pa tint laws

I was just reading another thread and one of the statements was how vauge pa tint laws are. our laws are not vauge at all actualy qiute straight forward . pa tint laws are as follows passenger cars 98 and up. All windows can not be darker than 70% visibility. (If you put a tint meter on your car straight from the dealer it will read about 74%. so anything put on your car will make it illegal ) Now this does not affect any car built on an all wheel drive chasis such as a subaru. These type of vehichle's are considered suv's

97 and older passenger vehicles law is as follows. rear glass ( meaning the very back window only) can be as dark as 20% . front and rear sides can be no darker than 70%. a common misconception is that the back end of the car can be done as dark as 20%. And fact is most cops in pa think the same thing. but they also are wrong.

limos, pick up's, van's, suv's and any passenger vehicle built on an all wheel drive chasis ( again these cars are considered suv's) all of these vehicle's regardless of manufacture year. Can have no darker than 70% on the two front doors. And any shade on the rear end ( any window behind the driver seat )


Now you will pass inspection no matter how dark you windows are. It is not an inspection issue any longer . Although you can recieve a ticket for illegal tint. The ticket is $104.50 and more often than not you will be issued a warning, and told to have the film removed . If you remove it and take it to the appropiate place (either the police station or court house. depending on where you where stopped) the ticket will be thrown out.

Thanks for the post. These kinds of statements made it vague to me:



With all the cars riding around PA with limo tint, I felt 35% was pretty safe. I just have to cross my fingers, I guess.

My car is AWD (BMW 325XI). Would it be considered an SUV as well?

Sorry... just read your 3rd paragraph again. I guess the answer is "yes".

yes id does make it an suv but your front two are illegal. bad news for you though is most cops dont know that part of the law. so you may still get a ticket for tint. On the brite side for you if i remember correctly froma previous post of yours. You are from philly as well am I and the cops here in philly. Have alot more important things to worry about other than tint. So you should be ok

it's vague, pierce, because the 70% guideline is just that... a guideline... not a *law.* regardless, it's still a potential legal hassle.

referenced here is the DOT-issued "vehicle sunscreening fact sheet:"

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/fact_sheets/fs-sun.pdf

FWIW, MPV's are defined as "...vehicles that are built on a truck chassis or specifically designed for occasional off-road use."

which hardly includes a 325ix.... of course, it hardly includes minivans either.

the document has so many holes in it, it's not funny.

stay off highways and you can have limo all around.

not that i put limo on any cars.

for the record, I was being facetious.

read: kidding.

This is precisely why NHTSA has not taken their file back off the shelf in regards to Auto Tinting regulations at the federal level... they are too busy with other safety issues of greater risk to drivers.

PA legislators need only open their ears, minds and doors to the film industry to get help fashioning a law appealing to both sides. But it must start with PA tinters and distributors... aka constituents...


Texas now has a law in place that was passed with cooperation from all parties concerned... in fact, it is one that need not be changed again because, it's my understanding, the blame in any future failure of the existing law as written will be in the lap of the Texas legislator and law enforcement agencies. They cannot lay blame on any other party, though they may try.

I learned something new yet again here. Thanks. As you know, there are a ton of 2WD cars running around town with limo tint. I have two friends with 20% on their cars and they haven't gotten into any trouble and they've had dark tint on their cars for many years. I think one got a warning in Delaware but that is about it. There are some holes in that statute which makes a person think it maybe okay as long as you can see into the car which you can, clearly, in mine.

It does not matter where you are some will alway go darker than they should

as you may or may not know... there are two pro-film bills proposed to adjust this "legislative confusion." my distributor has been quite active in getting the word out and info on who to contact and how.

through this contact one of the proposed bills was switched from anti-film to pro-film.

under both proposed bills, all vehicles would have the same regulations as the MPV/SUV/Pickup group (nothing on the front, anything on the back) IMHO that's a silly regulation. I'd rather see PA have Maryland's laws. but i'll take it, as it's better than what we have now.

for the record, i understand the only real difference between the two proposed bills is the balance of fines (consumer/installer) for illegally installed tint.

That's kewl... any pro film law is a leap forward...

You got that right.

