See, GM, I do have some restraint: I waited until the recrimination factor went both ways, and let the rest of them get it out of their system.
Y'all know how I feel about tint laws - the "perp-mobile" comment was hilarious, I thought. Yeah, lots of wanted criminals on the run have a brand-new, financed, and sharply customized Dodge Charger, I see them everywhere - NOT. Chester the Child-Molester was on the run in a white 86 Chevy Celebrity withOUT tinted windows, wonder how he managed to slide by the uber-attentive officers for so long (two years)? Oh, that's right, he drove a smoking POS with cracked glass and pieces falling off of it. Y'all never seem to think it through - CRIMINALS drive junk they stole or can throw away, NICE cars belong to hard-working American Citizens who pay their taxes, and their fines when you harrass them for a MILDLY customized vehicle like the one driven by the OP.
I've watched COPS for twenty years, and I've NEVER seen the guy in the new Corvette busted for crack possession, it's always a couple of idiots in a four-door 89 Caprice or a 92 Honda Civic with ripped up interior. Here's a clue, since I know how tough it is to "protect the public" while respecting the rights against unreasonable search: People who are drug users/sellers, wanted, violent etc. are USUALLY driving the POS with piles of fast-food wrappers, cigarrette packs and trash all over their floors (see COPS). I've never seen a NICE car on Cops disgorge a horde of violent, armed child-molesters on PCP....
You know it's true, y'all just don't want to admit that if you went after the POS kind of car your days would be even busier than they are, and filled with tons more trivial paperwork. Most of those violations would be better service to the public though, as you would be taking the truly 'unsafe' vehicles out of service, along with the person with no DL, no insurance, and probably a couple of warrants.
Geeze, how hard can it be? I can stand on a bridge and point out cars carrying a violater/user, and which ones probably aren't. Betcha I'd be right more times than not, too. Must be my early association with the 'wrong crowd' or something, but it's pretty obvious to me who is and who ain't trying to duck the law. If your gonna profile, admit it and get it right, otherwise it's just prejudice (meaning to pre-judge - like the "perpmobile" comment, clear evidence of LEO prejudice) And let's face it, if you want to check out the driver of the tinted "perp-mobile" fine, do it, and tell them honestly that's what you wanted. Then when you find they are in violation of nothing but a few mild equipment infractions , you could try understanding their annoyance and let them go without that stupid "I have to write it up" line. If you can pass 200 people a day using a cell-phone while driving without writing THEM up, you can let the kid with tints go too. You already know he is doing no harm and not wanted at that point, why make an enemy for life? Because that's what you do. Do you really think the OP has a good and helpful attitude towards police now?
To the OP, you live in a world where getting noticed gets you NOTICED - in your state you're gonna have a lot more issues due to the unreasonable laws against customization passed by your state legislature. Get involved, get active with SEMA, join the campaign to reverse silly-season laws targeting only those legal enthusiasts. Just like gun laws, the bad guys ignore them, the good guys pay the price. Your tint IS illegal, and they'll hassle you for it every time they see you, while in the barrio and ghetto they'll let 50 cars go by with 10% limo on them and let it go - 'cause it ain't worth the paperwork and the driver will just be driving another $1200 POS the next week with the same dark tint. Meanwhile, you'll get written up for your tint, and my 62 year old Dad will get written up for the blue-dots in his street-rod taillights. Once a year they'll catch some uppity drug-dealer in a Caddillac DTS he just bought and use that to justify their actions against nice rides.
Good to see you taking the pole position again GM - getting a little harder to justify every time though on that same weak argument 'sometimes we DO find a bad guy'.....but then I also think searching 80year old grandmothers and confiscating their knitting needles on an airline is silly too, especially when it's justified by 'occasionally we DO find a terrorist plot'. You can use the 'once in a while' justification only so far, until the burden on the population becomes onerous.
REB