...As you guys know I got popped for no front plate and tinted front windows on a Sunday @ 8am by a fresh out of the academy pup and the only good thing about this (besides it being a correctable infraction meaning no points and it won't appear on your driving record) was searching out the truly excellent Sto N Sho license bracket that we all own and love.

Thought I'd re-cap how the whole thing played out so those in California kinda know what to expect...I say kinda because each and every county might be different but on these types of infractions,I believe it's pretty cut and dried in Cali.

Bought and installed the front bracket so that neatly took care of that problem.
Yesterday,I went and had the tint removed and then drove straight over the local PD and had them sign it off.That fee was $10 because it wasn't their ticket,those are signed off N/C.

I went to the courthouse today to try and pay the "fees" but apparently a ticket that was written on 6/14 doesn't yet appear in their records.
She did tell me what the fees would be ($25 per infraction) and so I've listed the entire ordeal below,lol:

License bracket $45 (Mike refunded me 1/2 my money to say thanks!)
Remove tint $40
PD sign off fee $10
Court "fees" $50
Re-tint front windows $100 (obviously way lighter than what I had,lol)

Grand Total: $245 (Would have been $290 if not for Mike's kindness)

And there you have it,I'm now currently driving around in a ridiculous looking half-tint car with a front license plate...but I'm perfectly legal...and should be ready to receive "real" tickets.

 

LOL . . . I did live in CA for 10 years, but compared to other states I've lived in (NC, TX, MN, DC, and MD), you got off very lightly.

 

Why I've not plumped for the tint. It attracts cops. No front plate no biggie. Been stopped 3 times now and talked my way out of a ticket without a front plate...

 

Is tint not legal in CA?

 

Not on the front windows.

I do a 50% tint (light) on my front windows, and have had cops tell me it's fine as long as they can see inside the car clearly, which they can with 50%.

edit - I also did the front windshield in 90% (basically clear) and have not had any issues. The IR/UV blocking is still excellent on a good ceramic film at 90%, so you get the heat reduction benefits but not the dark look. You could do the front side windows in 90% and I'm sure no one would be the wiser. I used 3m Crystalline Ceramic film for the front windshield (90%) and Huper Optik Nano Ceramic film on the sides/rear windows (50%).

 

Just FYI, the front windows are OEM tinted so adding an aftermarket tint of whatever percentage is a multiplier of what's already in the glass.

 

True...and I understand what you're saying...it's just waay too light.

All of my other cars have been 35% and I've never had an issue,I knew this 18% was too dark when I did it but I was trying to keep with my whole black wheels/black pack on a Polaris white car...so I kinda expected it,especially from the local PD who are doing a bang-up job I must say...

Considered 25% on the fronts but when I was in the tint shop yesterday,I just decided to stick with 35% and just hope the car doesn't look too "chopped" against the 18% that's on every other piece of glass...and I don't think it will,if anything...it'll make the sides look even lighter than they are.

 

I'm glad the CHP is enforcing tint laws. One of the few driving restrictions I support.

That tint is incredibly cheap.

 

I was just trying to help others who might be thinking about doing a tint, since your recent experience brought it to the front.

A tint company might try to sell you something that would be legal on clear glass only in whatever state, but when added to already tinted glass, it won't be. They'll probably forget to tell you that part.

 

Thats true. Tint people are often pretty clueless. The guy I was speaking to tried to convince me it is built into the VLT (visible light transmission) rating - which is clearly nonsense - the tint manufacturers website says so. Further OEM tints vary by VLT as well, so a tint manufacturer couldn't possibly account of it in their VLT estimate.

 

Your car would look better if you re did the rest of the car in 35% for a more uniform look.

 

Probably true,all my other cars have been done in one uniform shade...but I'm gonna try and live with it first and see if I absolutely can't stand it.

 

Well at a minimum you have to re do the rear side windows!

 

Like I said...I'll wait and see first,would rather not re-do anything else...you always risk something happening when other people work on your car.

 

I'm probably going to tint my side windows for UV protection, but I am going to keep them fairly clear... probably in the 70% range which is the upper end of legal.

 

I put 3M Crystalline Ceramic 90% (only ceramic to come in 90%) on the front windscreen. You cannot tell that it is there, and the UV/IR reduction is outstanding for a (nearly) clear film.

I've been told the 3M Crystalline film is prone to scratches however, so I went with Huper Optik Nano Ceramic on the side/rear windows as it is the most durable. They do not offer above 50% sadly.

I would highly recommend the 3M Crystalline based on my experience with it.

 

My only thoughts are WTF??...Why is it that the cops think a high-end car is worth pulling over for plates/tint? (yes it happened to me too). There are thousands of junk-piles with paper-plates and no insurance buzzing around but *we* are the target? Sigh...

 

We can afford to pay the ticket(s)...

 

Plus it's a much lower risk of being shot as you approach the vehicle.

 

Las Vegas welcomes you! 20% tint is common, no local car is sold with front liscense!I have lived here since 1973 and never been stopped for those infractions! Lots of other dumb stuff though!