The laws in this state seem to vary from one month to the next in my own opinion. Some people get hammered with film, and some do not. It angers me that it is a fVckin gamble when you operate a vehicle with film on it (on the roads) in this state. The above statements are correct with the fact that there are a lot of vehicles down toward the city with 5% on every window (except thw entire windshield), and now I am seeing in Reading, that dark % colored papers are the happening thing. I'm just venting that's all. I need a drink

Yep, I see a lot of dark tinted cars in and around my area of Chester County. One would think tint is legal based on that alone

That form states specificly that you can not have darker than exactly what ive said in my first post. I am not trying to argue at all with you , but if you read that is is completley straight forward and to the point. If you have darker than 70% on any window of a passenger car 98 and newer it is illegal.

I'm not arguing either and I'm glad you brought this up because I felt PA law was vague and it seemed some people agreed. This brings up an interesting point though... Are there any tinters out there that do "not" install illegal tint?

Yes... those that have the ***** to stand up to the consumer and have the where-with-all to earn a decent living while denying access to those requesting it.

I remember a guy coming to my store wanting his glass dark, I said not me. Flopped the phone book in front of him and pointed to the phone on the counter... call someone else if you like... he pressed on saying, I don't know you, cash only and no receipt. I said the mere fact you don't know me is enough. In the event you have an accident and get sued and that we are not chums, you will be pointing the finger my way to get out of losing you income for the rest of your life. He pressed on... I then replied with, I bet you're the the type that knocks down all the women and children to get to the life boat as the ship sinks.

He called me an 'a$$' and left... didn't need his money and didn't want to put my family or my livelihood in harms way by accepting it... tinted legal in South Florida for years...

I don't condone it and at the same time I also cannot hold it against tinters that circumvent the laws in States where the legislators honestly believe in their feeble little minds, they know better about public wants and needs without consulting experts from all sides...

Whew... my 2 cents

plenty. and plenty of them on this site. because we're respectable folk. or at least, we want others to think we are.

the fact is: installing illegal tint gives tinters a bad name. and it's better of for everyone if tinters stick to the laws. installing dark film perpetuates the cycle and is detrimental to consumer and legislator opinion of the tinting industry.

i've had people who hear in casual conversation that my husband has a window tinting business and they'll say "oh, i don't like tint... you can't see out at night" or something along those lines.

they don't realise that there are different levels of tint, because they're used to seeing the "kid's hoopties" with limo all around and associating that with what a tinted car looks like (or the crappy, bubbly, peeling, purple installs).

if tinters kept it legal, the whole industry would look better.

but so many tinters that are wet behind the ears come into this business expect to make a killing... for one reason or another it doesn't work out, and then they're scrounging for work... and they start taking every job they can.

then... they go out of business anyway, but their handiwork is still driving the streets continuing the cycle.

Well Said

OK...someone please tell me WTF the chasis has to window tinting. Im from PA. And dont tell me some BS about officer safety. So an officer is safer aproaching and extended cab 4x4 with dark tint that has 3 terrorists with AK47s in the back vs a Geo metro hatchback with dark tint. Somone give me a logical explaination what the chasis has to do with windows tint

Also, just today my girlfriends sons friend pulled up to show of his car..had headers and tint installed.
They went for a ride down the road. At a traffic light they switched seats. State police pulls them over. Says tint is illegal. Writes up my girlfriends son a warning to remove tint in 5 days of $105 fine. Now this isnt his car, and the owner is sitting right next to him. Now how F-uped is that? So I guess if the owner does not what to remove his just installed tint job then the friend is resposible?

i'm from PA, too. worse, i'm a tint shop owner in PA.

it has to do with the chassis. we don't make the stupid law. we don't LIKE the stupid law. but it is what it is.

I am wondering the same thing.

oh... and as for the not-his-car thing?

it doesn't matter. as the operator of the vehicle, you are responsible for making certain it is in safe operating condition.

i got a ticket for towing a trailer with no trailer inspection sticker. not my trailer, not my truck. but since i was operating it, it was my fault it was on the road. thus, i was in violation.

maybe it's because those sort of vehicles are often work vehicles and they have expensive equipment in them they don't want stolen?

which means what... you can't put expensive equipment in a car?