11-13-2007, 04:16 PM #1
Pennsylvania Tint Law
I've been seeing alot of cars with tinted windows in PA around where I work and live. I've been researching allowable tint and alot of officers I know tell me they cite anyone with any tint because they believe its totally illegal, and judges are standing behind them, but when I search google for the exact term pennsylvania tint law and click the first link I come up with a page that explains the confusion. Apparently this is about the most poorly written tint law in the country, it points to all different references, and in the end the law being enforced isn't on the law books but its some table in a legal newsletter. I don't understand how they can write people for tint on this loophole that isn't even a law. What are you thoughts? Anyone familiar with it? I'd really like to tint my cars but I'm not sure how to go about it, and apparently they are enforcing anything lower than 70% is illegal(but not by law?) and really why bother, you can't even tell there is tint on a window @70%.
The LEOs I'm related to/friends with, tell me just to do the back doors/windows and not worry about it, but not all leo's think the same, so I wanted some other opinions.
11-13-2007, 04:37 PM #2
Don't forget that there can be county and municipal (city) ordinances involving tint laws.
With that said, I found a website implying that the PA laws involving tint contradict themselves. The first statement being,
The applicable PA Law or Statute is TITLE 75 of PA STATUTES - 4524 (e)(1) - This is the LAW passed by our legislators and it does NOT prohibit tint unless it "does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle through the windshield, side wing or side window of the vehicle."
The second statement:
The Statute is clarrified in PA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE 67 - CHAPTER 175.67 (d)(4) where some tint is prohibited, but NOT tinting "otherwise permitted by FMVSS No. 205".
Whoever is the owner of this particular website is basically stating that, although PA statute says it is illegal to tint a vehicle where a person cannot view the inside, the law also states that tinting can be permitted as long as it complies with the federal motor vehicle standard (FMVSS).
Here's my opinion (although I'm not a PA officer):
Laws/rules are open to interpretation and are not always going to be in black and white. If the common action taken by officers in PA is to cite someone who has any tint or tint that is too dark to see in the vehicle, and it is a common citation that is upheld by the courts, then that is what I would go by when deciding to tint (or not tint) my vehicle. Feel free to challenge it through the appeals process if the tint law is not clearly defined, but spending hundreds to thousands of dollars (in legal fees) to keep a vehicle tinted is their own perrogative.I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..
11-17-2007, 08:34 AM #3
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
11-17-2007, 11:30 AM #4
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
I say good for the officers. If you ask me, tint on the driver and passenger door should be illegal and it should be allowed on the rear area only in a high %. It is an officer safety issue and frankly a driver/passenger safety issue. How many times have people been shot in a car by the police because the officer thought there was a gun or weapon but it ended up not being one. To my knowledge, most of these incidents occur because of dark tint and the officer not being able to clearly see in to the car. And don't say the officer should have waited to make sure it was a weapon before shooting because I am sure that 99% of officers are going to shoot first, ask questions later IF they truly feel their life is in danger. The saying is well worn but still hold true, "Better to be judge by 12 then carried by 6".
WV the tint can not be darker than 35% which is still pretty darn dark IMO and at night it is almost impossible to see into until you are right up on the vehicle and by then it is too late if something is to happen.
Last edited by cashton; 11-17-2007 at 11:38 AM.
11-18-2007, 05:37 PM #5Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"
11-19-2007, 10:33 AM #6
Personally I think a car looks better with the windows tinted. I think most of you guys would agree, officer safety issues aside. I understand that in our society you have all this nut jobs that would love to harm an officer on a traffic stop so they pretty much ruin it for everyone, I'm glad you guys are giving me some feedback on this, because you'd be much more like any random officer that might pull me over than the ones I know, I see its much more of an issue to you than what I thought.
