WEBVTT 2 00:00:03.321 --> 00:00:09.938 COUNSEL LAIP MARGARET MCCLAIN ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR ON BEHALF OF MR. 3 00:00:09.938 --> 00:00:16.480 SMITH. KAREN THOMPSON: KAREN THOMPSON ACLU OF NEW JERSEY 4 00:00:16.480 --> 00:00:23.963 AS AMICUS. WILLIAM COOPER-DAUB: WILLIAM COOPER-DAUB 5 00:00:23.963 --> 00:00:26.717 FOR THE STATE. THE COURT: THANK YOU. MS. MCCLAIN LAIP YOUR 6 00:00:26.717 --> 00:00:31.703 HONORS, I'D LIKE TO RESERVE TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL IF NECESSARY. DAVID SMITH 7 00:00:31.703 --> 00:00:35.902 SPEPT THREE YEARS IN PRISON AND HAD TWO DIFFERENT COURSE UPHOLD HIS TRAFFIC STOP 8 00:00:35.902 --> 00:00:39.963 FOR CONDUCT THAT THE STATE HAS NOW CONCEDE WAS ENTIRELY LAWFUL AND SO 9 00:00:39.963 --> 00:00:44.226 EVEN THOUGH THIS APPEAL IS MOOT MOOT AND EVEN THOUGH THE STATE AND I AGREE ON 10 00:00:44.226 --> 00:00:49.257 THE INTERPRETATION OF MANY OF THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN THIS 11 00:00:49.257 --> 00:00:55.638 CASE, THE ISSUES HERE OF OF SIGNIFICANT. THIS COURT HAS NEVER ISSUED AN OPINION 12 00:00:55.638 --> 00:01:00.805 CLARIFYING WHAT TINTED WINDOWS ARE LEGAL OR ILLEGAL UNDER OUR MOTOR VEHICLE CODE 13 00:01:00.805 --> 00:01:05.015 AND IT SHOULD DO SO IN THIS CASE. MOREOVER, THE COURT SHOULD EMPHASIZE 14 00:01:05.015 --> 00:01:09.520 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATE'S BURDEN OF PROOF AT A SUPPRESSION HEARING TO JUSTIFY 15 00:01:09.520 --> 00:01:14.870 THE WARRANTLESS STOP OF A CAR. THIS COURT SHOULD REAFFIRM THAT POLICE 16 00:01:14.870 --> 00:01:19.792 OFFICERS CAN'T SIMPLY UTTER MAGIC WORDS LIKE TINTED WINDOWS TO JUSTIFY A STOP. 17 00:01:19.792 --> 00:01:24.181 THEY INSTEAD HAVE TO PROVIDE ACTUAL FACTS THAT ALLOW A REVIEWING COURT 18 00:01:24.181 --> 00:01:30.592 TO DO ITS JOB TO REVIEW, TO INDEPENDENTLY EVALUATE WHETHER THE OFFICER HAD REASONABLE 19 00:01:30.592 --> 00:01:36.951 SUSPICION OF A TRAFFIC VIOLATION. I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY RUN THROUGH THE 20 00:01:36.951 --> 00:01:42.026 FOUR THINGS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND I AGREE ON, AT LEAST FROM THE BRIEF 21 00:01:42.026 --> 00:01:47.777 AND ASK THE COURT THE COURT I AFFIRM THESE PRINCIPLES AND THEN TURN TO THE PRIMARY 22 00:01:47.777 --> 00:01:52.012 AREA OF DISAGREEMENT WHICH IS THE INTERPRETATION SECTION. 23 00:01:52.012 --> 00:01:56.655 SO THE FOUR THINGS THE STATE AND I AGREE ON ARE FIRST, THIS CAR STOP WAS 24 00:01:56.655 --> 00:02:01.231 PLAINLY ILLEGAL BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT 25 00:02:01.231 --> 00:02:06.505 THE FRONT SIDE WINDOWS OR WINDSHIELD OF SMITH'S CAR HAD ADDED WINDOW 26 00:02:06.505 --> 00:02:14.610 TINT. SECOND, SECTION 75 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE CODE DOES NOT RG LATE WINDOW TINTING, 27 00:02:14.610 --> 00:02:19.495 IT REGULATES SAFETY DMRAS AND SAFETY GLAZING WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE ADDED 28 00:02:19.495 --> 00:02:26.264 AFTERMARKET TINT. THIRD SECTION 74 OF THE CODE ONLY DEALS WITH 29 00:02:26.264 --> 00:02:30.923 THE FRONT SIDE WINDOWS AND WINDSHIELD OF A CAR. I WILL TALK MORE ABOUT THE REST 30 00:02:30.923 --> 00:02:36.425 OF THAT IN A SECOND. THE THEN FOURTH AS THIS COURT HELD IN CARTER, A POLICE OFFICER'S 31 00:02:36.425 --> 00:02:42.256 MISTAKEN BELIEF ABOUT WHAT THE MOTOR VEHICLE CODE PROHIBITS CANNOT SAVE 32 00:02:42.256 --> 00:02:47.583 AN ILLEGAL STOP AND AGAIN EVEN THOUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND I AGREE ON THESE 33 00:02:47.583 --> 00:02:52.046 PRINCIPLES, THESE FOUR THINGS SHOULD BE CLARIFIED IN THIS COURT'S OPINION 34 00:02:52.046 --> 00:02:57.229 BECAUSE TWO SEPARATE COURTS UPHELD THE TRAFFIC STOP HERE EVEN THOUGH THE STATE 35 00:02:57.229 --> 00:02:59.964 CONCEDED THAT THE CONDUCT WAS LAWFUL. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: 36 00:02:59.964 --> 00:03:05.048 I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOUR FLOW BUT DOES THE FOURTH POINT NEED TO BE 37 00:03:05.048 --> 00:03:12.368 ADDRESSED LANE NO,. CARTER IS CLEAR BUT MISTAKES OF LAW ARE NOT. 38 00:03:12.368 --> 00:03:16.698 OKAY BUT THE FIRST THREE FOR SURE, BECAUSE THE APPELLATE DIVISION UPHELD THIS 39 00:03:16.698 --> 00:03:22.606 STOP AND THIS COURT HAS NEVER INTERPRETED SECTION 75 WHICH DOES NOT APPLY 40 00:03:22.606 --> 00:03:28.758 OR SECTION 74. SO TURNING TO THE PRIMARY AREA OF 41 00:03:28.758 --> 00:03:33.047 DISAGREEMENT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IN THIS CASE, THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 74 42 00:03:33.047 --> 00:03:39.372 AND SPECIFICALLY THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 74 AND I'M ASKING THIS COURT 43 00:03:39.372 --> 00:03:46.892 TO HOLD THAT SECTION 74 MEANS WHAT THE PLAIN STATUTORY LANGUAGE SAYS THAT NO 44 00:03:46.892 --> 00:03:53.907 PERP CAN DRIVE A CAR WITH ANY SIEPS, POSTERS, STICKERS OR OTHER 45 00:03:53.907 --> 00:03:59.807 NONTRANSPARENT MATERIALS UPON THE WINDSHIELD OR FRONT WINDOWS OF A CAR AND 46 00:03:59.807 --> 00:04:03.907 NONTRANSPARENT IS CLEAR AND IT IS UNAMBIGUOUS. IF YOU CAN SEE THROUGH 47 00:04:03.907 --> 00:04:09.237 SOMETHING, IT IS NOT NONTRANSPARENT. WINDOW TINT, SO LONG AS YOU CAN SEE 48 00:04:09.237 --> 00:04:14.465 THROUGH IT, IS TRANSPARENT MUCH IT'S NOT A NONTRANSPARENT MATERIAL AND THEREFORE 49 00:04:14.465 --> 00:04:22.677 IT IS NOT PROHIBITED BY SECTION 74. AND AS THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY 50 00:04:22.677 --> 00:04:28.207 HELD, THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF A STATUTE IS THE BEST COMBAT TORE OF THE STATUTE'S 51 00:04:28.207 --> 00:04:33.487 MEANING AND WORDS HAVE TO BE GIVEN, HAVE TO BE READ AS THEY ARE COMMONLY USE 52 00:04:33.487 --> 00:04:37.508 INTERESTED ORDINARILY UNDERSTOOD. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: YOU'RE FOCUSED 53 00:04:37.508 --> 00:04:41.557 ON THE WORD NONTRANSPARENT LANE YES. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: 54 00:04:41.557 --> 00:04:46.279 DO YOU HAVE A STATUTE IN FRONT OF YOU?^ LANE I DO YES. CHIEF 55 00:04:46.279 --> 00:04:49.064 JUSTICE RABNER: COULD YOU LOOK AT THE THIRD PARAGRAPH AND TELL US WHAT MEANING 56 00:04:49.064 --> 00:04:54.890 THAT HAS AND IF THAT COULD CONFORM THE MEANINGS OF STAFF. IT SPEAKS TO 57 00:04:54.890 --> 00:04:59.254 VEHICLES EQUIPPED AND LOADED AS TO QUOTE UNDULY INTERFERE WITH DRIVER'S VISION 58 00:04:59.254 --> 00:05:04.015 TO THE FRONT AND TO THE SIDES. DOES THAT INFORM THE STANDARD THAT THE 59 00:05:04.015 --> 00:05:12.813 LEGISLATURE PUT IN PARAGRAPH TWO AS WELL?^ LANE SO TWO ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS. FIRST 60 00:05:12.813 --> 00:05:17.617 ANSWER IS NO INSOFAR AS AS IT APPLIES TO WINDOW TINT BECAUSE IT SPEAKS OF THE 61 00:05:17.617 --> 00:05:21.997 DREEFR'S VISION TO THE FRONT AND THE SIDE AND NO LEVEL OF WINDOW TINT 62 00:05:21.997 --> 00:05:26.712 PREVENTS THE DRIVING FROM SEEING OUT OF THE CAR. INSOFAR AS AS THIS COURT DISAGREES 63 00:05:26.712 --> 00:05:35.726 AND FIND THAT THIS IS SOMEHOW REGULATING ADDING TINT, THEN IT COULD 64 00:05:35.726 --> 00:05:41.689 INFORM, IT COULD PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE AS TO WHAT NONTRANSPARENT MEANS AND AGAIN, 65 00:05:41.689 --> 00:05:47.711 THIS BOLSTERS THE IDEA THAT NOT ALL WINDOW TINT IS ILLEGAL. ONLY TINT THAT 66 00:05:47.711 --> 00:05:53.519 REALLY UNDULY INTERFERES WITH VISION TO THE FRONT AND SIDES. 67 00:05:53.519 --> 00:05:56.239 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: IF YOUR FIRST ANSWER IS THE CORRECT ONE, WHAT DO YOU THINK 68 00:05:56.239 --> 00:06:01.146 THE STATUTE IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH IS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS?^ LANE I THINK 69 00:06:01.146 --> 00:06:05.106 IT MEANS THAT YOU CAN'T LOAD YOUR CAR SO FULL OF BOXES THAT YOU CAN'T SEE OUT 70 00:06:05.106 --> 00:06:08.530 THE SIDES. I THINK IT MEEPS YOU CAN'T PUT THINGS IN FRONT OF YOUR WINDSHIELD 71 00:06:08.530 --> 00:06:14.112 ON THE DASHBOARD OF YOUR CAR THAT YOU CAN'T SEE OUT. I THINK THAT'S 72 00:06:14.112 --> 00:06:18.512 PART OF WHY IT INCLUDES THIS AS LOADED. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: BUT 73 00:06:18.512 --> 00:06:23.469 IT ALSO HAS TINTING IS ARGUABLY SOMETHING THAT'S EQUIPPED TO A CAR 74 00:06:23.469 --> 00:06:28.150 LANE YES, HOWEVER, AGAIN, WITH UNDULY INTERFERING WITH THE DRIVER'S VISION. A 75 00:06:28.150 --> 00:06:33.678 DRIVER CAN SEE OUT OF TINTED WINDOW. THE DRIVER'S VISION IS NOT, HAS NOT BEEN 76 00:06:33.678 --> 00:06:39.518 UNDULY INTERFERED WITH WITH TINTED WINDOWS. AT MOST , PEOPLE OUTSIDE 77 00:06:39.518 --> 00:06:44.954 THE CAR HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING IN BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PHRASE DRIVER'S VISION 78 00:06:44.954 --> 00:06:50.124 MEANS. IT DOESN'T SAY TO UNDULY INTERFERE WITH THE DRIVER'S VISION OUT OF A 79 00:06:50.124 --> 00:06:54.384 CAR OR OTHER'S VISION INTO A CAR MUCH IT'S FOCUSES ON THE PERSON DRIVING THE 80 00:06:54.384 --> 00:06:59.167 CAR AND WHETHER THEY CAN SEE OUT AND SO UNDER I THINK THAT'S THE BEST READING, 81 00:06:59.167 --> 00:07:04.013 THE CLEAREST READING OF THIS STATUTE AND IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT WINDOW 82 00:07:04.013 --> 00:07:09.181 TINT THAT'S NOT OPAQUE. WINDOW TINT THAT YOU CAN SEE THROUGH. 83 00:07:09.181 --> 00:07:13.800 JUSTICE ALBIN: ARE THERE REGULATIONS THAT INFORM THE EN INFORMATIONABILITY OF 84 00:07:13.800 --> 00:07:24.263 THIS STATUTE?^ WITH REGARD TO TINTING LANE SO THE REGULATIONS AT ISSUE, THE 85 00:07:24.263 --> 00:07:29.246 REGULATION THAT K OEM ESSENTIALLY GRAFTED INTO THIS STATUTE IS ENTIRELY 86 00:07:29.246 --> 00:07:32.597 INAPPLICABLE. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE. IT DOESN'T 87 00:07:32.597 --> 00:07:39.529 EVEN APPLY TO THIS STATUTE. THE REGULATION THAT TIME COHEN WAS 88 00:07:39.529 --> 00:07:46.268 DECIDED WAS ABOUT THE ANNUAL INSPECTION OF CARS WHICH USED TO, BEFORE 2010, INCLUDE 89 00:07:46.268 --> 00:07:51.821 CHECKING THINGS LIKE WINDSHIELD WIPERS, CHECKING THINGS LIKE -- 90 00:07:51.821 --> 00:07:56.437 JUSTICE ALBIN: FORGIVE ME FOR -- I'M LOOK AT THE WORD NONTRANCE TERRIBLE. BECAUSE 91 00:07:56.437 --> 00:08:00.842 YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT APPLICABLE. I'M LOOK AT THE TERM NONTRANSPARENT. 92 00:08:00.842 --> 00:08:05.109 NONTRANSPARENT CAN WORK TWO WAYS MUCH A DRIVER LOOKING OUT AND PEOPLE HOOKING 93 00:08:05.109 --> 00:08:12.384 IN. YOU AGREE LANE I. JUSTICE ALBIN: NO?^ LANE I THINK WITH 94 00:08:12.384 --> 00:08:16.826 RESPECT TO PARAGRAPH TWO. JUSTICE ALBIN: YEAH LANE IT'S LIMITING 95 00:08:16.826 --> 00:08:19.872 THE MATERIALS YOU CAN PLACE ON THE WINDOWS AND THOSE MATERIALS ARE ONLY 96 00:08:19.872 --> 00:08:24.942 PROHIBITED IF THEY ARE NONTRANSPARENT. JUSTICE ALBIN: I 97 00:08:24.942 --> 00:08:31.383 UNDERSTAND BUT BUT IT APPLIES TO SOMEONE HOOKING IN. IF IT'S NONTRANSPARENT, 98 00:08:31.383 --> 00:08:34.962 THEN THE PERSON CAN'T LOOK IN, YOU AGREE THAT'S A VIOLATION OF THE LAW?^ 99 00:08:34.962 --> 00:08:40.090 LANE YES, THAT WOULD AT LEAST PROVIDE REASONABLE SUSPICION, IF THE OFFICER CANNOT 100 00:08:40.090 --> 00:08:42.931 SEE INTO A CAR, THAT WOULD PROVIDE REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THE DRIVER 101 00:08:42.931 --> 00:08:46.370 HAS ADDED A NONTRANSPARENT. JUSTICE ALBIN: SO THE ARLENE I'M ASKING 102 00:08:46.370 --> 00:08:48.922 THIS QUESTION BECAUSE THERE ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF REGULATIONS AND DO 103 00:08:48.922 --> 00:08:54.687 THEY APPLY TO BUSSES AND TRUCKS OR JUST TO CARS AND THEY INCLUDE FEDERAL REGULATIONS 104 00:08:54.687 --> 00:09:04.410 ABOUT THIS WHOLE 70 PERCENT WHATEVER THE TERM IS WITH RESPECT TO 105 00:09:04.410 --> 00:09:12.328 TRANSPARENCY. DO ANY OF THOSE APPLY AND WOULD THE 70 PERCENT, THEY MAY NOT. IT 106 00:09:12.328 --> 00:09:18.609 MAY JUST APPLY TO TRUCKS ABOUT BUSSES. WOULD THAT FIT WITHIN THAT CATEGORY OF 107 00:09:18.609 --> 00:09:24.234 TRANSPARENT?^ SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THERE. SO START WITH WHAT 108 00:09:24.234 --> 00:09:30.398 REGULATIONS, IF ANY, ARE APPLICABLE TO 74?^ LANE NONE OF THEM. FIRST BECAUSE 109 00:09:30.398 --> 00:09:34.388 THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND THE STATUTORY 110 00:09:34.388 --> 00:09:39.319 LANGUAGE IS WHAT CONTROLS. AND SO WE CAN'T LOOK BEYOND. JUSTICE ALBIN: 111 00:09:39.319 --> 00:09:44.815 SO YOU'RE TELLING ME EVEN IF THERE WERE A REGULATION THAT REQUIRED BEFORE MARKET 112 00:09:44.815 --> 00:09:54.187 70 PERCENT AND THAT OBSTRUCTED VISION INSIDE THE CAR FROM A POLICE OFFICER 113 00:09:54.187 --> 00:10:12.021 THEN WHERE WOULD WE BE?^ LANE. �� UNDER THIS STATUTE IT'S -- UNDER 114 00:10:12.021 --> 00:10:17.167 THIS STATUTE IF THE MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN ADDED IS TRANSPARENT, IT'S 115 00:10:17.167 --> 00:10:21.746 NOT A VIOLATION, IF IT'S NOT TRANSPARENT IT IS A VIOLATION. AS FOR THE THIRD 116 00:10:21.746 --> 00:10:25.182 PARAGRAPH IF IT'S BEEN EQUIPPED IN A WAY TO UNDULY INTERFERE WITH THE 117 00:10:25.182 --> 00:10:30.919 DRIVER'S VISION, THEN THAT COULD BE A VIOLATION BUT NO REGULATIONS, NEITHER THE 118 00:10:30.919 --> 00:10:34.235 MANUFACTURING STANDARD OF THE FEDERAL REGULATION NOR THESE PROVISIONS 119 00:10:34.235 --> 00:10:40.140 OF THE ADMINISTRATE TIF CODE OF NEW JERSEY'S ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVIDE GUIDANCE 120 00:10:40.140 --> 00:10:47.094 AS TO WHAT NONTRANSPARENT OR UNDULY INTERFERES MEANS. THAT'S MY PRIMARY 121 00:10:47.094 --> 00:10:50.713 POSITION. JUSTICE ALBIN: AND AS FAR AS YOU KNOW CARS BEFORE 122 00:10:50.713 --> 00:10:59.312 MARKET DO NOT HAVE ANY TINT THAT VIOLATE THE STATUTE?^ LANE. �� 123 00:10:59.312 --> 00:11:03.247 NO BECAUSE THE STATUTE PROHIBITS MATERIAL UPON WHICH MEANS ADDED TO THE WINDOW. 124 00:11:03.247 --> 00:11:07.678 THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND THIS IS PART OF THE ARLENE THAT 75 DOESN'T 125 00:11:07.678 --> 00:11:13.251 APPLY TO WINDOW -- TO AFTERMARKET WINDOW TINT AT ALL, THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS 126 00:11:13.251 --> 00:11:17.627 ARE ABOUT MANUFACTURING REQUIREMENTS OF THE GLASS ITSELF WHICH DOES HAVE SOME 127 00:11:17.627 --> 00:11:23.360 BUILT IN TINT SO THE GLASS THAT WE GENERALLY SEE IN CARS IS NOT CRYSTAL 128 00:11:23.360 --> 00:11:30.334 CLEAR. IT ALLOWS AT LEAST 70 PERCENT OF THE LIGHT TO PASS THROUGH R. 129 00:11:30.334 --> 00:11:35.557 JUDGE FUENTES: CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION AS TO A FOLLOWUP TO JUSTICE ALBIN'S 130 00:11:35.557 --> 00:11:39.570 QUESTION. YOU INCLUDED A PREDICATE IN THERE THAT I WANT TO GET YOUR VIEWS ON. 131 00:11:39.570 --> 00:11:44.111 YOU LOOKED AT THE WORDING OF THE STATUTE AND SAID SHOULDN'T IT BE ALLOWED 132 00:11:44.111 --> 00:11:52.625 FOR PEOPLE TO LOOK IN AS WELL AS THE DRIVER TO LOOK OUT. THIS IS A TITLE 39 133 00:11:52.625 --> 00:11:58.879 STATUTE THAT REGULATES PUBLIC SAFETY ON THE ROAD. THE STATUTE IS MEANT 134 00:11:58.879 --> 00:12:05.612 TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE CAN SEE, SO HE OR SHE CAN OPERATE 135 00:12:05.612 --> 00:12:11.109 THE VEHICLE SAFELY. WHETHER OR NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN LOOK INSIDE SHOULD 136 00:12:11.109 --> 00:12:18.222 NOT BE AN ELEMENT OF THIS INTERPRETATION. AM I CORRECT ON THAT. 137 00:12:18.222 --> 00:12:21.693 �� YES AND KIND OF ADD TO GO THAT, THE STATUTE IS WRITTEN IN 1937 AND HAS NOT 138 00:12:21.693 --> 00:12:26.564 BEEN MODIFIED SINCE THEN AND WINDOW TINT AS WE UNDERSTAND IT AS IS USED 139 00:12:26.564 --> 00:12:31.577 TODAY DIDN'T EXIST IN 1937 WHEN THE STATUTE WAS PASSED. THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT 140 00:12:31.577 --> 00:12:35.477 CARS THAT LITERALLY HAD THEIR WINDOWS BLOCKED. JUDGE FUENTES: 141 00:12:35.477 --> 00:12:41.424 SUPPOSE THERE WAS A CHEMICAL THAT CAN BE DISCOVERED THAT ALLOWS A DRIVER TO LOOK 142 00:12:41.424 --> 00:12:47.698 -- VISION NOT TO BE IMPAIRED IN ANY WAY BUT DOES NOT ALLOW SOMEONE OUTSIDE 143 00:12:47.698 --> 00:12:53.852 THE CAR FROM LOOKING IN, WHY WOULD THAT VIOLATE THE STATUTE?^ IT WOULDN'T, WOULD 144 00:12:53.852 --> 00:12:56.689 IT. �� IT DEFINITELY WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE THIRD PARAGRAPH. 145 00:12:56.689 --> 00:13:01.434 I THINK IF IT'S -- I DON'T THINK IT WOULD VIOLATE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, THOUGH 146 00:13:01.434 --> 00:13:09.753 I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER IF THE MATERIAL IS TRULY 147 00:13:09.753 --> 00:13:14.719 ESSENTIALLY A ONE WAY MIRROR. I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT THAT IS TRULY A NON-- IS NOT 148 00:13:14.719 --> 00:13:17.591 TRULY A TRANSPARENT MATERIAL. JUDGE FUENTES: BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO 149 00:13:17.591 --> 00:13:24.371 ME THAT BY APPLYING THE REQUIREMENT THAT NOT ONLY CAN THE DRIVER SEE 150 00:13:24.371 --> 00:13:30.691 SAFELY, BUT SOMEONE STANDING OUTSIDE CAN SEE IN, IT BECOMES A LAW ENFORCEMENT 151 00:13:30.691 --> 00:13:39.664 TO RATHER THAN A REGULATION OR STATUTE ABOUT SAFETY ON THE ROADS. TITLE 39 152 00:13:39.664 --> 00:13:46.237 WAS NOT DESIGNED TO MAKE POLICE OFFICERS JOBS EASIER TO LOOK INSIDE A CAR. IT'S MEFRNT 153 00:13:46.237 --> 00:13:51.844 FOR PEOPLE WHO DRIVE CARS, SAFELY DRIVE THOSE CARS. �� ABSOLUTELY 154 00:13:51.844 --> 00:13:57.062 YOUR HONOR AND THE STATUTE IT'S DICTATING WHEN POLICE CAN PULL OEF A CAR 155 00:13:57.062 --> 00:14:02.207 UNDER THIS STATUTE AND WHETHER IT'S -- WHETHER IT MIGHT BE CONCEIVABLY 156 00:14:02.207 --> 00:14:07.559 GOOD PUBLIC POLICY TO HAVE A DIFFERENT LAW, THE LAW IS WHAT IT IS. 157 00:14:07.559 --> 00:14:10.914 JUSTICE ALBIN: SO THERE IS A CAVEAT IN TITLE 39 THAT I WANT TO BRING TO YOUR 158 00:14:10.914 --> 00:14:14.076 ATTENTION IF YOU'RE IN THE AWARE OF IT BUT I'M SURE YOU PROBABLY ARE AWARE 159 00:14:14.076 --> 00:14:21.237 OF IT. 393-75. TWO. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT. �� YES. 160 00:14:21.237 --> 00:14:27.067 JUSTICE ALBIN: THAT'S THE ENABLING STATUTE. IT GIVES POWER TO THE DIRECTOR OF 161 00:14:27.067 --> 00:14:33.374 DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND IN IT, I WILL JUST IT SAYS IN ESTABLISHING 162 00:14:33.374 --> 00:14:36.676 THE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATION, THE DIRECTOR SHALL BE CONSIDER TO THE GREATEST 163 00:14:36.676 --> 00:14:42.263 EXTENT POSSIBLE THE SAFETY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO DURING THE 164 00:14:42.263 --> 00:14:46.044 PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES MAY FIND IT NECESSARY TO INSPECT OR OTHERWISE 165 00:14:46.044 --> 00:14:50.967 OBSERVE THE INTERIOR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE HAVING A WINDSHIELD AND WINDOWS TO WHICH 166 00:14:50.967 --> 00:14:59.059 AN IMPROVED MATERIAL IS APPLIED. YES, MA'AM. �� SO THAT STATUTE 167 00:14:59.059 --> 00:15:05.540 AT LEAST. JUSTICE ALBIN: CONSIDERS NECESSITIES OF LAW 168 00:15:05.540 --> 00:15:10.257 ENFORCEMENT. THERE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ANY REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO 169 00:15:10.257 --> 00:15:16.768 IT AND I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY BUT AT LEAST THE ENABLING STATUTE TAKES THE NEEDS 170 00:15:16.768 --> 00:15:22.018 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INTO CONSIDERATION. YES. �� SO I BELIEVE 171 00:15:22.018 --> 00:15:29.882 WHAT YOU'VE, I BELIEVE WHAT YOU JUST READ IS THE ENABLING STATUTE FOR THE MEDICAL 172 00:15:29.882 --> 00:15:34.742 MEDICAL TINT STATUTE THAT DIRECTS THE AGENCY TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS 173 00:15:34.742 --> 00:15:41.248 TO EFFECT THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT AND THAT ACT IS NOT WHAT -- IS NOT THE SAME 174 00:15:41.248 --> 00:15:46.067 AS SECTION 74. IT'S. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: HOW ABOUT YOUR 175 00:15:46.067 --> 00:15:50.530 EARLIER ANSWER ABOUT THE MEANING OF PARAGRAPH THREE AND 74 WHERE YOU 176 00:15:50.530 --> 00:15:55.956 SEWED THOUGHTFULLY THIS IS ABOUT THE DRIVE AND THE DREEFR'S VISION. NA LANGUAGE 177 00:15:55.956 --> 00:16:02.569 DOES NOT APPEAR IN PARAGRAPH TWO. �� YES AND THIS IS WHY 178 00:16:02.569 --> 00:16:08.110 UNDER PARAGRAPH TWO IF THE OFFICER CANNOT SEE INTO THE CAR, THAT WOULD 179 00:16:08.110 --> 00:16:13.190 PROVIDE REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THE CAR HAS A NONTRANSPARENT MATERIAL UPON THE 180 00:16:13.190 --> 00:16:19.517 WINDOWS, UPON THE FRONT WINDOWS AND THE WINDSHIELD. BUT SHORT OF THAT, 181 00:16:19.517 --> 00:16:27.481 SECTION 74 IS NOT VIOLATED. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL FROM THE OUTSIDE LOOKING IN 182 00:16:27.481 --> 00:16:31.639 WHAT THE DRIVER CAN AND CAN'T SEE, THOUGH EXPERIENCE DICTATES THAT EVEN UNDER 183 00:16:31.639 --> 00:16:37.237 THE DARKEST WINDOW TINTS YOU CAN STILL SEE OUT BUT IF AN OFFICER CANNOT 184 00:16:37.237 --> 00:16:43.962 SEE INTO THE CAR, THAT MIGHT NOT BE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT 185 00:16:43.962 --> 00:16:48.218 PARAGRAPH TWO HAS BEEN VIOLATED BUT IT PROVIDES REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT 186 00:16:48.218 --> 00:16:54.545 THE MATERIAL ADDED TO THOSE WINDOWS IS AKIN TO A SIGN POSTER OR STICKER BECAUSE 187 00:16:54.545 --> 00:17:05.882 IT IS NONTRANSPARENT. IF YOUR HONORS WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE 188 00:17:05.882 --> 00:17:16.372 MEDICAL TINT STATUTE, I HAVE A COUPLE OF REASONS FOR WHY THAT DOESN'T DICTATE 189 00:17:16.372 --> 00:17:24.744 WHAT 74 MEANS. SO AGAIN FOR THE VIOLATION IS UNDER 74, THE PLAIN LANGUAGE IS 190 00:17:24.744 --> 00:17:27.896 CLEAR AND THIS COURT SHOULDN'T LOOK OUTSIDE OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE 191 00:17:27.896 --> 00:17:33.638 THAT IS SETTING THE BOUNDS OF A TRAFFIC VIOLATION. JUSTICE ALBIN: 192 00:17:33.638 --> 00:17:39.130 JUST GIVE ME A CITATION TO THE MEDICAL TINT STATUTE. �� IT IS 193 00:17:39.130 --> 00:17:46.726 393-75. ONE. AND THEN THE NEXT SUBSECTIONS THE 75. TWO WHICH I BELIEVE IS 194 00:17:46.726 --> 00:17:51.733 WHAT YOUR HONOR READ WHICH IS KIND OF AUTHORIZEDING THE PROM YOU WILL 195 00:17:51.733 --> 00:17:56.476 ALLEGATION OF REGULATIONS ABOUT THAT STATUTE. JUSTICE ALBIN: AND YOU 196 00:17:56.476 --> 00:18:05.636 THINK THAT 75. TWO JUST DEALS WITH 75. ONE AND NOT WITH 3-75?^. 