GA tint laws invalid

January 13, 2008

(1) Seems you have forgotten that driving is not a constitutional right, but a given privilege by the government. Yes I think people should be able to put LIMITED tint, but it should be reasonable. Saying "dont want to get shot at dont be a cop" is a childish thing to say! Do you want a country of complete unrule without law enforcement? Whose going to do it (be a cop) then? NO ONE wants to get shot at.
Yes there are precausions for them to use, but my point is on your comment. Perhaps you don't like cops, I can tell you there have been times I feel that way too. But there are many officers that get into it because they truely want to help. "Or at least have back up when you pull someone over" thats not always possible. (2) The county I used to work would get over 500 calls in a 12 hour shift. Now think how thined out manning is. And you know very well no one wants to pay more tax so they can hire the bodies they NEED to keep up with the call volume, so no back up is not feezable to have for each and every traffic stop.

Also on that line about gauranteed right to privacy, when you are in your car, its an extention of your home, but a LIMITED extention therefore you don't have the right to full privacy. You can't drive around n@ked, as you can be in your home so you don't have the same rights of privacy.

Finally, "How does a law enforcement officer enjoy protection under the constitution that would in any way negate my constitutional right to privacy". (3) Because above all rights, freedoms and privileges, the government says national security supercedes freedom of speech. The same thing applies here.

I'll address your post on 3 points:

1) The right to travel the roads...........by the conveyance of the day IS a right guaranteed by the constitution, and goes back even further than the Magna Carta. This has recently been upheld by several state supreme courts. The government has no authority to abrogate or restrict our right to drive "WITHOUT DUE PROCESS" This means that they cannot arbitrarily enact a law that would deny us our right to drive unrestricted without cause, and the ability to DEMONSTRATE that the law is just.

2) The lack of manpower or rescources, while a decent point, isn't a valid reason in a court of law. Just because a lack of manpower makes following safe procedeure a hardship or unrealistic, it can in no way abrogate our rights as citizens. Our rights as citizens supercede the rights of the govenment. This seems to be a forgotten principle.

3) Just how is window tint a matter of National Security? Don't get me wrong, with the PATRIOT ACT in place, they can make a case of "national security" about just about anything. Saying that National Security supercedes our rights as citizens is simply saying that we have no real rights under the constitution. The Constitution of the US , and the bill of rights was written to PREVENT that kind of government abuse. "Congress shall enact NO LAW that would abrogate these rights"

To be valid, a law must apply to all, with equality. Tint laws do not. They unfairly/arbitrarily target the operators of passenger vehicles. It is a long held fact that Law Enforcement is not above the law, yet they are exempted from these restrictions along with several other select groups. Owners of Certain vehicles are exempt. How can it be safe for an SUV to have dark film while a passenger vehicle cannot? How can it be safe for a vehicle to have darker film in one state, and not in another?

The courts are divided on whether or not your right to privacy carrys over to your car. An officer must STILL GET A WARRANT to search your vehicle, without your permission, for anything not in plain view. They can use whats visible. They cannot open the glovebox, trunk, consoles, etc. without your permission. We are in no way obligated to make thier job easier by not obscuring the windows unsafely. There are currently no standards set forth that establish what a person can or cannot see out of safely. This falls into the realm of opinion, not scientific data. While we all have our opinions about this subject, opinion is not admissable in court.

Yes, SOME segments of our society use dark windows to hide thier activities, not all people do. In fact, only a very small segment of our society is even prone to do so. Less than 1% of society exhibits a propensity to act violently towards law enforcement. Why then are all put under undue restriction? I, for one, am not really inclined to give up any of my rights that have been gauranteed by the constitution and defended by our armed forces so that law enforcement can do thier job easier. Our constitution is an instrument put in place by the founding fathers to PREVENT undue intrusion in our day to day activities, and prevent government abuse of our rights.