PA tintlaw is still a mess, and I forgot to mention, SUVs are allowed to have tint on the back windows, I just picked up a black lincoln mkx in august and the tint on the back is really dark, no way are you seeing inside of that thing at night, and theres alot more room in there to have weapons in it than in my mustang, if it was all about office safety, I don't see how that one slipped through. Also why are limos and taxi's allowed to have the back blacked out? Those lincoln town cars and crown vics are cars, and can carry all sorts of people in the back, isn't that a safety issue as well?
Then you go 5 minutes away from where I live and you're in NJ, where its legal to tint the back windows all you want but not the fronts(afaik). There are a LOT of cars from NJ in the area that I live because I'm so close, and the same officers that protect my neighborhood and would probably pull me over for tint don't pull over these NJ cars.
I did have a mazda3 5door with tint only on the back, it was purchased as 35% but I don't have a tint meter to verify, but here you can see (pics during the day)
http://www.jbeez.net/miscdump/carpics/DSCN0252.JPG back of the car
http://www.jbeez.net/miscdump/carpics/DSCN0254.JPG front of the car
being a reasonable person, I would think this is a safe setup, so thats what I went with, I do think I would get pulled over just for tint in my bright red mustang though, so thats why I'm doing research this time around
Thanks for your input, I appreciate it, even constructive criticism, I don't take any points personally, I hope you don't either, I'm here to learn.
11-19-2007, 10:49 AM #7
That's a nice link, but it doesn't cite which law or regulation he gets the 70% from besides the bottom bullet mark states something about the FMVSS and the front windows, but not the back.
Do you think he would respond to me if I wrote him? Or are these AG's pretty busy and don't bother with little stuff like this?
11-19-2007, 02:41 PM #8
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
Thats the loop hole. Most tint laws only cover the windows of the driver and passenger doors, not the rear doors/windows and back glass which IMO should not be allowed to be tinted darker than the law allows the front windows to be tinted. So you are correct, the back half of a vehicle can be tinted much darker or even as dark as you want as long as the front complies with the law.
I do agree that most vehicles do look good with a dark tint, but I would like to hear your opinion on the subject the first time you have to walk up on a car during the night that is tinted out and you have no idea what or who is inside nor their intentions.
11-19-2007, 04:07 PM #9
11-19-2007, 09:39 PM #10
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
Last edited by Jake06; 05-03-2012 at 11:00 PM. Reason: .
11-19-2007, 09:52 PM #11
Our law for example, applies to any motor vehicle operated on a highway.
Take care ......"That's right man, we've got mills here that'll blow that heap of your's right off the road."
"Beautiful Daughter of the Stars."(it's my home now)
>>>>> A Time for Choosing <<<<<
Retired @ 31yr 2mo as of 0000 hrs. 01-01-10. Yeah, all in all, it was good.
11-24-2007, 09:33 PM #12
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Pittsburgh PA
According to Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code Section 4524(e)(1) related to Sunscreening and other materials prohibited it states that No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sun screening device or other material which does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle through the winshield, side wing or side window of the vehicle. Subsection(2) this subsection does not apply to: (1) A vehicle which is equipped with tinted windows of the type and specification that were installed by the manufacturer of the vehicle or to any hearse,ambulance,government vehicle or any other vehicle for which a current valid certificate of exemption has been issued in accordance with regulations adopted by the department.
If I were you I would just avoid the whole idea of getting my windows tinted. Why pay money to modify your car and then risk being cited?In God we trust all others we run through NCIC
12-11-2007, 03:41 PM #13
12-11-2007, 05:03 PM #14
12-12-2007, 12:23 AM #15
If your state allows window tinting on the windshield or front doors you can be cited if you drive that vehicle in California with said tinted windows.Today's Quote:
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
12-12-2007, 08:19 AM #16
§ 175.263. Sun screening location.
(a) Windshields, side windows and side wings. A person may not operate, on a highway, a motor vehicle with a front windshield, side window or side wing that has been equipped with a sun screening device or other material which does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle. This subchapter does not prohibit the use of products or materials along the top edge of the windshield if the products or materials are transparent and do not encroach upon the AS-1 portion of the windshield as provided by FMVSS No. 205 and if the devices or materials are not more than 3 inches from the top of the windshield.
