!! YES, I have had to "take the ride" on a few occasions!! In every one of those instances,,, the officer has not prevailed,, in fact quite the opposite,,, they got schooled!!!

I know this will also not sit well,,, BUT,,,, these "Infraction" cases,, hold the exact same weight as full blown criminal proceedings!!! In other words,,,, HIRE AN ATTORNEY!! I Know, I Know,,,, it can expensive!!! BUT think of it as following the old adage,,,, " A Person who represents himself,,, usually has a fool for a client"!! If you can find a decent traffic attorney (We have hundreds in Cali that do nothing else! Its INCREDIBLY lucrative here at about $300++ a case, and under an hours work!!) it would have been cheaper than the overall financial loss in the long term!! You would also,,, not have to appear in court, until it perhaps went as far as a trial!!

IF you had done that I can confidently assure you that it would have been dismissed out of hand from the jump!! The last thing they need and want is a fight with an experienced lawyer, in a public court/hearing situation,, where other uninformed sheep are shivering with fear over any encounter with the legal system,,, and ready to pay or beg for time to do so!! They do not want you to show them how to empower over the Traffic Intimidation Courts!!!

That said,,,, I get about an average of 2 a year!! I USUALLY defend myself,, but I have mastered many of the "Secrets" of the Cali traffic court system. I have not paid a bailment, in over 20 years,, and only been unsuccessful twice in that time,,, on my own!! NOW,, THAT said,,, I have hired the Johnny Cochran,, of traffic attorneys about 6 or 7 times,, and been successful in 100% of those cases!!! It usually depends on the officers "Demeanor" and the jurisdiction he enforces. It does take adequate preparation, some common sense knowledge, and a professional appearance and demeanor on your end,, which is of course not a problem I suspect!!

Show up like you mean business, and in my case,, I am ALWAYS asked if I am an attorney!!! My answer is of course No, Your Honor,,, Just a well informed citizen,,, BUT I know a few attorneys,, just fyi!! Usually gets a laugh or a chuckle,,, and then a side bar!!!

One other important metric here is this,,, Well it might be a bit different in you neck of the woods,,, BUT,, cops usually only show at around 60% of the traffic cases that actually go as far as trial. IF they dont show up,, your case must be dismissed at trial. The fundamental principle of confronting the accuser is still intact here in every state of the USA,, last I checked. That one has been good to me too,,, right around 40%!! Certainly better odds than a Lotto ticket!!!

Either way,,, NEVER LET THEM INTIMIDATE YOU!!! That is their ultimate stock in trade!! In your case,,, they were shooting fish in a barrel,,,, cuz they could!!! It had NOTHING TO DO WITH "PUBLIC SAFETY"!!

🐂 💩 :cool:
I'm sure you know that I wasn't intimidated in the least. As for the attorney, it would have cost me much more than "sixty bucks" as she put it. I am familiar with the adage "Only a fool...", but I checked around, cost was high, and I decide that I'd rather stand up for my own rights. I didn't want someone else's spin on my case, my defense or my words. I didn't figure the trooper to show, but I was going to regardless. "If I had done that..." Come on E! I didn't need to, and I got to tell a magistrate and two prosecuting attorneys exactly how I felt for sixty dollars!
Today, only four states — California, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington — allow aspiring lawyers to take the bar exam without going to law school. Instead, they are given the option to apprentice with a practicing attorney or judge (on your Reset Day via the internet).

Bar exam easier in Vermont or Washington. Once you pass you can also practice in DC.
I hope your tongue was planted firmly in your cheek with a wry grin on your face as you typed. Like you, if my memory serves me, I'm but a truck driver. I did however stay at a Holiday Inn Express once. :cool:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
Of course some tongue in cheek,,, BUT also written in the spirit of showing others that traffic cops and the court system is nothing to be intimidated by!! It is a rather unique discipline within the US Judicial systems, in that it is normally the ONLY system MOST Americans ever encounter in their lifetimes!! AND the one they seem to carry the most anxiety about!!!

I hate that the system gets away with a whole lotta specious behavior,, behind traffic infractions,,, that if confronted,, would NEVER pass muster in a court of appeal!! Like I said,,,, Shootin Fish In A Barrel !!!

;)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,815 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Of course some tongue in cheek,,, BUT also written in the spirit of showing others that traffic cops and the court system is nothing to be intimidated by!! It is a rather unique discipline within the US Judicial systems, in that it is normally the ONLY system MOST Americans ever encounter in their lifetimes!! AND the one they seem to carry the most anxiety about!!!

I hate that the system gets away with a whole lotta specious behavior,, behind traffic infractions,,, that if confronted,, would NEVER pass muster in a court of appeal!! Like I said,,,, Shootin Fish In A Barrel !!!

