Court Affirms Ban on Tinting Car Windows : Safety: In a case stemming from an El Cajon traffic stop, tinting was held to obstruct vision.

Drivers cannot legally apply tinting on the windshields and front-side windows of their vehicles, a state appeal court has affirmed.

It is all right, under certain conditions, to tint rear-side windows not needed for driver visibility, but it is illegal to tint the windshield and front-side windows because drivers may not be able to see out well enough, according to the 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego.

The three-judge panel also ruled that drivers can be convicted of violating the California law regulating windshield and front-window tinting based solely on a police officer’s testimony.

The opinion, which resulted from an El Cajon traffic stop, marked the first time a California appellate court has upheld that such tinting is not permissible, said Joel M. Geller, the El Cajon lawyer who represented the driver.

“I don’t think the decision reflects the best interests of the people of the state of California, who need protection from the sun’s rays in their cars,” Geller said.

“Some people are putting 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 miles a year on their car,” he said. “They have no recourse from the sun unless they are in an economic position to buy a new car or have factory-installed windows.”

Geller’s client, Robert Niebauer, was stopped Feb. 27, 1988, by California Highway Patrol officer Kenneth Wood, who cited him for driving his 1987 Ford truck with dark tinting material on the side windows and told him to have the material removed.

Niebauer, however, challenged the ticket in court, where El Cajon Municipal Judge Larrie R. Brainard found him guilty June 6, 1988, of violating the law. Brainard sentenced Niebauer to one year’s probation plus a fine and fee totaling $40.

Niebauer turned to the appellate division of the San Diego Superior Court but lost again. Niebauer then appealed one more time, to the 4th District, contending that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with interstate commerce.

A 1985 case from the appellate division of the San Bernardino County Superior Court had held that the law does, in fact, illegally burden interstate commerce and is unconstitutional, Niebauer argued.

Judge Richard Huffman, however, said that case was not binding because it was a Superior Court, not appeal court, decision. In addition, it could not be relied upon because the driver in that case, who was stopped in California, was from Arizona.

Further, an expert witness who had testified in the San Bernardino case had said that Arizona allowed tinting that permitted only 34% of the light to pass. The California rule, based on the federal stand ard, calls for 70% of the light to pass through the window, Huffman said.

Huffman also rejected Niebauer’s contention that Wood, the CHP officer, should have had to use a light meter or similar tool to measure just how much light could pass through his windows. The Legislature wanted a “common-sense” approach to enforcement, Huffman said.

“We don’t call upon the officers to be scientists or carry around and use burdensome equipment to measure light transmittance, nor do we expect them to discuss the sufficiency or insufficiency of the light transmittance as if they were an expert witness on the subject,” Huffman said.

Nevertheless, an officer’s testimony that windows were darker than normal, assuming the officer formed that opinion after a “common-sense examination” of a vehicle, can be enough by itself for a conviction--as long as the judge believes the officer, Huffman said.

Judges Howard Wiener and Daniel Kremer joined the opinion, which was filed Wednesday.