(b) Rear window. The rear window on a motor vehicle may be treated by the vehicle owner with a sun screening device or other material. If the rear window is treated with a sun screening device or other material, the vehicle shall comply with § 175.264 (relating to mirrors). See Table X for specific requirements for vehicles subject to this subchapter.
(c) Louvered materials. Louvered materials may not reduce the area of driver visibility below 50% as measured on a horizontal plane.
This section cited in 67 Pa. Code § 175.264 (relating to mirrors); and 67 Pa. Code § 175.265 (relating to exemption provisions).
TABLE X—ACCEPTABLE LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE LEVELS
FOR VEHICLE GLAZING
All light transmittance levels listed below assume a 3% accuracy (±3%).
Front Side Rear Side
Vehicle Type Windshield Windows/Wings Windows/Wings Rear Window
Pre-1998 Passenger Cars 70% 70% 70% VESC-20*
1998 & Newer Passenger Cars 70% 70% 70% 70%
Trucks & Multi-Purpose
Passenger Vehicles 70% 70% No Requirement No Requirement
Medium/Heavy Trucks & Buses 70% 70% No Requirement No Requirement
All Other Vehicles 70% 70% No Requirement No Requirement
*A label, permanently installed between the sun screening device or other material and the glazing to which it is applied, shall contain the name of the device or material manufacturer or a registration number and the statement, ‘‘Complies with VESC-20.’’
The provisions of this Table X issued under the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § § 4103, 4521, 4524 and 6103.
The provisions of this Table X adopted September 27, 1996, effective September 28, 1996, 26 Pa.B. 4640.
I know the website you are talking about. Keep in mind, anyone can make up a website, and the guy that made up that one was cited and found guilty of violating the law. He can whine about it all he wants, and give others bogus info, bottom line is, he lost his case. We do enforce the tint laws, and have meters to measure light transmittance. I had a young lady I gave a warning to for tint that was blue/silver (the kind that goes from dark blue on the bottom to silver on the top). I gave her three weeks to remove it. She felt she could ignore that warning. I then gave her another warning and an order to remove it, and told her that, in one month, if it was not removed, I would have her car towed to the nearest inspection station, conduct a full vehicle inspection, and she would be cited for EVERY violation that was observed. (It was one of those "special" cars with all the red and blue windshield washer lights, interior neon type lights, under car lights, and so on...) Well, a full three months after the original warning, she had STILL not removed anything, soooooo, to make a long story short, it cost her over $2,000 to fix everything, remove all the illegal accessories, pay the tow bill, and cost of the inspection. As far as police orders go:
(b) Authority of police officer.--Whenever a police officer is engaged in a systematic program of checking vehicles or drivers or has reasonable suspicion that a violation of this title is occurring or has occurred, he may stop a vehicle, upon request or signal, for the purpose of checking the vehicle’s registration, proof of financial responsibility, vehicle identification number or engine number or the driver’s license, or to secure such other information as the officer may reasonably believe to be necessary to enforce the provisions of this title.As far as "rights" are concerned; I look at them this way... I don't tell you what church to go to, and you don't tell me what kind of firearm I can own...
03-28-2013, 06:23 AM #17
- Join Date
- Mar 2013
this may shed some light on the entire debate as higher court case law can over-turn a lower court which they set precedence over lower courts regardless they hold more weight same as supreme court has more weight than district courts etc etc etc..following the chain of command the higher courts overturned this case even though the lower courts held it twice as being a violation.. but clearly tinted windows are allowed in the state of PA, just not to the degree where you can not see into the vehicle. education is the answer to ignorance. be informed know the laws protect your rights, be informed, or be ignorant the choice is yours
i can not paste a link but if you do a search for COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Benjamin J. BRUBAKER, Appellant. No. 2012 MDA 2008
read the case law I will post below so you dont have to look it up or doubt me ,,
I am not the apprentice type of paralegal I actually went to school and obtained my degree..