197 00:18:05.636 --> 00:18:11.739 �� THAT IS BECAUSE IT'S IN THAT SAME SUBSECTION ESSENTIALLY. I THINK THAT THAT IS 198 00:18:11.739 --> 00:18:17.329 TALKING ABOUT THE MEDICAL TINT RULES. JUSTICE ALBIN: THE 199 00:18:17.329 --> 00:18:22.337 ONLY CONCERN OF THE DIRECTOR WAS LOOKING IN FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE MEDICAL 200 00:18:22.337 --> 00:18:27.605 PROBLEMS, NOT FOR THE REST OF THE PUBLIC, THAT'S YOUR INTERPRETATION VOIGS SO 201 00:18:27.605 --> 00:18:35.257 I THINK THAT THE MEDICAL TINT STATUTE WAS PROMULGATED DECADES AFTER 74 WAS 202 00:18:35.257 --> 00:18:40.878 PROHIBITED AND IT WAS PROMULGATED AFTER THE REGULATION THAT COHEN KIND 203 00:18:40.878 --> 00:18:48.595 OF ENGRAFTED ON TO 74, AFTER THAT HAD HAPPENED. SAME THING WITH THE CONSUMER 204 00:18:48.595 --> 00:18:51.980 FRAUD STATUTE. BOTH OF THOSE HAPPENED WHEN THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD SAID 205 00:18:51.980 --> 00:18:56.265 THIS ADMINISTRATIVE REGULAR APPLIES TO THIS STATUTE AND AGAIN, I THINK THAT WAS 206 00:18:56.265 --> 00:19:02.671 INCORRECT IN COHEN BUT IN SO FAST THE LEGISLATURE WAS DOING THAT, THEN LATER, 207 00:19:02.671 --> 00:19:09.591 IN 2010, THE LEGISLATURE CHANGED THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS. THEY 208 00:19:09.591 --> 00:19:15.564 MADE IT SO THAT IT NO LONGER APPLIES TO PASSENGER CARS. IT ONLY APPLIES TO COMMERCIAL 209 00:19:15.564 --> 00:19:23.837 VEHICLES SO EVEN INSOFAR AS THIS MAY HAVE BEEN APPLICABLE BACK WHEN THE 210 00:19:23.837 --> 00:19:28.193 ADMINISTRATOR CODE DEALT WITH PASSENGER CARS, ONCE THE LEGISLATURE PASSED THAT 211 00:19:28.193 --> 00:19:32.225 NEW LAW CHANGING THAT IT NO LONGER APPLIES AND EN STED WE'RE BACK TO 212 00:19:32.225 --> 00:19:36.636 EXACTLY WHAT 74 SAYS WHICH IS DON'T ADD NONTRANSPARENT MATERIALS TO YOUR FRONT 213 00:19:36.636 --> 00:19:40.366 WINDOWS. JUDGE FUENTES: GOING BACK AGAIN TO WHETHER THERE'S 214 00:19:40.366 --> 00:19:45.323 A LAW ENFORCEMENT ASPECT OF THIS. THE STATE HERE DFD THE CASE VOLUNTARILY BECAUSE 215 00:19:45.323 --> 00:19:49.668 THE POLICE OFFICERS, I UNDERSTAND IT, WAS ABLE TO SEE THROUGH THE REAR 216 00:19:49.668 --> 00:19:57.192 WINDOW. IF THIS WAS A LAW ENFORCEMENT CONCERN, IT WOULD THEREFORE PROHIBIT TINTING 217 00:19:57.192 --> 00:20:03.222 OF ANY ASPECT OF THE CAR SO THAT POLICE CAN SEE FROM THE REAR, FROM THE 218 00:20:03.222 --> 00:20:12.181 SIDE, IN I WHERE WHERE THE VEHICLE HAS WINDOWS SO THEY CAN SEE SFLIED BUT THEY 219 00:20:12.181 --> 00:20:16.776 OBL LIMITED THE TINT TO THE DRIVER'S PERSPECTIVE, EITHER SIDE OR FRONT, SO WHY 220 00:20:16.776 --> 00:20:24.262 SHOULD WE READ THIS AS BEING NOTHING MORE THAN A ROAD SAFETY REQUIREMENT, 221 00:20:24.262 --> 00:20:29.080 NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT TOOL OF INVESTIGATION. �� I THINK 222 00:20:29.080 --> 00:20:32.855 THAT THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THIS MAKES IT A SAFETY STATUTE MUCH THE PLAIN LANGUAGE 223 00:20:32.855 --> 00:20:38.394 MAKES IT A SAFETY STATUTE AND AS THE DATA THAT EXISTS THAT WE HAVE ON 224 00:20:38.394 --> 00:20:44.508 TRAFFIC STOP SHOWS, READING IT MORE BROADLY DOES RUN THIS RISK OF ARBITRARY AND 225 00:20:44.508 --> 00:20:48.739 RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY EN INFORMATIONMENT AND INSTEAD BY 226 00:20:48.739 --> 00:20:53.347 LIMITING IT TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE NARROWING THE STATUTE AND WHAT 227 00:20:53.347 --> 00:20:58.240 IT PROHIBIT OFFICERS WILL BE MORE SPECIFICALLY FOCUSED ON THOSE CARS THAT 228 00:20:58.240 --> 00:21:05.241 TRULY PRESENT A DANGER, THAT ARE TRULY UNSAFE ON THE ROADS, BUT A BROAD READING 229 00:21:05.241 --> 00:21:09.604 OF THIS OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S READING OF THIS MAKES THE STATUTE FAR TOO 230 00:21:09.604 --> 00:21:17.690 WIDE RANGING SHS GOES BEYOND WHAT THIS LANGUAGE ACTUALLY PROHIBITS. 231 00:21:17.690 --> 00:21:23.081 JUSTICE PATTERSON: AS A GENERAL MATTER, WE DON'T ASK FIRST 232 00:21:23.081 --> 00:21:28.174 IS THE TRAFFIC STATUTE A SAFETY STATUTE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT TOOL, RIGHT?^ IT 233 00:21:28.174 --> 00:21:33.129 COULD BE SOMETHING LIKE CHANGING LANES OR NOT USING A DIRECTION SIGNAL 234 00:21:33.129 --> 00:21:36.723 OR ANY OF THESE THINGS THAT OBVIOUSLY THE LEGISLATURE IS WORRIED THAT IF YOU DON'T 235 00:21:36.723 --> 00:21:42.771 USE YOUR DIRECTION SIGNAL YOU MIGHT CAUSE AN ACCIDENT, SO THE INQUIRY 236 00:21:42.771 --> 00:21:46.455 REALLY IS WAS THERE OR WAS THERE NOT REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A VIOLATION OF WHATEVER 237 00:21:46.455 --> 00:21:51.044 THAT WAS T. �� YES, YOUR HONOR, HOWEVER, AS THIS COURT 238 00:21:51.044 --> 00:21:56.502 RECOGNIZED IN CARTER, THE MOTOR VEHICLE CODE IS VERY BROAD AND IF INTERPRETED 239 00:21:56.502 --> 00:22:05.043 TO THE EXTREME BROAD VERSION OF THESE WORDS YOU CAN CREATE A CODE THAT ESSENTIALLY 240 00:22:05.043 --> 00:22:09.993 DELEGATES ALL DISCRETION ON WHO TO STOP. JUSTICE PATTERSON: 241 00:22:09.993 --> 00:22:14.948 RIGHT BUT MY POINT IS SHALL THE GENERAL, THE WHOLE FULL BREADTH OF TRAFFIC 242 00:22:14.948 --> 00:22:20.498 VIOLATIONS IS OUT THERE AND MOST OF THEM ARE REALLY SAFETY ORIENTED WITHOUT A 243 00:22:20.498 --> 00:22:23.536 PARTICULAR FOCUS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT. AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT. �� 244 00:22:23.536 --> 00:22:29.584 YES. THE MOTOR VEHICLE GENERALLY IS SUPPOSED TO KEEP DRIVERS ON THE ROAD SAFE. 245 00:22:29.584 --> 00:22:31.709 JUSTICE PATTERSON: BUT IF THERE IS REAM SUSPICION THAT THERE 246 00:22:31.709 --> 00:22:37.387 IS ANY OF THOSE, I DON'T KNOW THE TOTAL NUMBER, BUT HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF 247 00:22:37.387 --> 00:22:42.051 STATUTES, THERE'S BEEN A VIOLATION, THAT'S A PROPER PROCEDURE FOR A 248 00:22:42.051 --> 00:22:46.682 STOP, JUST GENERALLY. �� YES, THE COURT HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID THAT 249 00:22:46.682 --> 00:22:49.796 YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BEFORE YOU STOP THE CAR PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT 250 00:22:49.796 --> 00:22:54.762 THAT THE CAR IS IN FACT OF VIOLATION. REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THE CAR HAS 251 00:22:54.762 --> 00:22:58.151 VIOLATED A MOTOR VEHICLE STATUTE UNDER THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF 252 00:22:58.151 --> 00:23:11.541 THAT STATUTE CAN JUSTIFY A STOP SO AGAIN, THIS IS HOW AN OFFICER WHO LITERALLY 253 00:23:11.541 --> 00:23:14.891 COULD NOT SEE INTO A CAR WOULDN'T KNOW WHEN SEEING THAT CAR BEYOND A 254 00:23:14.891 --> 00:23:18.988 REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE CAR HAD A NONTRANSPARENT MATERIAL ADDED TO THE FRONT 255 00:23:18.988 --> 00:23:24.438 WINDOW, BUT THAT WOULD PROVIDE REASONABLE SUSPICION TO JUSTIFY THE 256 00:23:24.438 --> 00:23:27.545 STOP. THEN IN ORDER TO PROVE THE VIOLATION, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY ESTABLISH 257 00:23:27.545 --> 00:23:33.897 THAT THE MATERIAL WAS IN FACT NONTRANSPARENT. EVERY 258 00:23:33.897 --> 00:23:36.093 OTHER STATE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION 259 00:23:36.093 --> 00:23:40.008 OF NONTRARNS PARENT. �� CAN BE SEEN THROUGH. JUSTICE 260 00:23:40.008 --> 00:23:45.037 PATTERSON: CAN BE SEEN THROUGH, UM, CAN BE SEEN THROUGH NOT VERY CLEARLY?^. 261 00:23:45.037 --> 00:23:49.111 �� SO TRANSPARENT, THE STATUTE DOESN'T SAY, YOU KNOW, WINDOWS 262 00:23:49.111 --> 00:23:54.271 MUST BE TRANSPARENT. IT SAYS DON'T ADD NONTRANSPARENT MATERIALS AND NONTRANSPARENT 263 00:23:54.271 --> 00:24:00.794 MEANS ESSENTIALLY OPAQUE. IN YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH SOMETHING IT IS 264 00:24:00.794 --> 00:24:03.589 NONTRANSPARENT. JUSTICE PATTERSON: PRESUMABLY VERY FEW 265 00:24:03.589 --> 00:24:07.592 PEOPLE WANT TO TINT THEIR WINDOWS TO THE POINT WHERE THEY CAN'T SEE OUT WITH UNLESS 266 00:24:07.592 --> 00:24:12.179 THEY HAVE ONE OF THESE DRIVERLESS CARS OUT THERE THAT ARE A LITTLE FRIGHTENING 267 00:24:12.179 --> 00:24:18.611 SO WE'RE DEALING HERE WL PRESUMABLY WINDOW TINT IN MANY MANY CASES THAT 268 00:24:18.611 --> 00:24:26.199 MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO SEE OUT BECAUSE IT'S NOT PURELY CLEAR BUT CAN BE 269 00:24:26.199 --> 00:24:30.599 SEEN, YOU CAN SEE THE ROAD, YOU CAN SEE THE OTHER CARS, BUT PERHAPS NOT 270 00:24:30.599 --> 00:24:35.680 AS WELL. SO WHERE ARE WE DRAWING THE LINE HERE BECAUSE IF IT'S NONTRANSPARENT 271 00:24:35.680 --> 00:24:42.673 IN THE SENSE THAT YOU CAN'T SEE OUT ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE TRULY OUT TO CRASH 272 00:24:42.673 --> 00:24:45.984 INTO OTHER CARS ARE GOING TO PUT THAT KIND OF AT THIS POINT ON THEIR WINDOWS. 273 00:24:45.984 --> 00:24:48.086 �� I THINK THAT BRINGS US BACK TO THE FACT THAT THE STAFF 274 00:24:48.086 --> 00:24:54.469 WAS WRITTEN IN 1937. IT WAS WRITTEN IN 1937 AND THE OTHER THINGS IN THE LIST 275 00:24:54.469 --> 00:24:58.833 OF PROHIBITED MATERIALS ARE THINGS THAT ARE LITERALLY OPAQUE. THEY ARE 276 00:24:58.833 --> 00:25:05.179 SIGNS, POSTERS, STICKERSES OR OTHER NONTRANSPARENT MATERIALS. IF THE 277 00:25:05.179 --> 00:25:10.610 LEGISLATURE WANTED TO REGULATE WINDOW TINT IT COULD DO SO. 48 I THINK, VERMONT 278 00:25:10.610 --> 00:25:15.043 IS THE ONLY STATE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A CLEAR LAW ON THIS, 48 OTHER STATES 279 00:25:15.043 --> 00:25:21.360 REGULATE WINDOW TINT AND THEY DO SO IN A WAY THAT SPECIFIES THE ALLOWABLE LIGHT 280 00:25:21.360 --> 00:25:28.006 TRANSMIT TANS. NEW JERSEY DOESN'T. NEW JERSEY HAS RELIED SINCE, HAS RELIED 281 00:25:28.006 --> 00:25:31.409 ESSENTIALLY SINCE COHEN ON THE STATUTE THAT IS NOT APPLICABLE. IT DOES NOT REFERENCE 282 00:25:31.409 --> 00:25:36.239 TINT. IT DOES NOT REFERENCE SUN SCREENING MATERIAL. IT DOES NOT REFERENCE 283 00:25:36.239 --> 00:25:40.922 LIGHT TRANSMIT TANS. IT SAYS NONTRANSPARENT MATERIALS. THAT'S NOT WINDOW 284 00:25:40.922 --> 00:25:46.030 TINT. AND I AGREE, THAT THERE ARE VERY FEW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LITERALLY PAINT 285 00:25:46.030 --> 00:25:50.205 THEIR CARS WINDOWS BLACK. IF THEY DID, THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF 286 00:25:50.205 --> 00:25:54.295 THIS STATUTE. JUSTICE ALBIN: BUT NOT IF THEIR THEY PAINTED 287 00:25:54.295 --> 00:26:00.058 THEIR BACK WINDOW AND THEIR BACKSIDE WINDOWS BLACK, THAT WOULD BE OKAY?^. 288 00:26:00.058 --> 00:26:04.513 �� YES, UNDER PARAGRAPH TWO, WE'RE DEALING WITH THE WINDSHIELD OTHER THAN 289 00:26:04.513 --> 00:26:08.472 THE LITTLE. JUDGE FUENTES: IN FACT, IF YOU HAVE A DRIVER 290 00:26:08.472 --> 00:26:14.980 AND YOU HAVE A LIMOUSINE AND YOU WANT TO CREATE A ZONE OF PRIVACY TO THE REAR 291 00:26:14.980 --> 00:26:23.143 PASSENGER SEAT, IT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF ANY TITLE 39 LAW. �� 292 00:26:23.143 --> 00:26:29.018 ABSOLUTELY AND JUST GENERALLY ON THE ROAD REAR WINDOWS ARE, FOUR THE MOST PART 293 00:26:29.018 --> 00:26:36.808 , QUITE QUITE DARK AND THOSE CARS ARE NOT VIOLATING THIS STATUTE AT ALL. 294 00:26:36.808 --> 00:26:39.611 JUDGE FUENTES: THIS CLEARLY INTENDED FOR THE DRIVER TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE 295 00:26:39.611 --> 00:26:45.139 THE CAR SAFELY. �� YES, THIS IS FOCUSING ON DRIVING A CAR WHOSE 296 00:26:45.139 --> 00:26:50.819 WINDOWS ARE SO BLOCKED THAT YOU CAN'T SEE. JUSTICE ALBIN: THIS IS 297 00:26:50.819 --> 00:26:56.241 A HISTORICAL QUESTION. IN 1937, WAS THERE EVEN TINTING?^ DO YOU KNOW. 298 00:26:56.241 --> 00:27:01.128 JUSTICE PATTERSON: CAN YOU TELL US, JUSTICE ALBIN (LAUGHTER). 299 00:27:01.128 --> 00:27:07.244 �� YOU MIGHT KNOW BETTER THAN ME. JUSTICE ALBIN: 300 00:27:07.244 --> 00:27:10.967 I WOULD HAVE MADE A DECLARATORY STATEMENT IF I COULD. �� 301 00:27:10.967 --> 00:27:16.992 FROM WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO TELL, TINTED WINDOWS DIDN'T EXIST UNTIL SOMEWHERE IN THE 302 00:27:16.992 --> 00:27:21.241 1960S TO THE 1980S. THEY WERE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, LITERALLY PAINT WINDOWS, 303 00:27:21.241 --> 00:27:27.109 BUT THE KIND OF PLASTIC AFTERMARKET SPRAY TINTING DIDN'T EXIST UNTIL DECADES AFTER 304 00:27:27.109 --> 00:27:34.244 THIS STATUTE. AND THIS IS THE OTHER I THINK THE SETON HALL BRIEF GOES INTO 305 00:27:34.244 --> 00:27:38.741 INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT WITH RESPECT TO THE SAFETY GLASS. YOU USED TO RUN TOO 306 00:27:38.741 --> 00:27:43.891 A PROBLEM I THINK WHERE KIND OF ENTER BIT OF THE WINDOW IN THE GLASS ITSELF COULD 307 00:27:43.891 --> 00:27:47.549 GET SO DISCOLORED, BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM HM ANY MORE 308 00:27:47.549 --> 00:27:53.049 BECAUSE WE HAVE NAFRPGFULLY MOVED PAST 1937-CAR TECHNOLOGY. 