Help Me Understand this Law

For 26 years I have been tinting in Indiana. Never a problem with the law. Today 7/30/08, I had a local auto dealer call me and they said a customer with tint we installed on their car was recently pulled over. The State Trooper asked ofr proof that the diver was in "compliance with FMVSS205" and said it was in the law code for Indiana. This has never been an issue. So I went and checked the Indiana Law myself - here it is...

IC 9-19-19-4
Tinting, glazing, or sunscreening vehicle windows
Sec. 4. (a) This section does not apply to a manufacturer's tinting or glazing of motor vehicle windows or windshields that is otherwise in compliance with or permitted by FMVSS205 as promulgated in 49 CFR 571.205. Proof from the manufacturer, supplier, or installer that the tinting or glazing is in compliance with or permitted by FMVSS205 must be carried in the vehicle.

(b) This section does not apply to the driver of a vehicle:
(1) that is owned by an individual required for medical reasons to be shielded from the direct rays of the sun; or
(2) in which an individual required for medical reasons to be shielded from the direct rays of the sun is a habitual passenger.
The medical reasons must be attested to by a physician or optometrist licensed to practice in Indiana, and the physician's or optometrist's certification of that condition must be carried in the vehicle. The physician's or optometrist's certificate must be renewed annually.
© A person may not drive a motor vehicle that has a:
(1) windshield;
(2) side wing;
(3) side window that is part of a front door; or
(4) rear back window;
that is covered by or treated with sunscreening material or is tinted to the extent or manufactured in a way that the occupants of the vehicle cannot be easily identified or recognized through that window from outside the vehicle. However, it is a defense if the sunscreening material applied to those windows has a total solar reflectance of visible light of not more than twenty-five percent (25%) as measured on the nonfilm side and light transmittance of at least thirty percent (30%) in the visible light range.
(d) A person may not tint or otherwise cover or treat with sunscreening the parts of a vehicle described in subsection © so that operation of the vehicle after the tinting or sunscreening is performed is a violation of subsection ©. However, it is not a violation of this chapter if this work is performed for a person who submits a physician's or optometrist's statement as described in subsection (b) to the person who is to perform the work.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.7. Amended by P.L.128-1995, SEC.1; P.L.12-2003, SEC.1.

Blah blah blah...

This is the same law we have had since 2003. There has not been a change.

What the heck is FMVSS205 anyway? I thought it was a Federal law that applied only to manufacturing NOT to aftermarket tinting - therefore the above wording is invalid.

What do you think?

Might want to call the IWFA on this. They have a legal department.

Your local DMV should be able to help.

How I'm reading it says to me, "This section doesn't apply to windows that come 70% from the factory, but since these windows have aftermarket tint on them they must transmit 30% of light."

Now why they have to carry proof that their windows were made according to a federal regulation is beyond me. Just about every other part of that car had to confirm to some federal regulation, do you need proof of all of that?

Maybe that is why a lot of windows are not stamped that they transmit 70% or more of light.

That's how I always read the law. My understanding is that FMVSS205 only covers the manufacturing process and NOT the aftermarket install of ANYTHING. Therefore the part of Indiana law that tries to apply FMVSS205 to tinting cannot possibly do so. That part of the law is a "White Elephant" and therefore VOID. Right???

Like I said, how I'm reading, "this section does not apply........."

Now as far as carrying proof.....tell the customer to fight it. That's just stupid.

Just one more example of the cop enforcing a law he doesn't understand. As long as the tint meters right, they should win.

VOID??? No. It isn't void until challenged and decided by the courts. It does give one a valid reason to attack the laws validity however. It's just waiting for someone with the willingness to do so. Unfortunately, everyone wants to let "someone else" shoulder the burden of a costly battle in court. The IWFA could take some lessons from an org. called Tripoli, who have taken on the BATFE solely by monies generated by the membership. And they are winning!!!! Of couse, the high powered roketry community is nowhere near as divided as the tinting community. they have alot of unity there.


http://tripoli.org/documents/batfe/batfe.shtml