;)
I was referring to @Drone 's response being tongue in cheek. Me, an attorney? Ha! I've done plenty of bar exams in my life. In front of 'em, behind 'em and from one end to the other of a whole bunch of 'em. 😉
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,264 Posts
I was referring to @Drone 's response being tongue in cheek. Me, an attorney? Ha! I've done plenty of bar exams in my life. In front of 'em, behind 'em and from one end to the other of a whole bunch of 'em. 😉
Truck Drivers need Attorneys too...lol

Was in bad accident late Dec 2019. Just finished Rehab. DOT medical card expired this past February. Walking now in the Land of Enchantment to get my BMI in spec. If Space Force calls me up before Physical, maybe I'll contract until Medicare...lol
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
I was referring to @Drone 's response being tongue in cheek. Me, an attorney? Ha! I've done plenty of bar exams in my life. In front of 'em, behind 'em and from one end to the other of a whole bunch of 'em. 😉
A long time ago. I posted up the story of my travels through Texas (Cant find those posts so easily anymore!!), where I confronted the officer, who said to us,,, "You wanna know why I stopped YOU BOY!! I STOP EVERYTHING THAT COME THROUGH HERE WITH CALIFORNIA PLATES,,, AND OR LONG HAIR,,, BOY!! YOU GOT BOTH!!! THAT'S WHY!!

So the tongue in cheek,, will always be referring to those entrapment questions,,, that are De Regure with this typical behavior!!

I have been in front of a couple of Judges that told me as they dismissed my cases,,, that I missed my calling in life!!

;)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,815 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
The part that really dumbfounded me about the whole thing was the fact that a legitimate penal code infraction was the reason for the stop, and an unlawful search wasn't needed. He chose to write a warning for that and go fishing instead. Perhaps a bigger fine involved? The logic escapes me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
705 Posts
here in Victoria Australia the rules are sort of clear on tinting.

All windows of a motor vehicle, other than windscreens,
available to the driver to obtain a view of the road or other
road users must have a light transmittance of at least 35%.
However it is desirable that the light transmittance of
windows to the side and ahead of the driver is not reduced
below 70%.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,815 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
here in Victoria Australia the rules are sort of clear on tinting.

All windows of a motor vehicle, other than windscreens,
available to the driver to obtain a view of the road or other
road users must have a light transmittance of at least 35%.
However it is desirable that the light transmittance of
windows to the side and ahead of the driver is not reduced
below 70%.
The law in Iowa is actually more restrictive. While Iowa penal code 321.438(2) doesn't spell out the actual percentage, I've been told that for the windshield and front driver's and passenger side windows they must have 85% light transmittance. This negates pretty much all tint, especially with most cars having an unseen 9-10% factory tint.
My issue isn't with the law, even though the spirit of the law is very different than the enforcement of the law. If law enforcement truly felt unsafe because of window tint, it would be the last thing they pull you over for, not the first. I think a law that would make guys like me as well as law enforcement happy would read something like this:

Any automobile with window tint resulting in less than 85% light transmittance is required when approached by law enforcement to lower all windows designed to raise and lower. Failure to lower all applicable windows will result in an automatic $500.00 fine. This law is not weather specific, and is applicable at all times in all conditions.

It would suck getting pulled over in the rain or a blizzard, but much like performance modifications, you knew the risks going in and you took the chance. You have to pay to play I believe is the common "go to" for such modifications.

I got pulled over in my Callaway SC540 a few years ago, same tint, windows up. I put all of the windows down when I got pulled over to lower tensions, was thanked for doing so, and got the ticket anyway. I'm okay with that. I plead guilty, paid the fine and moved on. If I'd have passed the trooper with the windows up this time it would have been the same scenario. But when you violate the rights guaranteed me by the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, I have a problem with that. It protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, and without reasonable suspicion(the windows were down), probable cause(he didn't have any), or my consent(he didn't get it), he would have needed a search warrant to follow the law while upholding and defending the US Constitution, which he took an oath to do.

In the end I suppose it worked out for everyone. I got the case dismissed, and the state got "sixty bucks" on a dismissed charge. They'd have gotten more for a no front plate ticket, but I'll give them plenty more chances for that one. As for the windows, the tint won't change. I do have a plan however... :cool:
 

·
Registered
2014 SS, Heron White, No Sunroof, added OEM spare
Joined
·
2,733 Posts
One thing that I've learned in 52 years of driving and over 100 tickets(yes, 100+), taken to jail twice and my car impounded, is that you keep your mouth shut and do your best to be in-cog-negro and fight your battles in court.

All of my cars have tinted windows or my wife won't ride in it, so, we bite the bullet on that one. We've gotten 4 tickets, total, for tinted windows.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,815 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
One thing that I've learned in 52 years of driving and over 100 tickets(yes, 100+), taken to jail twice and my car impounded, is that you keep your mouth shut and do your best to be in-cog-negro and fight your battles in court.

All of my cars have tinted windows or my wife won't ride in it, so, we bite the bullet on that one. We've gotten 4 tickets, total, for tinted windows.
In cog negro. That is freaking classic! The keep your mouth shut part is difficult for me, but I'm always recording and I make sure the officers know it. In Iowa 3 tint tickets within a 12 month period and they can pull your registration.
Jail? Man, not me, never been. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,026 Posts
All of my cars have tinted windows or my wife won't ride in it, so, we bite the bullet on that one. We've gotten 4 tickets, total, for tinted windows.
Same here, no need to go fish bowling it..... :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
705 Posts
Does anyone think that just saying to Mr Policeman that it was built in Australia and probably complied with their rules and GM forgot to change it. Worth a try.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,815 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Does anyone think that just saying to Mr Policeman that it was built in Australia and probably complied with their rules and GM forgot to change it. Worth a try.
The first no front plate warning I got from a city cop a few years ago was a warning because the license plate frame was on backorder from Oz... 🙄
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top