309 00:27:53.049 --> 00:28:04.017 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH N.J. AC 32. SEVEN. IT REFERENCES 310 00:28:04.017 --> 00:28:09.829 33. SEVEN. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH 32. SEVEN. THE TITLE IS GLAZING 311 00:28:09.829 --> 00:28:17.693 RIERMENTS, ALL MOTOR VEHICLES, NOT JUST COMMERCIAL. �� I DO NOT 312 00:28:17.693 --> 00:28:21.161 HAVE IT IN MY BINDER. I BELIEVE I READ IT IN PREPARATION FOR THIS CASE BUT I DO 313 00:28:21.161 --> 00:28:25.179 NOT HAVE IT IN FRONT OF. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: DOES IT HE 314 00:28:25.179 --> 00:28:29.240 APPLY TO NONCOMMERCIAL VEHICLES AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT. �� I DO 315 00:28:29.240 --> 00:28:38.976 NOT BELIEVE SO. MY UNDERSTANDING, I THINK THAT PROVISION IS STILL DEALING 316 00:28:38.976 --> 00:28:44.230 INSPECTIONS BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN. APOLOGIZE. I CAN LOOK IT UP AND SUBMIT 317 00:28:44.230 --> 00:28:48.287 ADDITIONAL LETTERS FOR IT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: IF YOU'RE ABLE 318 00:28:48.287 --> 00:28:52.312 TO TAKE A PEEK AT IT, WHILE YOUR COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE AISLE ARE 319 00:28:52.312 --> 00:28:56.635 SPEAKING AND SEE IF YOU CAN COME BACK ON REBUTTAL. �� YES. 320 00:28:56.635 --> 00:28:59.406 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: IT DOES REFERENCE MOTOR VEHICLES, AT LEAST 321 00:28:59.406 --> 00:29:04.191 IN SECTION G AND TINTING ON REAR WINDOWS AND I WONDERED HOW THAT MIGHT BEAR ON 322 00:29:04.191 --> 00:29:08.878 THIS?^ IT'S GOT A LOT OF PARALLELS TO 33. SEVEN BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME 323 00:29:08.878 --> 00:29:15.412 EXACTLY T. �� OKAY. AND IT WAS 33. CHIEF JUSTICE 324 00:29:15.412 --> 00:29:22.796 RABNER: 32. SEVEN. 13: 20-32. SEVEN. �� I WILL LOOK THAT 325 00:29:22.796 --> 00:29:25.861 UP AND HOPEFULLY HAVE AN ANSWER ON REBUTTAL. CHIEF JUSTICE 326 00:29:25.861 --> 00:29:34.710 RABNER: ALL RIGHT MUCH THANK YOU. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: 327 00:29:34.710 --> 00:29:42.763 WE'RE BEYOND THAT FOR NOW. �� OKAY. I'M HAPPY -- IF THE 328 00:29:42.763 --> 00:29:46.029 LEGISLATURE WANTED TO REGULATE TINTING, THEY COULD HAVE DONE SO AND THEY 329 00:29:46.029 --> 00:29:52.954 HAVEN'T. THEY RELIED ON THIS 1937 STATUTE THAT THE LAV IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS 330 00:29:52.954 --> 00:30:00.264 AND ADDED TINT THAT REMAINS, THAT IS NOT NONTRANSPARENT, ADDED TINT THAT YOU 331 00:30:00.264 --> 00:30:08.569 CAN STILL SEE THROUGH IS NOT A VIOLATION AND I WOULD, I CAN, IF THE COURT'S LIKE, 332 00:30:08.569 --> 00:30:17.324 I CAN MOVE PAST THE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION PART TO REALLY EMPHASIZING THE 333 00:30:17.324 --> 00:30:20.915 CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF BURDEN OF PROOFS OF PROOF AT SUPPRESSION HEARINGS. 334 00:30:20.915 --> 00:30:25.842 BECAUSE THE MOTOR VEHICLE CODE IS SO BROAD, BECAUSE REASONABLE SUSPICION IS A 335 00:30:25.842 --> 00:30:32.101 RELATIVELY LOW STANDARD CONSIDERING, IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO HOLD 336 00:30:32.101 --> 00:30:35.476 THE STATE TO ITS BURDEN OF PROOF AT A SUPPRESSION HEARING AND THIS BURDEN OF PROOF 337 00:30:35.476 --> 00:30:41.484 CANNOT BE SATISFIED WITH MAGIC WORDS, CAN'T BE SATISFIED BY SIMPLY SAYING 338 00:30:41.484 --> 00:30:44.388 THE CAR HAD TINTED WINDOWS. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED HERE AND THE STATE WHEN IT GOT 339 00:30:44.388 --> 00:30:48.813 TO THIS COURT CONCEDED THAT THAT WAS AN ILLEGAL STOP BECAUSE THE CONDUCT WAS 340 00:30:48.813 --> 00:30:53.490 LAWFUL. BUT EVEN IF THIS COURT ADOPTS THE STATE'S INTERPRETATION WHICH 341 00:30:53.490 --> 00:30:58.977 IT SHOULDN'T, BUT IT'S NOT, IT DOESN'T SATISFY THE BURDEN OF PROOF ANY BETTER 342 00:30:58.977 --> 00:31:03.577 FOR AN OFFICER TO SAY THE CAR HAD ADDED TINT TO THE FRONT WINDOWS. THAT'S 343 00:31:03.577 --> 00:31:08.959 A CONCLUSORY STATEMENT THAT DOESN'T GIVE THE REVIEWING COURTS ENOUGH FACTS TO DO ITS 344 00:31:08.959 --> 00:31:13.728 JOB. THE OFFICER HAS, WOULD HAVE TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE 345 00:31:13.728 --> 00:31:19.611 BETWEEN A LAWFUL WINDOW AND ILLEGALLY TINTED WINDOW. THE OFFICER WOULD HAVE TO 346 00:31:19.611 --> 00:31:33.137 DESCRIBE FACTS OF I COULDN'T SEE INTO THE CAR. I ASSUME PROVIDE FACT FOR 347 00:31:33.137 --> 00:31:37.492 THE CAR TO REVIEW. TAKE A PICTURE OF THE DEFENDANT'S CAR AND COMPARE IT TO 348 00:31:37.492 --> 00:31:41.814 WHAT AN UNTINTED WINDOW LOOKED. JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: SO IS YOUR ARGUMENT 349 00:31:41.814 --> 00:31:46.255 THAT THE ONLY WAY THE STATE COULD SATISFY THE REASONABLE SUSPICION OF 350 00:31:46.255 --> 00:31:51.235 A STOP BASED ON TINTED FRONT WINDOWS WOULD BE FOR THE OFFICER TO MAKE A 351 00:31:51.235 --> 00:31:56.360 REPRESENTATION THAT THEY COULD NOT SEE INSIDE THE CAR AT ALL. �� 352 00:31:56.360 --> 00:32:00.882 UNDER WHAT I THINK THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF 74 IS, YES, BUT EVEN UNDER THE STATE'S 353 00:32:00.882 --> 00:32:06.355 INTERPRETATION, IF THIS COURT ADOPT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S POSITION AND SAYS 354 00:32:06.355 --> 00:32:10.870 ANY TINT THAT'S ADDED TO THE FRONT WINDOWS AT ALL IS SOMEHOW A VIOLATION OF THIS 355 00:32:10.870 --> 00:32:14.066 STATUTE, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS STATUTE SAYS BUT IF THE COURT 356 00:32:14.066 --> 00:32:20.308 ADOPTED THAT INTERPRETATION RSHGS IT WOULD NOT SATISFY THE STATE'S BURDEN 357 00:32:20.308 --> 00:32:24.130 TO JUSTIFY THE WARRANTLESS STOP IF THE OFFICER SIMPLY SHOWED UP IN COURT AND 358 00:32:24.130 --> 00:32:28.277 SAID THERE WAS ADDED AT THIS POINT ON THE FRONT WINDOWS. 359 00:32:28.277 --> 00:32:30.985 JUSTICE PATTERSON: BUT THE QUESTION IS A LITTLE BIT MORE NUANCE THAN THAT, ISN'T 360 00:32:30.985 --> 00:32:36.157 IT. IT'S NOT AN EITHER OR. EITHER YOU SEE NOTHING OR YOU SEE EVERYTHING. 361 00:32:36.157 --> 00:32:43.413 THERE COULD BE, IF THE STATE'S INTERPRETATION OF 74 WERE ACCEPTED, THE 362 00:32:43.413 --> 00:32:49.380 OFFICER COP SAY I COULD SEE THERE WERE PEOPLE THERE, I COULD SEE MOTION BUT 363 00:32:49.380 --> 00:32:56.013 THE TINTING MADE THAT LESS THAN CLEAR. WHY WOULD THAT NOT MEET THE BURDEN UNDER 364 00:32:56.013 --> 00:33:00.216 THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE?^. �� I THINK UNDER THE 365 00:33:00.216 --> 00:33:05.205 STATE'S INTERPRETATION IT'S A FAIRLY STRICT NO ADDED TINT WHATSOEVER, BUT 366 00:33:05.205 --> 00:33:11.055 EITHER WAY, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GRADATIONS OF TINT OR NO ADDED TINT, THE 367 00:33:11.055 --> 00:33:16.052 OFFICER WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE FACTS THAT LET THE COURT DO ITS JOB. 368 00:33:16.052 --> 00:33:19.055 JUSTICE PATTERSON: I UNDERSTAND THAT, YEAH, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE THE BURDEN YOU WERE 369 00:33:19.055 --> 00:33:23.279 PUTTING ON THE OFFICER WAS TO SAY WHICH TO MEAN WOULD SAY PEOPLE ARE OUT 370 00:33:23.279 --> 00:33:27.405 THERE DRIVING AND UNABLE TO SEE THE ROAD IF THIS IS TRUE I COULD NOT SEE ANYBODY 371 00:33:27.405 --> 00:33:35.433 AND THAT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A BURDEN THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE IN LIGHT OF THE 372 00:33:35.433 --> 00:33:41.430 STATUTE. SPEAKER:^ ASUING THIS COURT ADOPTS SOME 373 00:33:41.430 --> 00:33:48.038 VERSION OF NONTRANSPARENT THAT MEANS , IF NONTRANSPARENT MEANS SOMETHING LESS THAN 374 00:33:48.038 --> 00:33:56.531 OPAQUE THEN, YES, THEN AN OFFICER WOULD AS ON STATE COURTS RECOGNIZE TO 375 00:33:56.531 --> 00:34:01.191 SATISFY THAT BURDEN OF PROOF WOULD PROVIDE FACTS LIKE IT WAS SO DARK THAT I COULDN'T, 376 00:34:01.191 --> 00:34:05.354 I COULD ONLY SEE A SILHOUETTE, IT WAS SO DARK THAT I COOPERATE SEE WHO WAS 377 00:34:05.354 --> 00:34:08.315 DRIVING. I COULD BARELY SEE MOVEMENT IN THE CAR. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: 378 00:34:08.315 --> 00:34:12.559 SO WHAT IF AN OFFICER TAKES THE STAND AND TESTIFIES I COULD SEE A DRIVER BUT 379 00:34:12.559 --> 00:34:19.026 I COULDN'T MAKE OUT ANY FEATURES AT ALL. HAS THE STANDARD BEEN MET BY 380 00:34:19.026 --> 00:34:23.122 THAT TESTIMONY?^. �� UNDER THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF 74 THAT I'M 381 00:34:23.122 --> 00:34:29.048 ASKING THIS COURT TO RECOGNIZE, NO, THAT'S NOT A VIOLATION BECAUSE IF THE OFFICER 382 00:34:29.048 --> 00:34:34.329 CAN SEE IN, THAT'S NOT A NONTRANSPARENT MATERIAL ON THE WINDOW. 383 00:34:34.329 --> 00:34:37.285 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE ABLE IT SEE IN IN A MEANINGFUL 384 00:34:37.285 --> 00:34:41.689 WEIGH. SPEAKER:^ UNDER WHAT 74 IS REALLY SAYING IT'S TALKING 385 00:34:41.689 --> 00:34:46.605 ABOUT SIGNS, POSTERS STICKERS OR NONTRANSPARENT MATERIALS. 386 00:34:46.605 --> 00:34:50.157 JUSTICE ALBIN: WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF TRANSPARENT. �� CAN BE 387 00:34:50.157 --> 00:34:53.701 SEEN THROUGH AND THE DEFINITION OF NONTRANSPARENT IS OPAQUE. 388 00:34:53.701 --> 00:35:00.447 JUSTICE ALBIN: OKAY. SO THE IMPAIRMENT OF VISIBILITY FSHGS IMPAIRING ONE'S ABILITY 389 00:35:00.447 --> 00:35:06.902 TO LOOK THROUGH THE WINDOW, WOULD THAT BE NONTRANSPARENT. �� 390 00:35:06.902 --> 00:35:17.775 NO BECAUSE -- SO IF TRANSPARENT MEANS ESSENTIALLY CRYSTAL CLEAR, NOTHING AT ALL 391 00:35:17.775 --> 00:35:24.336 EFFECTING THE LIGHT TRANCE PARNS, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT 392 00:35:24.336 --> 00:35:30.202 SOMETHING THAT IS, HAS 70 PERCENT OF THE LIGHT TRANSMIT TANS IS NONTRANSPARENT. 393 00:35:30.202 --> 00:35:36.043 WE ACCEPT THAT 70 PERCENT IS TOTALLY FINE. THAT'S SUFFICIENT FOR SAFETY, THAT'S 394 00:35:36.043 --> 00:35:46.854 SUFFICIENT FOR OUR PURPOSES FOR DRIVING. THE QUESTION IS AND I THINK 395 00:35:46.854 --> 00:35:54.859 THAT WHEN YOU CAN NO LONGER SEE INTO IT, THAT HAS NOT BEING TRANSPARENT. 396 00:35:54.859 --> 00:35:57.761 JUSTICE PATTERSON: WHY WOULD ANYBODY HAVE, UNDER THAT VERY STRICT DEFINITION 397 00:35:57.761 --> 00:36:04.401 OF TRANSPARENT, WHY WOULD ANYBODY POSSIBLY PUT TINT ON THEIR WINDOWS THAT 398 00:36:04.401 --> 00:36:09.062 IT DIDN'T ALLOW THEM TO SEE OUTSIDE THE CAR. �� AGAIN, I DON'T THINK 399 00:36:09.062 --> 00:36:15.140 THE STATUTE REALLY REGULATES TINT AS WE UNDERSTAND IT. IT REFERENCES 400 00:36:15.140 --> 00:36:19.465 POSTERS, MAYBE SOMEONE PUT A POSTER OUTSIDE OF THEIR CAR TO ADVERTISE SOMETHING 401 00:36:19.465 --> 00:36:23.213 IF THEY DID THAT ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE FRONT WINDOW THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION. 402 00:36:23.213 --> 00:36:25.570 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: BUT THE STATUTE SPECIFICALLY SPEAKS 403 00:36:25.570 --> 00:36:30.594 TO MATERIAL AS WELL. �� IT DOES BUT OTHER NONTRANSPARENT MATERIAL 404 00:36:30.594 --> 00:36:33.433 SHOULD BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE EXPLICITLY 405 00:36:33.433 --> 00:36:36.495 MENTIONED IN THIS STATUTE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: WHY IS THAT BECAUSE 406 00:36:36.495 --> 00:36:41.042 THE LEGISLATURE AND REGULATORS ALL THE TIME PROVIDE EXAMPLES AND THEN 407 00:36:41.042 --> 00:36:48.583 CATCH ALLS AND YOU DON'T NECESSARILY INFER THAT THE EVERY SINGLE ITEM IS THE 408 00:36:48.583 --> 00:36:53.190 SAME AS THE FIRST ITEM MENTIONED. THAT'S NOT A STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION 409 00:36:53.190 --> 00:36:56.559 PRINCIPLE, STL. �� NO, THEY HAVE TO BE READ IN CONTEXT BUT, 410 00:36:56.559 --> 00:37:02.383 AGAIN, NONTRANSPARENT, IT DOESN'T, THIS DOESN'T SAY, THIS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE OTHER 411 00:37:02.383 --> 00:37:06.947 WINDOW TINTING STATUTES. THIS DOESN'T SAY HOW MUCH LIGHT MUST BE ABLE TO PASS 412 00:37:06.947 --> 00:37:12.712 THROUGH. IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT SWITCH -- HOW EVERY OTHER STATUTE THAT 413 00:37:12.712 --> 00:37:17.037 REGULATES AT THIS POINT IN ALL THESE OTHER STATES DOES IT. THIS DOESN'T SAY DON'T 414 00:37:17.037 --> 00:37:20.619 PUT SUN SCREENING MATERIALS ON YOUR ^ PROPERTY ^ FRONT WINDOWS. IT DOESN'T 415 00:37:20.619 --> 00:37:27.723 SAY DON'T ADD AFTERMARKET TINTS THAT BLOCKS MORE THAN 60 PERCENT OF THE LIGHT. 