COM. v. BRUBAKER
5 A.3d 261 (2010)
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Benjamin J. BRUBAKER, Appellant.
No. 2012 MDA 2008Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued October 20, 2009.
Filed June 29, 2010.
Benjamin J. Brubaker , appellant, pro se.
Michele H. Sibert , Asst. Dist. Atty., for Com., appellee.
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., FREEDBERG and COLVILLE,* JJ.
OPINION BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.:
¶ 1 This is a pro se appeal from a judgment of sentence imposed upon appellant after he was convicted of violating a section of the Vehicle Code pertaining to sun screening of windows. We reverse.
¶ 2 On March 28, 2008, shortly after 4:00 p.m., the vehicle appellant was driving was stopped by Officer Lane Pryor of the Camp Hill Borough Police Department in the vicinity of the Route 15-Route 581 interchange in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Officer Pryor stopped the vehicle believing that the vehicle was being driven in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4524(e)(1), relating to after-market sun screening or window tinting. After stopping the vehicle, Officer Pryor concluded that appellant was indeed in violation of § 4524(e)(1) and issued a citation to appellant.
¶ 3 Appellant was adjudicated guilty of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4524(e)(1) in a summary hearing in Magisterial District Court on March 28, 2008 and took an appeal to the court of common pleas. After a de novo summary appeal trial held on October 21, 2008, appellant was again convicted of violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4524(e)(1). Appellant subsequently filed the present, timely appeal in which he raises three issues for our review:
I. WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE ORDER ENTERED BY THE LOWER COURT BECAUSE 67 PA CODE 175.67(d)(4) IS NOT A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF 75 Pa.C.S. § 4524(e)(1) AND THE VEHICLE OPERATED BY THE DEFENDANT COMPLIED WITH 75 Pa.C.S. § 4524(e)(1) AND TESTIMONY OFFERED AT THE TRIAL?
II. WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE ORDER ENTERED BY THE LOWER COURT BECAUSE 75 Pa.C.S. § 4524(e)(1) CONFLICTS WITH 75 Pa.C.S. § 4527(b) AND PA CODE 175.41(a)?
III. WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE ORDER ENTERED BY THE LOWER COURT BECAUSE THE ACT OF STOPPING THE VEHICLE [APPELLANT] WAS DRIVING[ 5 A.3d 263 ]CONSTITUTUED [sic] A VIOLATION OF [APPELLANT'S] CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
Appellant's brief at 5.
¶ 4 In Issue I, appellant levels a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.
Prior to addressing this issue, we will recite our standard of review:
The standard we apply when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. . . . Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. Furthermore, when reviewing a sufficiency claim, our Court is required to give the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.
Commonwealth v. McClendon, 874 A.2d 1223, 1228-1229 (Pa.Super.2005).
¶ 5 Appellant was convicted of violating
§ 4524(e)(1) of the Vehicle Code. That provision commands:
(e) Sun screening and other materials prohibited—
(1) No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sun screening device or other material which does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle through the windshield, side wing or side window of the vehicle.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4524(e)(1). With respect to the tinting on the windows of the vehicle appellant was driving, Officer Pryor testified:
A. Well, it was obvious looking at the vehicle that there was window tint on it.
You could—this isn't the darkest that I have ever tested. This is about a mid-range window tint, that you could see figures in the vehicle. You could see there was a driver.
Notes of testimony, 9/2/08 at 11. Later, under cross-examination, the following exchange took place:
Q. Is it true that at the District Court hearing you testified that you could see and view inside of the vehicle through the windshield, side windows, and side wings?
