Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
03/29/2007 03:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB110 | |
| SB78 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | SB 78 | ||
SB 78-MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING
4:14:22 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 78. He reminded
members of the amendment made during the last hearing, which
reduced the offense from a misdemeanor to an infraction-
essentially a traffic ticket. Additional packet information
included a supporting letter from the Fairbanks police chief,
and three news articles reporting a shooting and two accidents
that related to window tinting.
4:15:25 PM
OFFICER STEVE DUNN, Traffic Unit, Anchorage Police Department,
stated that tinting is a huge officer safety concern when
approaching a stopped vehicle and he absolutely supports SB 78.
4:16:52 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Alaska State Troopers., said the troopers support
SB 78 and the current window tinting standards in the state. He
delivered a PowerPoint presentation giving an overview of state
and federal law as well as examples of window tints. He made the
following points:
· Current law allows the front window to have a five inch
strip of tint on the top of the windshield.
· The front driver and passenger windows must allow 70
percent of the light to pass through the glass, which is in
accordance with federal law.
· All rear windows must allow 40 percent light transmittance
with exemptions for certain special-use vehicles, which
must comply with federal law.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what a special-use vehicle is.
LT. DIAL said those include limousines, SUVs, and pickup trucks.
SENATOR THERRIAULT pointed out that the Subaru station wagon and
the Subaru Forrester are practically the same vehicle, but the
Forrester is classified as an SUV so it has very different
tinting requirements. To a certain extent the rules don't make
any sense, he said.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked Lt. Dial if he knows the rationale
for the difference between SUVs and other cars.
LT. DIAL said his understanding is the Alaska law is made to be
similar to federal law.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked for an example of a multipurpose vehicle.
He asked if it would be like the difference between an Outback
and a Forrester.
LT. DIAL said that's our understanding. As enforcement officers,
the windows we concentrate on are the ones where the driver is
going to be able to see other people and we will be able to see
the driver, he stated.
CHAIR FRENCH commented that from an enforcement perspective
officers have to be able to tell the difference between an SUV
and a passenger car and to know that different rules apply.
LT. DIAL agreed. He continued the PowerPoint presentation and
made the following points:
· Federal law doesn't specify light transmission requirements
for privately owned vehicles after they're manufacture.
· Federal law regulates commercial vehicles.
· At least 13 other states have similar, or more restrictive
laws.
· 90 percent of Canadian provinces have similar or more
restrictive laws.
· Most of the United Kingdom has similar or more restrictive
laws.
· Five states allow 50 percent light transmittance through
the front side windows and 31 states allow a range from 20
percent to 40 percent. Generally the hotter the climate the
darker the tint allowed.
LT. DIAL clarified that more restrictive laws means that less
tint is allowed. For example New York doesn't allow any tint,
which is similar to Alaska law. He continued:
· Driving at night with tinted windows is about the same as
driving at night with sunglasses. Sunglasses are regulated
by the Food and Drug Administration and on average they
must let through at least 40 percent of the visible light.
· A variety of filter colors lets different amounts of light
through.
· In a Texas murder case three problems were caused by tinted
windows. 1)witnesses had difficulty identifying suspects;
2)when police spotted the suspect vehicle they couldn't
determine who was in the car, 3)when an officer tried to
get a suspect to exit the car one of the occupants used an
assault rifle and shot and killed the officer through the
window. Texas allows a fairly heavy tint on the side
windows.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that Texas allows about the opposite of what
Alaska allows.
LT. DIAL agreed.
SENATOR THERRIAULT pointed out that none of the incidents that
have been cited say whether the windows were tinted legally or
not.
CHAIR FRENCH said that's true but the point is that it should
also be illegal to install that level of tint. The idea behind
the bill is that installing the tint is just as against the law
as driving the car.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said his constituents in Fairbanks and he
certainly don't support blacking out windows. At issue is the
level of tinting that should be allowed.
LT. DIAL gave examples of problems related to heavy tinting.
· In Chicago a police officer couldn't see through a tinted
window and accidentally shot a passenger holding a cell
phone-not a gun.
· Numerous examples of criminals that couldn't be identified
because witnesses couldn't see the driver through the
tinted window. Hit and run accidents are a big problem.
