Bottom line...any tint on your front oem factory will make it illegal. My oem's were about 73-75%. Cali law I believe is nothing below 70% for fronts.

I went for the Stillen front plate adapter. Uses your front tow hook threads.
I still run w/o front plate, but when on meet runs or areas with a lot of LE, I just thread it on and good to go with no worries....well, except for MY tints...lol

 

This is from one of my other posts regarding no front plate. The same holds true for any correctable violation such as tinted windows:

Look, I hate to beat a dead horse, but I'm not big on stopping cars solely because they don't have a front plate. Have I ever? Yes. Just so you are aware, read California Vehicle Code 40610(b).

(b) Pursuant to subdivision (a), a notice to correct violation
shall be issued as provided in this section or a notice to appear
shall be issued as provided in Section 40522, unless the officer
finds any of the following:
(1) Evidence of fraud or persistent neglect.
(2) The violation presents an immediate safety hazard.
(3) The violator does not agree to, or cannot, promptly correct the violation.
(c) If any of the conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist, the procedures specified in this section or Section 40522 are inapplicable, and the officer may take other appropriate enforcement action.

Meaning make the ticket "not correctable."

If you get caught a second time, we can cite this (1 point).

24004. No person shall operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles after notice by a peace officer, as defined in Section 830.1 or subdivision (a) of Section 830.2 of the Penal Code, that the vehicle is in an unsafe condition or is not equipped as required by this code, except as may be necessary to return the vehicle or combination of vehicles to the residence or place of business of the owner or driver or to a garage, until the vehicle and its equipment have been made to conform with the requirements of this code.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to an employee who
does not know that such notice has been issued, and in such event the
provisions of Section 40001 shall be applicable.

Third time's a charm (Misdemeanor):

40000.28. Any offense which would otherwise be an infraction is a misdemeanor if a defendant has been convicted of three or more violations of this code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code within the 12-month period immediately preceding the commission of the offense and such prior convictions are admitted by the defendant or alleged in the accusatory pleading. For this purpose, a bail forfeiture shall be deemed to be a conviction of the offense charged. This section shall have no application to violations by pedestrians.

 

so if you get caught with tint 3 times you get a misdemeanor?? im on strike 2...

 

do they keep track of the tint tickets?

 

So any cops wanna be friends? I wanna tint my fronts. J/K.

 

Just within a year from 1st to 3rd is how I read it.

40000.28. Any offense which would otherwise be an infraction is a misdemeanor if a defendant has been convicted of three or more violations of this code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code within the 12-month period immediately preceding the commission of the offense and such prior convictions are admitted by the defendant or alleged in the accusatory pleading. For this purpose, a bail forfeiture shall be deemed to be a conviction of the offense charged. This section shall have no application to violations by pedestrians.

 

...not get caught, but convicted of the offense 3 times is the important part of the misdemeanor equation. If you get caught and pay the fine twice and on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, you remove the tint and "fix" the violation (with LE sign off), it sounds like you only have 2 convictions to me. Chippie, does that sound right?

 

Let's say I make a stop for tinted windows. I run a status check on the driver's license, I can find out everything the driver has been cited for. If there are 3 convictions for tinted windows within a years time, I now get to make the tinted window citation a misdemeanor. Or say for having 3 convictions for having the license plate covered now I can make it a misdemeanor. Even if the citation gets signed off the first three times, it will still show a conviction on the driver's license. When we run a driver's license out, it will show us convictions, failures to appear, and accidents. Among many other things.

Not many officers know to do this, so the chances of it happening are pretty slim. We do have a commercial officer in our office that is "heavy handed." He will do the research and cite the most extreme section that he can. He is just very well versed in the Vehicle Code and knows many obscure sections such as the misdemeanor section. He has to be when his job is focusing on big rigs.

Some of the sections of the vehicle code may seem unecessary to certain people (such as tinted windows), but somewhere along the lines they may have been the cause of some sort of safety issue. Legislature deemed it necessary to prohibit certain things. Some people think it's just a way for cities to generate revenue or give us petty reasons to stop cars to look for ''other things." All new vehicle code sections pass through the staff at our Academy before being signed into law. We do shoot down a lot of them but reducing the mileage death rate (deaths per million miles of road driven) is the ultimate goal. So most sections are aimed at reducing that number.