416 00:37:27.723 --> 00:37:30.999 JUSTICE ALBIN: YOU'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE OTHER WORDS IN THE 417 00:37:30.999 --> 00:37:36.385 LIST. SIGN, THAT'S GOING TO TOTALLY BLOCK THE WINDOW, POSTER, BLOCK IT. STICKER, 418 00:37:36.385 --> 00:37:44.784 BLOCK IT. AND THEN IT SAYS OR OTHER NONTRANSPARENT. ARE YOU LOOK AT THE 419 00:37:44.784 --> 00:37:47.636 SEQUENCE OF THE LIFT TO GET TO WHERE YOU WANT TO BE UNTIL. �� 420 00:37:47.636 --> 00:37:52.832 YES, INSOFAR AS IT SAYS OTHER NONTRARNS PARENT MATERIALS IT'S REFERENCING THOSE 421 00:37:52.832 --> 00:37:56.957 THINGS THAT IS SPECIFICALLY LISTED AND SAYING OTHER THINGS LIKE THOSE, 422 00:37:56.957 --> 00:38:01.276 OTHER THINGS THAT LIKE A POSTER IS NONTRANSPARENT. YOU ALSO CAN'T PUT THAT ON 423 00:38:01.276 --> 00:38:04.778 YOUR WINDOWS. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: RPT YOU ADDING THE WORD 424 00:38:04.778 --> 00:38:09.239 SIMILAR AS YOU READ THAT SERIES OF WORDS?^. �� RIGHT THERE I LITERALLY 425 00:38:09.239 --> 00:38:16.217 DID SAY, I DID SAY SIMILAR BUT LISTS HAVE TO BE -- IF YOU'RE LISTING 426 00:38:16.217 --> 00:38:22.189 APPLES, ORANGES, BLUE BERRIES AND OTHER FOODS, I'M NOT SURE IT WOULD NECESSARILY 427 00:38:22.189 --> 00:38:28.052 BE REASONABLE TO SAY THAT FISH FALLS UNDER THAT LIST. CHIEF 428 00:38:28.052 --> 00:38:33.562 JUSTICE RABNER: BECAUSE FISH IS NOT A FOOD?^. �� BECAUSE 429 00:38:33.562 --> 00:38:39.473 IT'S NOT A PRODUCE, IT'S SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. 430 00:38:39.473 --> 00:38:44.368 JUSTICE PATTERSON: AGAIN, THE LEGISLATURE DOES COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. THEY 431 00:38:44.368 --> 00:38:47.300 MAKE LISTS OF ITEMS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE ONE ANOTHER, ARE SIMILAR TO 432 00:38:47.300 --> 00:38:57.963 EACH OTHER. WHEN THEY LIST CERTAIN ENUMERATED THINGS FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD 433 00:38:57.963 --> 00:39:02.366 AND THEN HAVE ANOTHER DESCRIPTION, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHAT THAT 434 00:39:02.366 --> 00:39:05.833 MEANS ITSELF. DON'T YOU?^. �� YES AND AGAIN, NONTRANSPARENT 435 00:39:05.833 --> 00:39:11.592 IN ORDER PARLANCE, IN ORDER, LOOK IT TUP, IT MEANS OPAQUE, IT MEANS 436 00:39:11.592 --> 00:39:19.002 CANNOT BE SEEN THROUGH. THAT IS THE ORDINARY DEFINITION OF NONTRANSPARENT AND 437 00:39:19.002 --> 00:39:24.038 THE PLAIN LANGUAGE CONTROLS, THE PLAIN LANGUAGE IS WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO GIVE 438 00:39:24.038 --> 00:39:29.956 PEOPLE, WHAT GIVES EVERYONE NOTICE AS TO WHAT CONDUCT IS PROHIBITED. 439 00:39:29.956 --> 00:39:33.611 JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: YOUR ARGUMENT THAT THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED DECADES 440 00:39:33.611 --> 00:39:39.997 AGO BEFORE WINDOW TINTING AS WE KNOW IT TODAY WAS IN EXISTENCE, I GUESS YOUR 441 00:39:39.997 --> 00:39:47.601 ARM IS IT'S DIFFICULT TOP MAKE THE CASE THAT THE LEGISLATURE'S INTENT WAS TO 442 00:39:47.601 --> 00:39:53.235 TARGET WINDOW TINTING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REST OF THE ITEMS IN THIS LIST 443 00:39:53.235 --> 00:39:59.471 BECAUSE THAT DID NOT EXIST SO YOUR ASSUMPTION OR ARGUMENT IS THAT THEY 444 00:39:59.471 --> 00:40:06.504 MUST HAVE BEEN REFERENCING OTHER THINGS SIMILAR TO POSTERS, STICKERS OR SIGNS. 445 00:40:06.504 --> 00:40:09.184 �� YES, THEY SURELY DID NOT INTEND TO BAN SOMETHING THAT HADN'T 446 00:40:09.184 --> 00:40:12.598 BEEN INN HAVEN'TED YET. THEY INTENDED -- CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: 447 00:40:12.598 --> 00:40:20.541 IF YOU'RE RIGHT NOW, 74, WHAT STATUTE OR REGULATION REGULATES TINTING OF 448 00:40:20.541 --> 00:40:25.301 NONCOMMERCIAL VEHICLES {QUESTION MARK}. �� I THINK THE MEDICAL TINT 449 00:40:25.301 --> 00:40:28.805 STATUTE PROVIDES AN OPTION FOR PEOPLE TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT. CHIEF 450 00:40:28.805 --> 00:40:33.847 JUSTICE RABNER: BUT THAT'S NOT ONE SIDE. �� BUT NOTHING PROHIBIT 451 00:40:33.847 --> 00:40:40.035 IS TINTING IN A WAY SO LONG AS THE MATERIAL IS NOT NONTRANSPARENT. 452 00:40:40.035 --> 00:40:42.460 JUSTICE PATTERSON: BUT THAT GOES BACK TO 74, RIGHT. �� 453 00:40:42.460 --> 00:40:45.482 YES. JUSTICE PATTERSON: GETTING THAT FROM THERE, IF YOU 454 00:40:45.482 --> 00:40:48.090 SAY 74 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TINT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: RIGHT, 455 00:40:48.090 --> 00:40:53.118 YOU'VE READ OUT THE NONTRANSPARENT OF 74 AS IT APPLIES TO TINTING IF 456 00:40:53.118 --> 00:40:57.092 I UNDERSTOOD YOUR ARGUMENT CORRECTLY. �� YES, INSOFAR AS TINTING IS 457 00:40:57.092 --> 00:40:59.941 ACTUALLY OPAQUE. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: SO NOTHING REGULATES 458 00:40:59.941 --> 00:41:04.276 TINTING OF OF REGULAR PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES. �� NOT UNDER 459 00:41:04.276 --> 00:41:08.998 THE MOTOR VEHICLE CODE AS IT'S CURRENTSLY WRITTEN FRECHLT. 460 00:41:08.998 --> 00:41:12.206 JUSTICE ALBIN: AND NOTHING IN FEDERAL REGULATIONS. I WAS LOOKING AT THOSE AS 461 00:41:12.206 --> 00:41:15.966 WELL. IT SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT APPLY TOZ 462 00:41:15.966 --> 00:41:21.366 BUSSES AND TRUCKS AND NOT TO CARS. �� SO FEDERAL REGULATIONS DON'T 463 00:41:21.366 --> 00:41:27.635 REGULATE AFTERMARKET TINTING. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGULATES 464 00:41:27.635 --> 00:41:33.177 MANUFACTURING STASHDZ FOR GLASS IN THAT IT CAN'T SHATTER UNSAFELY AND IT MUST 465 00:41:33.177 --> 00:41:38.058 ALLOW AT LEAST 70 PERCENT LIGHT TRANSMIT TANS WHEN A CAR COMES OUT OF THE FACTORY 466 00:41:38.058 --> 00:41:42.733 P. JUSTICE SOLOMON: JUST WITH REGARD TO 74, IT DOES 467 00:41:42.733 --> 00:41:49.430 NOT SAY, IMPLY THAT SOMEHOW THESE SIGNS OR WHATEVER IS ON THE WINDSHIELD NEEDS 468 00:41:49.430 --> 00:41:53.714 TO COVER THE ENTIRE WINDSHIELD, CORRECT. �� CORRECT. 469 00:41:53.714 --> 00:41:56.513 JUSTICE SOLOMON: IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT OBSTRUCTS TO VISION. 470 00:41:56.513 --> 00:42:01.375 IT MAY OBSTRUCT A PORTION OF THE SIDE WINDOW, A PORTION OF THE FRONT 471 00:42:01.375 --> 00:42:05.966 WINDOW BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COVER THE ENTIRE WINDOW. YES. �� 472 00:42:05.966 --> 00:42:09.158 CORRECT, YES. JUSTICE SOLOMON: OKAY SO YOU'RE NOT TALKING 473 00:42:09.158 --> 00:42:14.244 ABOUT OPAQUE WITH REGARD TO SEEING OUT THE WINDOW OR WINDSHIELD ANYWHERE OR ANY TIME. 474 00:42:14.244 --> 00:42:23.750 �� I MEAN I THINK -- YES, I AGREE BUT IT'S REGULATING THE 475 00:42:23.750 --> 00:42:28.740 MATERIALS THAT CAN BE ADDED TO THE WINDOW. IT'S NOT SPECIFYING OTHER THAN, YEAH. 476 00:42:28.740 --> 00:42:30.404 JUSTICE SOLOMON: IT'S NOT DESCRIBING THE MATERIALS. IT'S 477 00:42:30.404 --> 00:42:37.178 NOT SAYING PAPER, ALUMINUM. IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE KINDS OF OBJECTS, NOT THE 478 00:42:37.178 --> 00:42:40.438 KINDS OF MATERIALS. �� YES. JUSTICE SOLOMON: 479 00:42:40.438 --> 00:42:47.373 AND WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS IT'S AN OBSTRUCTION OF SOME IS SORT TO VISION TO THE 480 00:42:47.373 --> 00:42:50.229 FRONT OR SIDE WINDOWS, SO ISN'T THE STANDARD REALLY WHETHER THERE IS 481 00:42:50.229 --> 00:42:57.268 AN OBSTRUCTION TO VISION RATHER THAN A SIGN OR SOMETHING COVERING THE WINDOW 482 00:42:57.268 --> 00:43:03.386 OR WINDSHIELD MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THROUGH BECAUSE OS STEN SI BLI 483 00:43:03.386 --> 00:43:07.356 YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD. IT'S JUST PROVIDING OBSTRUCTIONS TO CERTAIN 484 00:43:07.356 --> 00:43:16.482 PORTIONS. �� I THINK -- YES, I DO THINK THAT AS A WHOLE SECTION 485 00:43:16.482 --> 00:43:20.920 74 IS CONCERNED WITH THE DRIVER'S ABILITY TO SEE. JUSTICE SOLOMON: 486 00:43:20.920 --> 00:43:25.837 AND TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT'S NOT COMPLETELY OPAQUE BUT YOUR 487 00:43:25.837 --> 00:43:31.427 VISION IS IN SOME WAY DISTORTED OR OBSTRUCTED. HOW DOES THAT SECTION 74 488 00:43:31.427 --> 00:43:38.897 NOT COVER THAT SITUATION WHICH COMES BACK TO I GUESS WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE OFFICER 489 00:43:38.897 --> 00:43:42.702 COULD NOT SEE IN AT ALL AT LEAST THERE'S A REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT MAYBE 490 00:43:42.702 --> 00:43:47.988 THE DRIVER CAN'T SEE OUT TOO WELL EITHER. �� YES. AGAIN I THINK. 491 00:43:47.988 --> 00:43:53.728 JUSTICE SOLOMON: MAYBE HE WILL SEE OUT, BUT NOT REALLY WELL. 492 00:43:53.728 --> 00:43:58.773 �� SOY THINK MAYBE WHERE YOU CAN GET SOME WIGGLE ROOM ON 493 00:43:58.773 --> 00:44:03.688 THIS IS IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH BUT I ALSO THINK ONCE WE GET THERE WITHOUT IT 494 00:44:03.688 --> 00:44:08.408 BEING REALLY NARROWLY CONSTRUED IT'S RUNNING RIGHT INTO THE IMPERMISSIBLE 495 00:44:08.408 --> 00:44:16.029 VAGUENESS PROBLEM. WHAT DOES UNDULY INTERFERE WITH THE DRIVER'S VISION MEAN 496 00:44:16.029 --> 00:44:22.230 UNLESS THAT'S NATURAL CONSTRUED TO REALLY BE FOCUSED ON THE ABILITY TO 497 00:44:22.230 --> 00:44:27.992 SEE, TO SEE CLEARLY. WINDOWS THAT ARE SO DARK THAT THEY ESSENTIALLY MAKE IT 498 00:44:27.992 --> 00:44:38.114 UNSAFE, MAKE IT UNSAFE TO BE UNABLE TO -- MAKE THE SEEING OUT VERY VERY DIFFICULT. 499 00:44:38.114 --> 00:44:40.192 JUSTICE SOLOMON: ISN'T YOUR POSITION THAT THAT DOESN'T MATTER 500 00:44:40.192 --> 00:44:44.447 BECAUSE IF YOU CAN SEE OUT AT ALL, EVEN IF IT'S DISTORTED AND MAKES DRIVING UNSAFE 501 00:44:44.447 --> 00:44:49.965 DOESN'T MATTER MUCH THE STATUTE DOESN'T COVER IT. ISN'T THAT YOUR YOUR 502 00:44:49.965 --> 00:44:52.863 ARGUMENT?^. �� SO I THINK PARAGRAPH THREE ESSENTIALLY COVERS 503 00:44:52.863 --> 00:45:02.533 A SITUATION IN WHICH YOU EITHER EQUIPPED OR LOADED YOUR CAR IN A WAY TO MAKE 504 00:45:02.533 --> 00:45:10.050 IT SO THAT IT'S VERY VERY DIFFICULT, IT'S UNSAFE. YOU REALLY CAN'T SAFELY 505 00:45:10.050 --> 00:45:14.065 SEE TO THE FRONT AND THE SIDE WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING AND WHETHER THAT'S THROUGH MATERIALS 506 00:45:14.065 --> 00:45:18.256 WHEN YOU ADDED. JUSTICE PATTERSON: WHY NOT STICK WITH THE 507 00:45:18.256 --> 00:45:23.915 STATUTE TORE LANGUAGE UNDULY INTERFERE. �� SO IF YOU LOADED YOUR CAR 508 00:45:23.915 --> 00:45:27.829 WITH BOXES THAT YOU CAN'T SEE OUT THE BACK AND THE FRONT PASSENGER WINDOW 509 00:45:27.829 --> 00:45:34.431 THAT MIGHT BE UNDULY INTERFERED. IF YOU TINTED THE FRONT WINDOW SO SO DARKLY 510 00:45:34.431 --> 00:45:38.964 THAT YOUR VISION HAS BEEN UNDULY INTERFERED WITH, THAT CAN BE A VIOLATION OF. 511 00:45:38.964 --> 00:45:42.854 JUSTICE ALBIN: FORGET ABOUT THE DRIVER'S VISION. THE TINT 512 00:45:42.854 --> 00:45:50.154 IS NOT AFFECTING THE DRIVER'S VISION. BUT IS COMPLETELY OBSCURING NINE ELSE'S 513 00:45:50.154 --> 00:45:55.323 ABILITY TO LOOK INSIDE INCLUDING A POLICE OFFICER, IS THAT NOT A 514 00:45:55.323 --> 00:46:08.304 VIOLATION OF PARAGRAPH TWO?