· Collisions with motor vehicles and pedestrians are blamed
on poor visibility due to tinted windows.
· Tinted windows can prevent criminal activity occurring in a
vehicle from being identified.
· Heavy tinting can keep motorists from viewing the road
ahead when looking through the car in front.
· Night vision can be impaired.
LT. DIAL showed tinting examples ranging from light to heavy
limo-tinting. Light tinting severely limits the ability to see
into a vehicle and it's virtually impossible to see into a
vehicle with medium or heavy tinting, he stated. Low light and
night light compounds the problem. He showed examples in Alaska
of a stock Ford Explorer with 20 percent rear window tint
meaning that 80 percent of the light is blocked; a Dodge Durango
with 20 percent tint on the front driver and passenger side
windows and 80 percent tint on the back windows; and a Toyota
passenger car with illegal tint on the back windows.
4:30:10 PM
LT. DIAL gave the following reasons not to change the current
law:
· Current standard assures that Alaska vehicles comply with
tinting laws in most states and Canadian provinces.
· Increased visibility for the driver.
· Increased safety for pedestrians.
· Increased safety for law enforcement officers.
·
LT. DIAL said the Alaska State Troopers support SB 78 because:
· It protects the public from unethical installers who tint
windows knowing it is illegal. About 1,000 citations per
year are written for this type of offense.
· Holding installers accountable will reduce citations to
motorists. Some states require installers to conspicuously
post a copy of the state law regarding window tinting and
provide a copy in writing.
LT. DIAL offered to demonstrate the tint meter.
4:31:23 PM
CHAIR FRENCH commented that the statement that you can always
wear sunglasses on a sunny day, but you can't take off window
tint at night is a worthwhile observation.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it's illegal for an owner to have
tinted windows, but it's not illegal for an installer to put
illegal window tinting on windows.
LT. DIAL said that is correct.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if most of the people that are cited
for driving with illegal tinting realize that it's illegal.
LT. DIAL explained that most people claim ignorance and then
they get angry. A motorist is given three choices when he/she is
cited: 1)take the citation to court; 2)remove the tinting and
the ticket will be dismissed; 3)pay a $150 fine. The problem
with the last option is that the motorist is subject to
subsequent citations. In 90 percent of the cases the people will
try to remove the tinting themselves, but it's generally not
successful, he stated.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what it costs to install tinting and
LT. Dial said he didn't know.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a demonstration.
LT. DIAL showed the standard issue tint meter and explained that
it indicates the amount of light that passes through a piece of
glass. It doesn't measure tint. The instrument is calibrated
before and after a motorist's window is tested to make sure the
meter is accurate, he said. He further pointed out that a
representation of what a driver sees when he/she looks out is
not a good representation of what it's like to look into a car
unless there is interior illumination. When the installers said
that you don't get the full effect of the tinting unless it's
installed they were being very honest, he stated.
SENATOR THERRIAULT commented that windshields, other than the
five inch strip at the top, can have no tint other than what
comes from the manufacturer.
LT. DIAL said according to the Department of Transportation, the
windshield needs to have a 70 percent light transmittance.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the committee hadn't heard that most
factory glass is the 70 percent light transmittance standard.
LT. DIAL said that is his experience. In response to questions
he advised that the meter for a windshield and for back glass
has two parts and is much larger. He didn't know what the meters
cost.
LT. DIAL showed a Fairbanks demonstration piece that had a limo-
tint that is basically black and a 20 percent tint that's
allowed in New Mexico.
SENATOR THERRIAULT commented that his experience is that when an
officer approaches a stopped vehicle at night the officer
typically uses a flashlight to illuminate the interior. He asked
how well that works.
LT. DIAL explained that unless the light is on inside the car
the outside light is filtered as it goes in through the window,
is reflected on the surface inside, and is reflected back
outside. "It's very difficult to see through there and see
what's going on in the vehicle," he stated.
4:41:22 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it is his opinion that passing a
law allowing darker tinting would place public safety officers
at greater risk.
LT. DIAL said yes.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that he would hold SB 78 in committee so
that the amendment that was passed at the previous hearing could
be incorporated into a committee substitute.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|