A. Yes. Similar to what I did today, meaning 4:20 in the afternoon, daylight conditions. I also indicated that during nighttime conditions the case may not be so, to view the inside of the vehicle . . . . The window tint that you had was of [sic] one of the lighter ones that I do— did come across or have come across. However, during nighttime conditions seeing inside of the vehicle may not have been as advantageous as it was during 4:20 in the afternoon.
Id. at 20-21. Officer Pryor's testimony reveals that he was capable of seeing into appellant's vehicle even though sunscreening
[ 5 A.3d 264 ]material was present on the subject windows. Thus, upon its face, the terms of § 4524(e)(1) were not met.
¶ 6 Despite the above testimony and the express language of the statute, much of the testimony offered against appellant related to a standard imposed by the Department of Transportation ("PennDOT") and purportedly referenced at 67 Pa.Code § 175,67 concerning the transmittance of light through the treated windows. That section of the Pa. Code provides:
A sunscreening device or other material which does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by FMVSS No. 205, or a certificate of exemption has been issued in compliance with § 175.265 (relating to exemption provisions). See Table X for specific requirements for vehicles subject to this subchapter. Passenger car requirements relating to the rear window are delineated by vehicle model year in Table X.
67 Pa.Code § 175.67(d)(4) (emphasis added). According to Officer Pryor and, more importantly, the trial court, "Table X, titled Acceptable Light Transmittance Levels for Vehicle Glazing, requires passenger cars to have a light transmittance level of 70 percent or greater." (Trial court opinion, 2/18/09 at 11.)
¶ 7 With the above backdrop, the trial court's summary of the process by which appellant was charged with violating § 4524 seems rational:To determine if the vehicle did in fact violate the Vehicle Code, Officer Pryor used a window tint and reflectivity meter to measure the percentage of light transmitted through the glass. According to Officer Pryor, the device used was calibrated upon its purchase in 1996, and was tested by him at the time of the traffic stop to ensure that the device was functioning properly. After he determined that the device was reliably measuring the light, Officer Pryor used it on Defendant's vehicle to test the level of light transmitted through the vehicle's tinted windows. He found that only 36.3 percent of light was passing through [appellant's] front passenger side window, which was much less than the 70 percent required by law. Thus, as a result of the low transmittal level of the windows on the vehicle operated by
[appellant], Officer Pryor issued
[appellant] a traffic citation for a violation of section 4524(e)(1) of the Vehicle Code.
Trial court opinion, 2/18/09 at 4-5.
¶ 8 Appellant argues that, as Officer Pryor admitted that he could see into the vehicle, the explicit terms of § 4524(e) (1) were not violated. Appellant also argues that the provisions in the Pa. Code have been incorrectly applied as a safety standard and constitute an unreasonable interpretation of § 4524(e)(1). We believe appellant is correct that the terms of § 4524(e)(1) have not been met and, although our reasoning is not identical to appellant's, we believe appellant is further correct in his general thesis that the terms of 67 Pa.Code § 175.67(d)(4) cannot be utilized to sustain the conviction for § 4524(e) (1).
¶ 9 The express terms of § 4524(e)(1) prohibit a person from driving a motor vehicle which possesses sun screening material "which does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle through the windshield, side wing or side window of the vehicle." Despite Officer Pryor's and the trial court's focus upon light meter readings, the language of the statute does not prohibit a person from driving a motor vehicle which possesses sun screening material that "reduces the transmittance of light to below 70%." Just as importantly, the statute also does not
[ 5 A.3d 265 ]prohibit a person from driving a motor vehicle which possesses sun screening material that reduces the transmittance of light to below a standard to be determined and published by PennDOT. Such incorporation of a PennDOT regulation or standard by reference is precedented in the Vehicle Code. For instance, in Commonwealth v. Hull, 705 A.2d 911 (Pa.Super.1998), we considered a violation of the motorcycle helmet law, which provided:
(a) Protective headgear.—Except as provided in subsection (d) [relating to three-wheeled motorcycles with an enclosed cab], no person shall operate or ride upon a motorcycle or a motor-driven cycle (other than a motorized pedalcycle) unless he is wearing protective headgear which complies with standards established by the department.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3525(a) (emphasis added).