^. �� THE NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE IN CREATES 515 00:46:08.304 --> 00:46:18.254 WREENL SUSPICION THAT IT'S A NONTRANCE TERRIBLE MATERIAL. 516 00:46:18.254 --> 00:46:21.531 JUSTICE ALBIN: REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER CAN SEE CLEARLY THROUGH. 517 00:46:21.531 --> 00:46:27.820 �� YES, PARAGRAPH TWO IS DEALING WITH MATERIAL WITH SPECIFIC 518 00:46:27.820 --> 00:46:31.479 MATERIALS OR ANOTHER NONTRANSPARENT. JUSTICE SOLOMON: 519 00:46:31.479 --> 00:46:35.335 OBINSTRUCTION VISION EITHER WAY, GOING IN OR GOING OUT. DO YOU AGREE. 520 00:46:35.335 --> 00:46:41.758 �� I THINK PARAGRAPH TWO AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION IS FOCUSED ON THE 521 00:46:41.758 --> 00:46:49.441 THING YOU HAVE ADDED TO YOUR CAR'S WINDOWS. I THINK TO GIVE REASONABLE 522 00:46:49.441 --> 00:46:53.088 SUSPICION TO THAT VIOLATION PRACTICALLY SPEAKING THE WAY YOU GOAT THERE IS BY 523 00:46:53.088 --> 00:46:57.551 SAYING I REALLY CAN'T SEE INSIDE THIS CAR, I SUSPECT THEY'VE ADDED 524 00:46:57.551 --> 00:47:01.415 NONTRANSPARENT MATERIAL TO THE WINDOWS. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MS. 525 00:47:01.415 --> 00:47:05.002 MCCLAIN, WE'VE GONE QUITE LONG ON THE ARGUMENT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU 526 00:47:05.002 --> 00:47:25.350 WANT TO TOUCH ON. �� NOOF TRANSPARENT TINT ON ALL CARS IN NEW JERSEY 527 00:47:25.350 --> 00:47:32.298 IS LEGAL AND ALSO ASK THAT YOU HOLD PTHAT ALLOWINGT POLICE TO MAKE STOPS ON TINTED 528 00:47:32.298 --> 00:47:38.006 WINDOWS WITHOUT MORE UNDERMINES SAFEGUARDS THAT PROTECTS NEW JERSEY FROM UN-REASONABLE 529 00:47:38.006 --> 00:47:46.291 SEARCHINGS AND SEIZURES. SO MUCH OF THIS WAUS TOUCHSED. I WANTED TO TOUCH ON THREE OR 530 00:47:46.291 --> 00:47:50.422 FOUR ISSUES JUSTICE PATTERSON: BEFORE YOU GO ON TO THREE OR FOUR ISSUES, 531 00:47:50.422 --> 00:47:57.652 WHAT IS TRANSPARENT TINT? KAREN THOMPSON: I AGREE THAT TRANSPARENT TINT 532 00:47:57.652 --> 00:48:05.400 IS A TINT THAT YOU YOU CAN SEE THROUGH. THAT ALLOWS FOR CLEAR VISION. WE NEED TO CREATE 533 00:48:05.400 --> 00:48:10.448 SOME SORT FOOF OBJECTIVE WAY TO MEASURE WHAT THAT MEANS. AND IN THE OTHER 40 STATES THAT 534 00:48:10.448 --> 00:48:15.998 HAVE AN EXPLICIT STATUTE WITH REGARD TO TINTING ON FRONT WINDOWS, OFFICERS ARE PROVIDED WITH 535 00:48:15.998 --> 00:48:22.086 LIGHT METERS. THEY'RE PROVIDED WITH SHADE CARDS WHICH HAVE THE VARIOUS LEVELS OF OPACITY 536 00:48:22.086 --> 00:48:30.026 THAT THEY CAN HOLD UP AND COMPARE TO THE WINDOW TINT SO THAT THAT WAY WE CAN MEET TO CLEARLY 537 00:48:30.026 --> 00:48:38.042 DEEFINEFINEF LEVELS. ALSO WITH REGARD TO THE REGULATIONS WHICH DO ALLOW FOR THIS30 PERCENT 538 00:48:38.042 --> 00:48:44.181 OF TINTING, THE FEDERAL REGS HAVE DECLARED THAT IT'S SAFE AND NEW JERSEY HAS IT INTEGRATED 539 00:48:44.181 --> 00:48:47.740 THOSE REGULATIONS INTO THEIR OWN MOTOR VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS. JUSTICE 540 00:48:47.740 --> 00:48:53.196 PATTERSON: I THINK WHAT YOUR COLLEAGUE HAS TOLD US IS THAT THAT'S NOT AFTER MARKET. 541 00:48:53.196 --> 00:48:57.547 THAT'S MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS. KAREN THOMPSON: RIGHT. BUT I THINK IT 542 00:48:57.547 --> 00:49:03.865 DOES SERVE AS A GREAT BASELINE TO KNOW WAHAT ISHAT ISH SAFE AND WHAT PERCENTAGE OF TINTING 543 00:49:03.865 --> 00:49:08.796 DOES ALLOW FOR REGULAR USE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT 544 00:49:08.796 --> 00:49:17.685 WE SHOULD APPLY 74 TO PASSENGER VEHICLES IS BUT INTERPRET IT TO MEAN 70 PERCENT? THAT 545 00:49:17.685 --> 00:49:23.457 IT'S NOT NON-TRANSPARENT -- EXCUSE THE DOUBLE NEGATIVE. IT'S NOT NON-TRANSPARENT IF IT 546 00:49:23.457 --> 00:49:28.218 ALLOWS FOR 70 PERCENT OF THE LIGHT FROM THE OUTSIDE TO GO INTO THE CAR. IS THAT WHAT 547 00:49:28.218 --> 00:49:33.230 YOU'D LIKE US TO DO? KAREN THOMPSON: YES. I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I 548 00:49:33.230 --> 00:49:39.817 THINK THAT WOULD BE A VERY CLEAR WAY TO PROCEED AND I THINK THAT THAT IS -- WE KNOW THAT 549 00:49:39.817 --> 00:49:43.854 IT'S SAFE. THAT'S WHY THE REGULATION IS WHAT IT IS. JUSTICE PATTERSON: 550 00:49:43.854 --> 00:49:49.781 WHERE DO WE SEE -- WHETHER THAT'S GOOD POLICY OR NOT GOOD POLICY, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT 551 00:49:49.781 --> 00:49:56.210 OUR CALL. THEY'RE ON STATE STREET, WE'RE ON MARKET STREET. WHERE DO WE SEE THE 552 00:49:56.210 --> 00:50:02.080 LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO DO WHAT YOU JUST SUGGESTED? KAREN THOMPSON: WE DON'T 553 00:50:02.080 --> 00:50:11.961 HAVE THAT BECAUSE AS THE JUSTICE POINTED OUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE LEGISLATURE NECESSARILY 554 00:50:11.961 --> 00:50:19.131 KNOWS THE EXACT NUMBER. BUT I DO THINK THAT THE MEDICAL EXEMPTION DOES HELP US WITH 555 00:50:19.131 --> 00:50:24.466 THAT INTERPRETATION. BECAUSE WHEN YOU DO GET THE CERTIFICATE ALLOWING YOU TO TINT WINDOWS 556 00:50:24.466 --> 00:50:31.348 FOR MEDICAL REASONS, THE LANGUAGE IN 13201.2 SAYS THAT THE TINT SHOULD BE INSTALLED IN 557 00:50:31.348 --> 00:50:36.906 CONJUNCTION WITH THE FACTORY INSTALLED GLAZEINGI TO MAKE IT 70 PERCENT AND ON THE SIDE 558 00:50:36.906 --> 00:50:43.161 WINDOWS TO MAKE IT TO ASK PERCENT IN ADDITION TO THAT FACTORY INSTALLED GLAZEINGINGI. 559 00:50:43.161 --> 00:50:49.759 SO THAT DMRAZING IS WHAT IS SET BY THE FEDERAL REGULATION. AND TO TIE THE IDEAL NUMBER, 560 00:50:49.759 --> 00:50:57.763 I REALIZE THIS IS THE CODE, BUT TO TIE THAT IDEAL NUMBER TO THE REGS AS IT STATES IN THIS 561 00:50:57.763 --> 00:51:05.392 PARTICULAR CODE SECTION GOES TO SHOW I THINK THE INTENT OF WHAT IS THE OPTIMAL PERCENTAGE 562 00:51:05.392 --> 00:51:08.500 OF TINT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: I KNOW THAT YOU WANT TO PRESENT THREE POINTS. 563 00:51:08.500 --> 00:51:13.369 I'D LIKE TO ASK ONE QUESTION FIRST, IF I COULD. YOU'RE NOT ARGUEINGI THAT THE PHRASE 564 00:51:13.369 --> 00:51:20.931 IN SECTION 74, NON-TRANSPARENT MATERIAL DOES NOT IN-CLUDEC TINT, ARE YOU? KAREN 565 00:51:20.931 --> 00:51:28.550 THOMPSON: I'M NOT. NO. I'M SORRY. MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING. ARE YOU SAYING -- 566 00:51:28.550 --> 00:51:34.028 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: TO HEAR YOUR ARGUMENT, YOUR READING OF THE PHRASE 567 00:51:34.028 --> 00:51:41.978 TRANSPARENT MATERIAL REFERS TO NOT SIMPLEYY SIGN, POSTERS AND STICKERS BUT TINTED WINDOWS 568 00:51:41.978 --> 00:51:45.031 AS WELL. IS THAT FAIR? KAREN THOMPSON: I BELIEVE IT DOES. AND I AM NOT 569 00:51:45.031 --> 00:51:52.107 -- I DON'T THINK THAT CO.HENH IS CORRECT ON ALL THINGS, BUT I THINK THAT USING THIS -- 570 00:51:52.107 --> 00:52:01.150 USING 374 AS THE OPERATEINGI STATUTE FOR DETERMINEINGI QUESTIONS OF TINT, I THINK THAT 571 00:52:01.150 --> 00:52:10.933 IS CORRECT. AND TO THAT END I DO THINK TINT DOES REFER TO TRANSPARENT MATERIAL. WITHIN 572 00:52:10.933 --> 00:52:15.086 THE CONTEXT OF MATERIAL ON -- YES, ON THE FRONT WINDOWS. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: 573 00:52:15.086 --> 00:52:18.651 PLEASE GO AHEAD WITH THE POINTS YOU WANTED TO START WITH. KAREN THOMPSON: 574 00:52:18.651 --> 00:52:25.722 THE QUESTION OF OPACITY AND USING THE LIGHT METERS AND MEETING THAT OBJECTIVE NUMBER 575 00:52:25.722 --> 00:52:31.212 WAS ONE OF THE POINTS. BUT THE SECOND POINT IS, JUST TO POINT OUT SOMEOF THE ISSUES AROUND 576 00:52:31.212 --> 00:52:37.713 CO.HENH AND THE FACT THAT IT ASSOCIATES ALL AFTER MARKET APPLICATIONS OF TINT WITH AN 577 00:52:37.713 --> 00:52:43.584 OVER LL BAND OF WINDOW TINTING. AND AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY THAT DOESN'T QUITE WORK, IF 578 00:52:43.584 --> 00:52:49.850 UYOU BOUGHTY A CAR AND WENT TO THE DEALER AND PURCHASED A CAR AND PERHAPS IT WAS A USED 579 00:52:49.850 --> 00:52:56.442 CAR BUT THAT CAR DOES NOT HAVE THE FEDERALLY REGULATED TINTING, THAT IS THE TINTING THAT 580 00:52:56.442 --> 00:53:02.663 THE MANUFACTURER PUTS INTO ALL CAR WIND SHIELDS. IF UYUYOU DECIDEYD THAT YOU WANTED TO 581 00:53:02.663 --> 00:53:08.601 BRING IT UP TO THE FEDERAL STANDARD, IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE THAT ZERO TINT WINDOW 30 582 00:53:08.601 --> 00:53:14.100 PERCENT, THAT WOULD BE LEGAL UNDER THE CURRENT STANDARD. AND THAT SEEMS TO PUT ANY TINTING 583 00:53:14.100 --> 00:53:19.693 IN CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL STANDARDS AND THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS AGAIN THAT HAVE BEEN 584 00:53:19.693 --> 00:53:24.716 DEEFINEDF AS SAFE. AND WHEN POLICE OFFICERS ARE TRYING TO MAKE THEIR 585 00:53:24.716 --> 00:53:28.444 DETERMINEATIONATIONAS ON A STOP, THERE'S NO WAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TOB BE ABLE TO MAKE 586 00:53:28.444 --> 00:53:33.734 THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN AFTER MARKET STOP AND A PRE-MARKET STOP BASED ON JUST LOOKING 587 00:53:33.734 --> 00:53:44.793 AT THE CAR. SO THAT SORT OF UN-KNOW ABILITY MEANS THERE'S NO REASON THAT CAN ACTUALLY 588 00:53:44.793 --> 00:53:49.945 BE ARTICULATED. I WANT TO BRIEFLY SPEAK FO THE QUESTION OF HOW THIS MPACTS 589 00:53:49.945 --> 00:53:55.403 DRIVERS OF COLOR. JUSTICE ALBIN: CAN I ASK YOU ONE QUESTION? ARE YOU 590 00:53:55.403 --> 00:54:02.302 SUGGESTING THAT A POLICE OFFICER COULD NOT STOP A CAR THAT HAD TINTING SO DARK THAT THE 591 00:54:02.302 --> 00:54:07.850 OFFICER COULD NOT LOOK IN FROM THE OUTSIDE? KAREN THOMPSON: NO. THAT WOULD BE 592 00:54:07.850 --> 00:54:17.213 A REASONABLE STO, BECAUSE, AS MS. MKCCLAINC NOTED, IF IT'S OKAY IF UYYUYOU CAN'TY SEE 593 00:54:17.213 --> 00:54:22.734 IN, THAT IMPLICATES THE QUESTION OF THE DRIVER VISION. PASH PAR BUT THE CASE THAT CO.HENH 594 00:54:22.734 --> 00:54:32.952 ACTUALLY OVERRULED, R M I THINK IS HELPFUL HERE. THE LANGUAGE IT SAYS IS TESTIMONY THAT 595 00:54:32.952 --> 00:54:38.164 THE OFFICER REASONABLEYY BELIEVED THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF STATUTE AND NOT MERELY AN 596 00:54:38.164 --> 00:54:44.776 OBSERVATION OF TINTED MATERIAL ON THE MOTOR VEHICLE. WOULD MAKE IT SERVE MERELY AS A 597 00:54:44.776 --> 00:54:48.709 PRE-TEXTTEXTT FOR THE OFFICER TO STOP ALL MOTOR VEHICLES SO OUTFITTED. SO 598 00:54:48.709 --> 00:54:54.389 THE QUESTION HERE, THE THING THAT WE NEED TO REALLY LOOK TO, IS WHETHER THERE'S SOMETHING 599 00:54:54.389 --> 00:55:02.010 THAT IS ARTICULABLE ABOUT THE USE. AND BEING ABLE TO SAY, ICANNOT SEE INTO THE CAR IS 600 00:55:02.010 --> 00:55:10.588 AN ARTICULABLE BASIS. BUT IF THE CAR -- THE OFFICER CAN SEE INTO THE CAR, IF THE DRIVER 601 00:55:10.588 --> 00:55:18.833 CAN SEE OUT OF THE CAR EVEN WITH TINT, THEN THERE IS NO BARRYIIER THERE. JUSTICE 602 00:55:18.833 --> 00:55:23.677 PATTERSON: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN EXACTLY? THE OFFICER CAN SEE THERE'S SOMEBODY IN THE 603 00:55:23.677 --> 00:55:30.730 CAR, THE DRIVER'S THERE, THE PASSENGER's THERE, BUT IT IS OBSCUREIING THE CLARITY OF THE 604 00:55:30.730 --> 00:55:36.333 OFFICER'S VIEW. IS THAT REASONABLE SUSPICION OR IS IT NOT IN YOUR INTERPRETATION? 605 00:55:36.333 --> 00:55:42.370 KAREN THOMPSON: I THINK THAT THERE HAS TO BE MORE. IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SAY I CAN SEE 606 00:55:42.370 --> 00:55:48.045 YOU BUT I CAN'T SEE YOU ENOUGH. I DON'T THINK ANY LAW GUARANTIES TO OFFICERS THAT THEY 607 00:55:48.045 --> 00:55:56.033 CAN SEE ALL THINGS IN THECAR. THERE HAS TO BE A REAL VIOLATION THAT ALLOWS THEM THAT 608 00:55:56.033 --> 00:56:03.577 SORT OF ACCESS. AND MERE OBSERVATION OF TINTED MATERIAL THAT JUSTIFIES A SUBJECTIVE DECISION 609 00:56:03.577 --> 00:56:08.501 OF AN OFFICER TO STOP THE CAR AND THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S JUST NOT SUBJECTIVE. 