Trust me, there is no such thing as an order about "trivial" enforcement.
Rascal
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Bill Pitz
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 9:18 PM
To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
Subject: Re: DML: window = smashed
jon@dakota-truck.net wrote:
> "Rick Barnes" <barnesrv@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> : Why can't they pull you over for it in IL? If they are too dark, it's a
> : safety violation like a burned out tail light...just guessing, but I am
> : confident that IL has one of these stupid window tinting laws.
>
>
> Things like that vary from state to state. I think the official
> terminology for it is primary and secondary enforcement. For example,
> here in NY, it is a law that you must wear your seat belt, but it was
> a secondary enforcment item; they couldn't pull you over just for not
> wearing your seat belt. However, if they pulled you over for something
> else; driving erratically or having an expired inspection sticker, for
> example, and they noticed you weren't wearing your seat belt, they could
> then go ahead and ticket you for the seat belt as well. I believe that
> law was just recently changed here though so the seat belt is now a
> primary enforcement item.
I think there are probably two reasons. First, they don't want cops out
looking for relatively trivial violations just to meet their "ticket
quotas" when they could be using their time for something more
productive. Second, it makes sense from a public relations standpoint
as well.
I don't think it's a problem in most areas if that's a "secondary
enforcement" item because I've noticed (at least around here) that most
people with illegal tint have no problem performing any number of
additional violations :-)
-Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 10:04:31 EST