¶ 10 Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Bailey, 947 A.2d 808 (Pa.Super.2008), we considered the provision in the Vehicle Code immediately preceding the one at issue here. That provision deals with exhaust systems, mufflers, and noise control and states, in relevant part:
(a) Compliance with established sound levels.—Every motor vehicle operated on a highway shall be constructed, equipped, maintained and operated so as not to exceed the sound level for the vehicle as prescribed in regulations promulgated by the department. The test procedures and instrumentation to be utilized shall also be established by regulation.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4523 (emphasis added). In Hull, with regard to the appellant's argument that PennDOT had failed to promulgate a list of approved helmets, we stated "[t]his provision does not make it a violation to wear a helmet that is not on the approved list promulgated by PennDOT, but rather for wearing a helmet that does not meet the standards established by PennDOT." Hull, 705 A.2d at 913 (emphasis in original). In our opinion, the key to that sentence is that the statutory provision made it a violation to fail to comply with the published PennDOT regulation/standard. No such provision can be found in § 4524(e).¶ 11 Given the lack of reference in § 4524 to 67 Pa.Code § 175.67(d)(4), we cannot see how the provisions set forth in that section of the Pa. Code represent a standard that supplants the express language used in the statute. The trial court seemingly incorporates the language of 67 Pa.Code § 175.67(d)(4) into § 4524 (e)(1) by citing to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4107 (b)(2). (Trial court opinion, 2/18/09 at 10-11.) That section providesb) Other violations.—It is unlawful for any person to do any of the following:
* * *
(2) Operate, or cause or permit another person to operate, on any highway in this Commonwealth any vehicle or combination which is not equipped as required under this part or under department regulations or when the driver is in violation of department regulations or the vehicle or combination is otherwise in an unsafe condition or in violation of department regulations.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4107(b)(2). The simple retort to the trial court's thesis that the terms of 67 Pa.Code § 175.67(d)(4) are mandated by 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4107(b)(2) is that appellant was not charged for violating § 4107(b)(2) but, rather, was charged with violating § 4524(e)(1), which does not contain either explicitly or by reference[ 5 A.3d 266 ]the 70% transmittance standard utilized to convict appellant. Cf. Commonwealth v. Noack, 737 A.2d 1236 (Pa.Super.1999) (Driver convicted of § 4107(b)(2) for failing to maintain appropriate log books while driving a commercial motor vehicle. The state regulation violated was found at 67 Pa.Code § 229.343, which incorporates by reference 49 C.F.R. § 395.8.). In accord, Commonwealth v. Gosselin, 861 A.2d 996, 1001 (Pa.Super.2004) ("The citation in this case charges a violation of section 2307 (a), and it is that charge which
Appellant was on notice to defend against. The trial court's incorporation of 58 Pa.Code section 137.1(a) in its order charges a new offense.. . . Therefore, Appellant's conviction also must fail on this basis.").¶ 12 Given our analysis above, and Officer Pryor's testimony that he could see into the vehicle, we conclude that the evidence produced at appellant's trial was indeed insufficient to sustain the conviction for violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4524(e)(1). Thus, we reverse appellant's judgment of sentence.1
¶ 13 Judgment of sentence reversed..
03-28-2013, 02:57 PM #18
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Montgomery Alabama
03-29-2013, 03:56 PM #19
Around here, our equipment violation codes all start with "No person may operate a motor vehicle that is required to be registered in this State..." meaning that I can't cite someone with out of state tags who are in violation of our tint laws (or whatever equipment violation specific to my state).
It's always interesting to see how things vary across the country.
Edit to add: The responsible thing to do, of course, is to make sure that any aftermarket mod you have is legal where you're going just like CCW.
Last edited by BrianT; 03-29-2013 at 03:59 PM.