610 00:56:08.501 --> 00:56:13.880 THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT FOOOFOBJECTIVE REASON, AND NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE INTO THE 611 00:56:13.880 --> 00:56:21.284 CAR IS ONE OF THEM. BEING ABLE TO SEE MAYBE WITH NOT FULL CLEAR GLASS CANNOT -- 612 00:56:21.284 --> 00:56:28.169 JUSTICE PATTERSON: WELL, YOUR 70/30 SUGGESTION, AS WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING WE INTERPRET 613 00:56:28.169 --> 00:56:36.996 IT AAT,LD SEEM TO ME TO BE YOU CAN SEE IN BUT YOU -- IF YOU'RE AT 31 AND 69 INSTEAD OF 614 00:56:36.996 --> 00:56:42.617 70 AND 30, A VIOLATION OF THE STANDARD THAT YOU WOULD SUGGEST THE COURT IMPOSE, YOU CAN 615 00:56:42.617 --> 00:56:47.125 SEE IN BUT YOU CAN'T SEE IN AS WELL AS YOU COULD WITH TRANSPARENT GLASS. WOULDN'T THAT 616 00:56:47.125 --> 00:56:52.883 BE WHAT YOU'D EXPECT IF THAT WERE THE MEASURE? KAREN THOMPSON: I WANT TO BE 617 00:56:52.883 --> 00:56:58.151 CLEAR, I THINK THAT'S ONE PLACE IN THE BASELINE AND IT'S ONE THAT WAS SET BY THE REGULATIONS. 618 00:56:58.151 --> 00:57:03.253 BUT OTHER STATES, MICHIGAN, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS NO BASELINE AT LL. YOU COULD HAVE ANY 619 00:57:03.253 --> 00:57:07.732 AMOUNT FOOF TINTING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE IN MICHIGAN ON ANY WINDOWS. WHEREAS NEW YORK 620 00:57:07.732 --> 00:57:11.917 IT'S THAT 70 PERCENT. AND I THINK -- JUSTICE PATTERSON: OBVIOUSLY THESE 621 00:57:11.917 --> 00:57:18.086 RAARE LEGISLATORS MAKEIING POLICY DETERMINEAATIONS FOR -- BASED PRESUMEAABLY ON 622 00:57:18.086 --> 00:57:24.656 TRAFFIC SAFETY. SO OBVIOUSLY IT'S -- THESE RAARE DIFFERENT OPTIONS THE STATES HAVE, BUT 623 00:57:24.656 --> 00:57:29.737 -- KAREN THOMPSON: BUT THE BROADNESS WOULD -- I THINK THAT THERE HAS TO 624 00:57:29.737 --> 00:57:36.213 BE -- YOU CAN'T HAVE SOMETHING SO BROAD. WE CAN'T SAY -- OR WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT, 625 00:57:36.213 --> 00:57:45.276 THAT THIS NON-TRANSPARENCY WITH NO FURTHER EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO TINT IS SO BROAD 626 00:57:45.276 --> 00:57:51.613 THAT THERE'S NO WAY TO EVEN MONITOR IT UNLESS THERE'S THE FACTS LIKE IN CO.HHEN WHERE 627 00:57:51.613 --> 00:57:55.915 THE OFFICER LITERALLY COULD NOT SEE INTO THE CAR AND THE DRIVER THEMSELVES SAID, OKAY, 628 00:57:55.915 --> 00:58:01.563 THIS IS ILLEGAL. THERE HAS TO BE SOME GRADEAATION HERE ABOUT HOW WE DEEFFINE TINT 629 00:58:01.563 --> 00:58:06.923 AND HOW WE CAN THINK BAABOUT NON-TRANSPARENCY AND TRANSPARENCY OF DIFFERENT SHADES SO 630 00:58:06.923 --> 00:58:15.849 THAT WE DON'T BLOCK DRIVER VISION, THAT WE'RE NOTIMPLICATEIING PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS AND 631 00:58:15.849 --> 00:58:21.775 THAT WE CAN'T USE THIS STATUTE TO STOP PEOPLE ARTBBBITRARILY. JUDGE FUENTES: 632 00:58:21.775 --> 00:58:30.633 IN PTTHAT RESPECT, THE FOCUS OF THE STATUTE IS ON THE ABILITY OF THE DRIVER TO OPERATE 633 00:58:30.633 --> 00:58:39.395 THE VEHICLE SAFELY. WHY -- IF THAT'S THE BASIS OF THE STATUTE, WHY IS THERE ANY KIND 634 00:58:39.395 --> 00:58:45.444 OF -- WHY SHOULD OUR ANALYSIS BE BASED ON WHAT A POLICE OFFICER COULD OBSERVE FROM THE 635 00:58:45.444 --> 00:58:49.892 OUTSIDE OF THE CAR AS OPPOSED TO WHAT A REASONABLE DRIVER COULD SEE FROM IN-SSIDE THE 636 00:58:49.892 --> 00:58:58.471 CAR? SO IF -- IN OTHER WORDS, IN ORDER FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATION TO BE REASONABLE 637 00:58:58.471 --> 00:59:06.550 UNDER THIS TITLE 39 STATUTE, A POLICE OFFICER HAS TO HAVE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION. NOT 638 00:59:06.550 --> 00:59:12.937 THAT HE OR SHE COULD NOT SEE IN, BUT THAT THE DRIVER COULD NOT ADEQUATELY SEE OUT TO 639 00:59:12.937 --> 00:59:19.280 OPERATE THE VEHICLE SAFELY. BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE STATUTE THAT REFERS TO 640 00:59:19.280 --> 00:59:26.957 THE PERSPECTIVE OF A POLICE OFFICER. IT'S THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE DRIVER. WOULD YOU AGREE 641 00:59:26.957 --> 00:59:30.440 WITH THAT? KAREN THOMPSON: I DO. AND I THINK THAT THE POINT OF THESE STATUTES 642 00:59:30.440 --> 00:59:35.661 IS TO PROTECT THE DRIVER. IT'S NOT AS UYYOU SAID EARLIER -- JUDGE FUENTES: 643 00:59:35.661 --> 00:59:41.841 AND MOTORISTS. KAREN THOMPSON: EXACTLY. AND OTHERMOTORISTS WHO THE DRIVER 644 00:59:41.841 --> 00:59:47.731 NEEDS TO SEE. AND SO OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE CONCERNS. OBVIOUSLY POLICE OFFICERS DON'T 645 00:59:47.731 --> 00:59:53.487 WANT TO KNOW IF SAY SOMEONE IS POINTING A GUN AT THEM. THAT IS IMPORTANT. BUT THAT IS 646 00:59:53.487 --> 00:59:56.776 NOT THE BASIS FOR A STOP. JUSTICE PATTERSON: DOES THE POLICE OFFICER HAVE 647 00:59:56.776 --> 01:00:02.271 TO ASK THE DRIVER T STEP OUT AND GET INTO THE CAR AND SEE HOW IT LOOKS FROM THE IN-SSSIDE? 648 01:00:02.271 --> 01:00:07.684 KAREN THOMPSON: IDEALLY WE WOULD HAVE SOME SORT FOOF MECHANISM THA WOULD 649 01:00:07.684 --> 01:00:15.214 ALLOW AN OBJECTIVE READ ON WHAT THE TINTING WAS. IF UYYOU CAN'T SEE INTO THECAR, I THINK 650 01:00:15.214 --> 01:00:21.547 NON-TRANSPARENT COVERS THAT. SO, YES, THAT'S A PROPER STOP. YOU COULD ASK THE DRIVER 651 01:00:21.547 --> 01:00:25.584 TO STEP OUT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: DOES IT IN FACT COVER IT? DOES CAN'T 652 01:00:25.584 --> 01:00:32.152 SEE IN-SSIDE PROVIDE AN OBJECTIVE MEASURE THAT MEANS THE SAME THING TO REASONABLE POLICE 653 01:00:32.152 --> 01:00:38.583 OFFICERS ACROSS THE LINE? KAREN THOMPSON: YES, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT IS 654 01:00:38.583 --> 01:00:43.117 A REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION IF YOU CANNOT SEE IN-SSIDE THE CAR AT ALL. 655 01:00:43.117 --> 01:00:49.278 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: BUT WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS, YOUR 70/30 SUGGESTION IS AN EASILY 656 01:00:49.278 --> 01:00:56.409 MEASURED -- IS A METRIC THAT CAN BE OBJECTIVELY MEASURED. BUT IS IT UN-REASONABLE FOR 657 01:00:56.409 --> 01:01:02.582 AN OFFICER TO SAY, I COULD SEE IN-SSIDE THE CAR, BUT I COULDN'T MAKE OUT ANYTHING, I CAN'T 658 01:01:02.582 --> 01:01:08.106 DESCRIBE THE PERNSSON IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM OTHER THAN TO TELL UYYOU THERE WAS A PERSON 659 01:01:08.106 --> 01:01:15.318 IN THE FRONT SEAT. DOES THAT OR DOES THAT NOT MEET A STANDARD OF COULD SEE THROUGH? 660 01:01:15.318 --> 01:01:20.291 KAREN THOMPSON: I DON'T THINK -- WELL, IT MEETS THE STANDARD OF SEEING 661 01:01:20.291 --> 01:01:25.029 THROUGH. I THINK THAT PTTHAT DOES MEET A TRANSPARENCY -- A LEGAL TRANSPARENCY LEVEL. 662 01:01:25.029 --> 01:01:29.796 I DON'T BELIEVE THAT POLICE OFFICERS HAVE NAANY RIGHT TO SEE ANYTHING MORE IN YOUR CAR 663 01:01:29.796 --> 01:01:35.331 UNLESS THEY HAVE AN ARTICULABLE SUSPICION. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: I WANTED 664 01:01:35.331 --> 01:01:41.822 THE STATE TO SPEAK FIRST TO THE STATUTE THEY HIGHLIGHTED IN THEIR SUBMISSION ON FRIDAY 665 01:01:41.822 --> 01:01:48.459 AFTERNOON. WOULD YOU CARE TO COMMENT ON 56:EIGHT-117 AND ANY BEARING IT MIGHT HAVE ON 666 01:01:48.459 --> 01:01:57.378 THIS CASE? KAREN THOMPSON: YES. I THINK THAT, AS NOTED EARLIER IN MY EXAMPLE, 667 01:01:57.378 --> 01:02:04.592 IF I WANTED TO GET MY CAR TO THAT 30 PERCENT FEDERAL STANDARD, I WOULD GO TO THIS -- I 668 01:02:04.592 --> 01:02:08.794 WOULD GO TO A COMPANY THAT'S COVERED BY THIS SECTION AND HAVE THEM INSTALL THOSE 669 01:02:08.794 --> 01:02:13.912 MATERIALS. I THINK WHAT THE STATUTE IS TRYING TO COMPENSATE FOR HERE IS TO GO FROM PTTHAT 670 01:02:13.912 --> 01:02:20.836 ALLOWABLE AMOUNT FOOOF TINT TO THAT PLACE WHERE IT IS NON-TRANSPARENT TO THAT PLACE WHERE 671 01:02:20.836 --> 01:02:28.049 IT IS OPAQUE. AND THAT'S WHERE THE ADD ON TINTING IS ADDEDONTO THE POINT OF 672 01:02:28.049 --> 01:02:32.626 OBSTRUCTION, THAT IS THE WAY TO KEEP A CURB ON THAT BEHAVIOR. AND TO KEEP IT -- 673 01:02:32.626 --> 01:02:37.165 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: LOOK AT THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF 117. DOES IT GO BEYOND THAT? IT 674 01:02:37.165 --> 01:02:47.087 SAYS, I MUST ARTICULATE THAT NEW JERSEY STATE LAW PROHIBITS ADD ON TINTING. KAREN 675 01:02:47.087 --> 01:02:51.793 THOMPSON: BUT I THINK THE ADD ON TINTING HERE THAT PTTHAT AFTER MARKET QUESTION IS THE 676 01:02:51.793 --> 01:03:01.850 QUESTION THAT MATTERS. BECAUSE 30 PERCENT TINT IS -- WE HAVEN'T IN-CORPORATECORPORATECD 677 01:03:01.850 --> 01:03:08.891 THAT INTO OUR MOTOR VEHICLE REGULATIONS. SO YOU MIGHT HAVE -- YOU BUY THECAR. YOU ALREADY 678 01:03:08.891 --> 01:03:15.252 HAVE THAT 30 PERCENT TINT IN THE WINDSHIELD. THIS IS SAYING YOU CANNOT ADD MORE. THAT IS 679 01:03:15.252 --> 01:03:20.125 TOO MUCH. WE DON'T KNOW WAHAT THAT'SH GOING TO TURN THE CAR INTO AND IF IT'S GOING TO 680 01:03:20.125 --> 01:03:25.343 THEN MAKE THECAR VIAOOLATE T374. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: DO ALL CARS FROM 681 01:03:25.343 --> 01:03:29.804 MANUFACTURERS HAVE THE 30/70? I THOUGHT THAT WAS JUST A FEDERAL REGULATION IMPOSEIING 682 01:03:29.804 --> 01:03:33.743 A LIMIT. KAREN THOMPSON: BUT THE REGULATION IS FOR THE MANUFACTURERS. 683 01:03:33.743 --> 01:03:39.202 AND I KNOW IN PREPPING FOR THIS I CHECKED MY CAR, I CHECKED A BUNCH FOOF CARS AND THEY 684 01:03:39.202 --> 01:03:46.155 ALL SAY ON THAT LITTLE STAMP THAT THEY HAVE THAT 7/30 BREAK DOWN. SO I DO THINK THAT 685 01:03:46.155 --> 01:03:52.208 HAS BECOME THE NORM. I DO THINK THAT TINTING IS WHAT MANUFACTURERS NOW IN-CCCORPORATE 686 01:03:52.208 --> 01:03:57.969 BECAUSE IT IS A QUESTION OF SAFETY AS WELL. IF UYYOU CAN'T SEE BECAUSE OF GLARE, IF THERE'S 687 01:03:57.969 --> 01:04:05.746 UN-DUE UV RACE COMEIING THROUGH, THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. THIS IS 688 01:04:05.746 --> 01:04:09.421 A QUESTION OF PUBLIC SAFETY AS WELL. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: ANYTHING ELSE? 689 01:04:09.421 --> 01:04:15.680 KAREN THOMPSON: BRIEFLY -- IF I CAN JUST BRIEFLY SPEAK ABOUT SOMEOF THE RACIAL 690 01:04:15.680 --> 01:04:24.962 QUESTIONS. THE STATE DID NOTE IN ITS BRIEF THAT THESE TINTE WINDOW VIOLATIONS ONLY ACCOUNT 691 01:04:24.962 --> 01:04:38.124 FOR MAKE UP 15 PERCENT OF THE REMAINING STOPS. AND OF THOSE STOPS, BLACK AND LATINO 692 01:04:38.124 --> 01:04:43.354 DRIVERS ARE STOPPED OVER 80 PERCENT MORE THAN WHITE DRIVERS UNDER THESE TINTED WINDOW 693 01:04:43.354 --> 01:04:50.972 STOPS. THE FACT IS BECAUSE WE KNOW IT IS WRONG AND PEOPLE GET IT WRONG. WE ARE HERE TODAY 694 01:04:50.972 --> 01:04:55.010 BECAUSE OF THE FACTS OF SMITH WHERE AN OFFICER GOT IT WRONG. AND THERE ARE GOING TOB 695 01:04:55.010 --> 01:05:00.763 BE MANY OTHER INSTANCES WHERE THAT HAPPENS. AND AS THIS COURT HAS NOTED, THOSE INSTANCES 696 01:05:00.763 --> 01:05:08.853 OF STOPS WHERE THERE'S NO NEED AND THE DRIVER WAS -- IN A SENSE THOSE THINGS HURT BOTH 697 01:05:08.853 --> 01:05:12.235 THE DRIVER AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY COME FROM. SO WE SHOULD NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF 698 01:05:12.235 --> 01:05:20.746 USING THESE STOPS TO AMP U CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS WITHOUT A BASIS AND USING THEM 699 01:05:20.746 --> 01:05:27.859 PRE-TECH TURLLY. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: THANK YOU, MS. THOMPSON. 