What Are Illegal Tinted Windows (Vehicle § 26708.5)?
July 25, 2012 By Greg Hill & Associates
Our office has heard many clients report that they were pulled over because the police officer told them they had illegal tinted windows. The client usually suggests that the police officers had a hunch that our client was DUI, on probation, had drugs in the car or was wanted for an unsolved crime. The tinted windows, in other words, were just a pretext for the police to set up our client for a search, an arrest and much bigger charges than just illegal tinted windows.
The client suspects that his windows were in fact legal, making the traffic stop illegal and all evidence found subject to suspension. This article seeks to clarify what exactly constitutes illegal tinted windows.
Vehicle Code § 26708 states: reads as follows:
“No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied upon the windshield, or side or rear windows, or with any object or material so placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied in or upon the vehicle so as to obstruct or reduce the driver’s clear view through the windshield or side windows.”
In other words, it is illegal to have completely tinted front windows or completely tinted side windows. An exception exists for a driver with a medical condition requiring tinted windows, but this must be verified by a licensed physician. A narrow strip of tinted material, however, is allowed on the windshield, but it must be no lower than twenty- nine inches from the bottom of the windshield.
No tinted material may be red or amber in color. There also cannot be any lettering that that blocks one’s view outside the car or reflects light into the eyes of drivers of oncoming cars. If the rear window is tinted in any way, the car must have outside rearview windows on both sides, according to the CHP website.
If any tinting material becomes bubbled or otherwise worn, it must be removed or replaced.
Our office has informally asked several police officer’s about this law and what constitutes a violation. The consensus response is that basically any after-market window tinting is illegal.
Such an approach raises the rhetorical question of, “well, what about all those window tinting businesses? Are they just selling illegal products? How can that be legal?
In the 1983 case of Klarfield v. State of California (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 541 (191 Cal. Rptr. 330), this rhetorical question was addressed. The case arose when Transparent Glass Coating a California business, installed tinted windows on a customer’s car. The customer, Cintron, then received a ticket for the car’s violation of Vehicle Code § 26708. The customer then went back to the store, irate and demanding the store remove the tinting and pay for the ticket.
The business consequently brought an action for a declaration of its rights to continue doing business.
The court held that Transparent Glass Coating was entitled to conduct business in a legal manner if it installed “factory” grade tinted windows and any tinted windows pursuant to a customer’s medical condition. The shop was also legally entitled to install certain side and rear windows in trucks and buses. Such glass would be installed to replace windows broken in a crash, burglary or otherwise.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Greg Hill, Greg Hill and Associates
This article was written by Greg Hill. He has defended hundreds of Vehicle Code violations, including illegal tinted windows, all over Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino County. He also defends drug offenses, DUI’s, domestic violence, theft offenses, sex offenses and restraining order cases all over the state of California. He is an attorney in Torrance, California and a former Marine Officer. He is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate (B.S., 1987), Boston University graduate (M.B.A., 1994) and Loyola Law School graduate (J.D., 1998).
Copyright Greg Hill & Associates
More information about Greg Hill & Associates
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
Vehicle Code § 26708 states: reads as follows:
“No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied upon the windshield, or side or rear windows, or with any object or material so placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied in or upon the vehicle so as to obstruct or reduce the driver’s clear view through the windshield or side windows.”
In other words, it is illegal to have completely tinted front windows or completely tinted side windows. An exception exists for a driver with a medical condition requiring tinted windows, but this must be verified by a licensed physician. A narrow strip of tinted material, however, is allowed on the windshield, but it must be no lower than twenty- nine inches from the bottom of the windshield.
No tinted material may be red or amber in color. There also cannot be any lettering that that blocks one’s view outside the car or reflects light into the eyes of drivers of oncoming cars. If the rear window is tinted in any way, the car must have outside rearview windows on both sides, according to the CHP website.
If any tinting material becomes bubbled or otherwise worn, it must be removed or replaced.
Our office has informally asked several police officer’s about this law and what constitutes a violation. The consensus response is that basically any after-market window tinting is illegal.
Such an approach raises the rhetorical question of, “well, what about all those window tinting businesses? Are they just selling illegal products? How can that be legal?
In the 1983 case of Klarfield v. State of California (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 541 (191 Cal. Rptr. 330), this rhetorical question was addressed. The case arose when Transparent Glass Coating a California business, installed tinted windows on a customer’s car. The customer, Cintron, then received a ticket for the car’s violation of Vehicle Code § 26708. The customer then went back to the store, irate and demanding the store remove the tinting and pay for the ticket.
The business consequently brought an action for a declaration of its rights to continue doing business.
The court held that Transparent Glass Coating was entitled to conduct business in a legal manner if it installed “factory” grade tinted windows and any tinted windows pursuant to a customer’s medical condition. The shop was also legally entitled to install certain side and rear windows in trucks and buses. Such glass would be installed to replace windows broken in a crash, burglary or otherwise.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Greg Hill, Greg Hill and Associates
This article was written by Greg Hill. He has defended hundreds of Vehicle Code violations, including illegal tinted windows, all over Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino County. He also defends drug offenses, DUI’s, domestic violence, theft offenses, sex offenses and restraining order cases all over the state of California. He is an attorney in Torrance, California and a former Marine Officer. He is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate (B.S., 1987), Boston University graduate (M.B.A., 1994) and Loyola Law School graduate (J.D., 1998).
Copyright Greg Hill & Associates
More information about Greg Hill & Associates
View all articles published by Greg Hill & Associates
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