 

Thanks for the info chippie.

 

This is sort a dup. post. We just went through this topic a week ago.
Here is the post:

https://g35driver.com/forums/showthr...ont+lic+plates

 

Interesting. I have been issued 2 fixit tickets by an LAPD officer and countless parking type tickets for not having a front license plate. With regard to the ones actually issued by LAPD officers, who pulled me over strictly for not having a front license plate, I used the Stillen license plate bracket and had it signed off twice.

such is the price of vanity in Cali. i think putting on a front license plate is fugly and wouldn't do that go my G. i think i'd get pulled over more if i had tinted windows

incidentally, if you get pulled over by LAPD and they cite you a fixit ticket, LAPD cannot sign off on it. CHP or Deputy Sheriffs are the only ones who can sign the fixit ticket off.

and those parking tickets issued by meter maids don't count. you just pay the fine and that's that. at least that's the way it's done in L.A.

honestly though, this is a stupid law. safety concerns on tinted windows, that i can understand. but no front license plate? when the second LAPD officer pulled me over and gave me this sole citation, he told me the reason front license plates are needed is so that the photocops could have better access to see our cars.

can we seriously change this law?

 

I had went to court for a tint ticket here in SSF. The judge took my note and dismissed the ticket. I guess it depends on where in the state you are...

 

Ok, how about this. You are driving in commute traffic and someone rearends you and speeds off. Hit and run. You are unable to get the license plate number and neither does any of the witnesses (if there are any), BUT....the license plate number is imprinted into you rear bumper. Now I've got something to work with. The flip side is true as well. What if that vehicle didn't have front plate? Now you are gonna be pissed that there is no imprint. I have no follow up due to lack of a plate number. Sometimes the bumpers fall off after an accident with the front plate still attached. What if someone else witnesses the collision and is able to obtain a plate number from the front plate? I could go on and on. Yeah I know it may look tacky, but there is an importance to it.

 

Stupid lame arguments for this requirement. Another thing FREE law abidding people shoudn't need to worry about. And mild tint is another.

Link: http://www.petitiononline.com/caplate/

To: California Legislature
To: CA Legislators
We, the Undersigned, petition the State of California to revoke the current law requiring the display of a front license plate on passenger vehicles.
We support the current and future licensing fee structure, but ask that the law reflect that a front license plate is no longer required. We believe that there are significant benefits in not requiring front license plates and our reasons for this belief are briefly summarized in the paragraphs below.

First, eliminating the need for a front license plate will significantly reduce the state costs associated with production, storage, and shipping. Second, a front license plate restricts the performance of passenger vehicles. Modern cars aren't being designed with front plates in mind anymore, because mounting brackets that are necessary to hold the plates interfere with the cars' aerodynamics and often get damaged during the car-washing process. Third, unnecessary damage is sustained from minor bumper-to-bumper collisions, because the front mounting brackets on passenger cars can cause cracks and abrasions to the rear bumpers of the cars that they hit. Finally, police officers will be more productive in stopping dangerous motor vehicle violations such as drunk driving, reckless driving, speeding, etc., because their time won't be compromised by a California motorist who simply didn't have a front license plate on display.

Law enforcement officials might be opposed to a measure abolishing the front license plate requirement, because they might believe that losing the extra plate will make it more difficult for them to do their jobs in the best possible manner. However, in the 20 or more states that have abolished the front license plate requirement, there is no evidence of a decline in public safety as a result of the plate removal.



Sincerely,

The Undersigned

 

^^^signed it


Your scenario doesn't persuade me because it's such a worst case scenario, your counting on the license to fall to the ground and be left there and a witness who's actually decent (and competent) enough to come forth. I think that this scenario does happen, more than once in your line of work too, but not often enough that the rest of us have to be burdened. Sadly, that's what insurance is for. That's why we pay so much, and that's why you pay the extra $500 for the uninsured motorists coverage in L.A.

I personally think it's an unjust law, I signed the petition and would like to see the voters decide.

How about this for a law: you make it recommended to the dealerships and insurance companies, and buyers (like they way they used to recommend that you take off your shoes at airport security, you know with the glare) but not mandatory. The law abiding will abide and acquiesce, and the rest of us can be happy

The only catch would be that law enforcement authorities can only recommend that you have one if they pull you over for something else, but they cannot cite you.