700 01:05:27.859 --> 01:05:30.273 MR. COOPER-DAUB? WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONORS, 701 01:05:30.273 --> 01:05:36.771 MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE AS A PRELIMINARY POINT TO EM-MPHASIZE AGAIN 702 01:05:36.771 --> 01:05:41.206 OF COURSE THIS CASE IS MOOT AS TO THIS PARTICULAR DEFENDANT. HIS CONVICTION WAS VACATED. 703 01:05:41.206 --> 01:05:45.280 HIS CHARGES WERE DISMISSED. SO THERE'S NO RULING HERE THAT COULD AFFECT THIS PARTICULAR 704 01:05:45.280 --> 01:05:49.442 DEFENDANT. MY COLLEAGUE STARTED OFF BYIICYCLISTING A NUMBER OF THE WAYS 705 01:05:49.442 --> 01:05:54.218 IN WHICH WE AGREE ON ISSUES SURROUNDING THIS AND I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD WAY TO START 706 01:05:54.218 --> 01:06:00.172 AND I'LL GO THROUGH SOME OF THOSE AGAIN BECAUSE WE DO AGREE THAT REAR WINDOW TINT OF 707 01:06:00.172 --> 01:06:04.288 VIRTUALLY ANY LEVEL IS ALLOWED UNDER STATE LAW. THAT THE STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS WE'RE 708 01:06:04.288 --> 01:06:10.672 TALKING ABOUT CONCERNING ONLY AFTER MARKET TINT DO NOT FFECT MANUFACTURER TINT WHICH IS 709 01:06:10.672 --> 01:06:16.365 REGULATED BY FEDERAL REGULATIONS. ONE THING I DO JUST WANT TO MAKE VERY CLEAR, THE STATE 710 01:06:16.365 --> 01:06:21.648 IS NOT CONCEDEIING THAT THE STOP HERE WAS UNLAWFUL OR ILLEGAL. THE STATE IS 711 01:06:21.648 --> 01:06:27.662 CONCEDEIIING THAT IT DID NOT BEAR ITS BURDEN OF PROOF AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING OF 712 01:06:27.662 --> 01:06:32.288 ESTABLISHING REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A WINDOW TINT STOP. I KNOW THAT'S A FINE DISTINCTION, 713 01:06:32.288 --> 01:06:36.897 BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR . FRANKLY, WE DON'T KNOW FROM THE RECORD 714 01:06:36.897 --> 01:06:41.739 WHETHER THERE WAS TINT ON MR. SMITH's WINDOWS. IT'S I73IRRELEVANT TO THE CASE AT THIS 715 01:06:41.739 --> 01:06:47.475 POINT. WE KNOW THAT THE TESTIMONY ELICITED DID NOT REACH THE THRESHOLD FOR PROVING 716 01:06:47.475 --> 01:06:51.637 REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A TINT STOP IN THIS CASE. AND THAT RE-VVOLVES ENTIRELY AROUND 717 01:06:51.637 --> 01:06:57.405 THIS PRINCIPLE SIMPLEYY THAT REAR TINT IS NOT REGULAT. MOVING ON TO THE 718 01:06:57.405 --> 01:07:02.289 SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENTS WE'RE HEARING TODAY, WE'VE HEARD A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT 719 01:07:02.289 --> 01:07:07.886 INTERPRETATIONS OF HOW WE SHOULD CONSIDER AFTER MARKET TINT. THE STATE IS MAKEIING A 720 01:07:07.886 --> 01:07:14.277 PROPOSAL THAT UNDER THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS WE HAVE FROM THE VARIOUS CLUES WE HAVE FROM 721 01:07:14.277 --> 01:07:20.863 LEGISLATURE AND IN CO.HHEN AND IN TERMS OF INFORMATION DISSEMINATED AMONG THE PUBLIC FOR 722 01:07:20.863 --> 01:07:28.112 QUITE A LONG TIME, THAT NO AFTER MARKET TINTING IS ALLOWED ON FRONT WIND SHIELDS OR WINDOWS 723 01:07:28.112 --> 01:07:34.857 UNDE STATE LAW AND VIRTUALLY ANY LEVEL OF AFTER MARKETING TINTING IS ALLOWED ON REAR WINDOWS 724 01:07:34.857 --> 01:07:42.066 OR WIND SHIELDS. A GREAT ADVANTAGE OF PTTHAT IS IT'S EASY TO APPLY AND IT'S A TEST THAT'S 725 01:07:42.066 --> 01:07:48.256 BEEN BASICALLY WIDELY ACCEPTED FOR A WHILE AND KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC. TWO QUESTIONS. WHY 726 01:07:48.256 --> 01:07:54.154 IS THIS THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION AND ALSO WHY -- A LITTLE DIFFERENT, WHY IS THIS A DESIRABLE 727 01:07:54.154 --> 01:07:59.094 INTERPRETATION. WE KNOW THIS IS THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION FOR SEVERAL REASONS. FIRST, 728 01:07:59.094 --> 01:08:07.077 LOOKING BACK AT CO.HHEN, CO.HHEN WAS SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO USE THIS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 729 01:08:07.077 --> 01:08:13.997 PROVISION CREATED BY THE M V C AS ESSENTIALLY AN EXPERT INTERPRETATION OF THIS LAUWW 730 01:08:13.997 --> 01:08:21.498 AND WE'LL ACCEPT THAT AS A METRIC OF WHEN TINT IS LAWFUL UNDER N.J.S.A. 39:THRE-34 AND 731 01:08:21.498 --> 01:08:30.190 WHEN IT'S NOT. JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR, UNDER CO.HHEN's ANALYSIS, THAT STATUTE, 39 THROWN 732 01:08:30.190 --> 01:08:35.948 374, THAT REMAINS THE OPENRRATIVE LAW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. CO.HHEN WAS NOT SAYING IF 733 01:08:35.948 --> 01:08:42.014 UYYOU VIOLATE THESE INSPECTION STANDARDS THAT JUSTIFIES A STOP. CO.HHHEN IS SAYING WE'RE 734 01:08:42.014 --> 01:08:48.189 GING TO POUR OVER THESE STANDARDS WHICH REPRESENTS THE ANALYSIS OF THIS AND USE THAT 735 01:08:48.189 --> 01:08:52.921 AS A METRICS FOR ASSESSING THE LAWFULNESS UNDER THE LEGISLATURE's MOTOR VEHICLE CODE. 736 01:08:52.921 --> 01:08:59.613 NEXT, AS WE TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE BIT JUST NOW, JUST A YEAR AFTER CO.HHEN, 737 01:08:59.613 --> 01:09:04.640 THE LEGISLATURE PASSED THIS AMENDMENT TO THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT REALLY MAKEIING CRYSTAL 738 01:09:04.640 --> 01:09:10.917 CLEAR ITS INTENT AND ITS UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WINDOW TINT IS REGULATEIED, REQUIRING 739 01:09:10.917 --> 01:09:15.840 INSTALLERS AND SELLERS OF TINT TO REEFFRAIN FROM INSTALLING ANY AFTER MARKET TINT ON FRONT 740 01:09:15.840 --> 01:09:22.171 WINDOWS ON NEW JERSEY REGISTERED CARS AND TO NOTIFY CUSTOMERS THAT INSTALLING AFTER TINT 741 01:09:22.171 --> 01:09:32.454 ON FRONT WINDOW SHIELDS VOLATES NEW JERSEY LAWS AND REGULATIONS. THE 742 01:09:32.454 --> 01:09:37.922 MISUNDERSTANDING IS ALSO CONFIRMED AND BOLSTERED BY THE LEGISLATURE's PASSAGE OF THE MEDICAL 743 01:09:37.922 --> 01:09:44.131 EXEMPTION SCHEME WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE BIT AND THE LEGISLATURE IN 1999 PASSED 744 01:09:44.131 --> 01:09:54.137 THESE STATUTES AT N.J.S.A. 39:THREE 75.1 AND I THINK .2 AND..3 SAYING IF YOU HAVE A PHOTO 745 01:09:54.137 --> 01:09:59.766 SENSEITIVEI MEDICAL CONDITION, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY TO THE M V C TO GET A MEDICAL 746 01:09:59.766 --> 01:10:07.094 EXEMPTION AND THEN YOU CAN INSTALL TINT ON YOUR CAR. IN DIRECTING THE M V C KRKRKC DIRECTO 747 01:10:07.094 --> 01:10:15.725 TO PASS REGULATIONS, WHICH THE DIRECTOR DID, THOSE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE13:20-1.1 748 01:10:15.725 --> 01:10:22.800 THROUGH I THINK 2.7. THOSE FIRST TWO SECTIONS THERE. AND WHAT'S TELLING 749 01:10:22.800 --> 01:10:28.055 ABOUT PTTHAT, FIRST, THERE'S NO MENTION OF REAR WINDOW TINT AT ALL ANYWHERE THERE. SO 750 01:10:28.055 --> 01:10:32.333 THE ASSUMPTION OF EVERYONE IS, REAR WINDOW TINT IS ALLOWED WHETHER YOU HAVE A MEDICAL 751 01:10:32.333 --> 01:10:38.413 EXEMPTION OR NOT. BUT THEN THE LEGISLATURE DIRECTED THE M V C DIRECTOR TO SET STANDARDS 752 01:10:38.413 --> 01:10:43.705 FOR WAHHAT WINDOW TINT TO BE ALLOWED AND AS POINTED OUT, TRAFFIC STOPS IS ONE MEETING 753 01:10:43.705 --> 01:10:50.054 FOR NEEDING THESE STANDARDS. AND THE M V C DIRECTOR CREATED A RULE LIMITING THE TINT 754 01:10:50.054 --> 01:10:57.064 THAT CAN BE PLACED THERE. SAYING THAT FRONT WIND SHIELDS MUST MAINTAIN VISIBLE LIGHT 755 01:10:57.064 --> 01:11:03.907 TRANSMIT TANS OF 70 PERCENT AND FRONT SIDE WINDOWS 70 PERCENT. WHICH THOSE ARE 756 01:11:03.907 --> 01:11:12.395 RELATIVELY LIGHT LEVELS OF TINTING GIVING THAT WINDO THAT MANUFACTURERS CAN INSTALL DOWN 757 01:11:12.395 --> 01:11:19.328 TO 70 PERCENT OF THE REGULATIONS. BUT IFYOU HAVE A PHOTO SENSEIITIVE MEDICAL CONDITION 758 01:11:19.328 --> 01:11:24.469 YOU HAVE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION TO INSTALL ONLY LIGHT TINT. AND 759 01:11:24.469 --> 01:11:29.001 THEN THE LAST THING -- JUSTICE PATTERSON: LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT YOU ABOUT 760 01:11:29.001 --> 01:11:33.887 YOUR RELIANCE ON THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT STATUTE. IT'S AN UNUSUAL -- OBVIOUSLY IN ALL 761 01:11:33.887 --> 01:11:40.403 KINDS OF CONTEXTS WE'RE TRYING TO INTERPRET WHAT THE LEGISLATURE MEANT. IT'S UNUSUAL 762 01:11:40.403 --> 01:11:45.193 -- AND I DON'T THINK I'VE DEALT WITH BEFORE SAYING THAT AN ESSENTIALLY URELATED STATUTE, 763 01:11:45.193 --> 01:11:51.469 SOMETHING THAT OBVIOUSLY IS IN A DIFFERENT PART OF THE STATUTES THAT SAYS PUT A SIGN OUT 764 01:11:51.469 --> 01:11:59.254 HERE SAYING X IS EVIDENCE THAT THAT'S WHAT THE LEGISLATURE MEANT WHEN IT DID Y, WHICH 765 01:11:59.254 --> 01:12:06.596 IN THIS CASE IS THE TITLE 39 ASPECT OF THIS. SEE WAHHAT I MAN? THE LEGISLATURE COULD 766 01:12:06.596 --> 01:12:11.860 SAY PUT A SIGN OUT PTTTHAT SAYS NEW JERSEY LAUWW REQUIRES X OR TO DO THIS AND THAT BUT 767 01:12:11.860 --> 01:12:17.595 IT COULD BE JUST DEAD WRONG AS TO NEW JERSEY LAUWW. AND IF IN FACT THAT WERE NOT THE 768 01:12:17.595 --> 01:12:24.421 LAW, WOULD THE LEGISLATURE SAYING PUT A SIGN OUT SAYING IT IS THE LAW BE EVIDENCE FOFOOF 769 01:12:24.421 --> 01:12:28.962 LEGISLATIVE INTENT? YOU SEE WAHHAT I'M SAYING? WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: 770 01:12:28.962 --> 01:12:32.496 I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR HONOR IS SAYING, YES. AND CERTAINLY WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT LAW 771 01:12:32.496 --> 01:12:38.327 WAS SOMEHOW RE-FFLECTIVE OF THE LEGISLATURE's ORIGINAL INTENT BACK NIIN 1937. AS WE HAVE 772 01:12:38.327 --> 01:12:44.521 DISCUSSED, TINTING AS IT EXISTS NOW DID NOT REALLY EXIST IN THE 1930S, IT IS MY 773 01:12:44.521 --> 01:12:47.458 UNDERSTANDING. JUSTICE PATTERSON: WHAT IS THAT EVIDENCE OF? WE HAVE A VERY 774 01:12:47.458 --> 01:12:52.548 FOCUSED INQUIRY HERE, AND THAT IS WHERE AN OFFICER -- UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES DOES AN 775 01:12:52.548 --> 01:12:58.176 OFFICER HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A VIOLATION OF THE TITLE 39 PROVISION -- I THINK 776 01:12:58.176 --> 01:13:02.455 EVERYBODY AGREES WE'RE IN SECTION 74. WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: YES. 777 01:13:02.455 --> 01:13:09.363 JUSTICE PATTERSON: SO IS EVIDENCE THAT THE LEGISLATURE WHEN IT AMENED THE CFA THOUGHT 778 01:13:09.363 --> 01:13:18.169 THE NEW JERSEY LAUWWW SAID X EVIDENCE FOOF ANYTHING ELSE OF WHAT SECTION 74 MEANS? 779 01:13:18.169 --> 01:13:21.252 WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: YOUR HONOR, I THINK IT'S EVIDENCE FOOF HOW THE LEGISLATURE 780 01:13:21.252 --> 01:13:25.812 UNDERSTANDS THE LAW TO APPLY TO THIS NEW SITUATION. AND THIS IS A CHALLENGE THAT 781 01:13:25.812 --> 01:13:30.082 COMES UP OCCASIONALLY AND THERE ARE A COUPLE FOOF CASES FROM THIS COURT TALKING ABOUT WHAT 782 01:13:30.082 --> 01:13:37.025 WE DO IN PTTTHAT SITUATION WHEN A LAW IS PASSED AND THEN YEARS DOWN THE ROAD THERE'S A 783 01:13:37.025 --> 01:13:43.969 NEW SITUATION THAT ARGUEAABLEYY FALLS UNDER THAT BUT CLEARLY CAN'T BE PART OF THE 784 01:13:43.969 --> 01:13:48.664 LEGISLATURE's INTENT AT THAT TIME. SO I'M LOOKING AT THE OPINION FROM THIS COURT IN A 785 01:13:48.664 --> 01:13:58.306 M N, INC., OF NEW JERSEY VERSUS SOUTH BRUNSWICK RENT LEVELING BOARD WHICH IS 93 NJ 518. 786 01:13:58.306 --> 01:14:06.834 AND IT TALKS ABOUT HOW IN CASES LIKE THIS -- PARDON ME. THAT THE POLICY OF INTERPRETING 787 01:14:06.834 --> 01:14:13.461 THE STATUTE CONSTANT WITH PROBABLE INTENT OF THE DRAFTSMAN HAD HE ANTICIPATED THE SITUATION 788 01:14:13.461 --> 01:14:18.414 AT HAND AND FURTHER SPECIFY THAT INTERPRETATIONS IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD NOT TURN 789 01:14:18.414 --> 01:14:23.547 ON LITTER. LEFT1: S, TECH. LEFT1: S OR CERTAIN RULES FOOF 790 01:14:23.547 --> 01:14:28.230 INTERPRETATION. YOU'RE STILL LOOKING FOR THE STAT TORE LANGUAGE. JUSTICE 791 01:14:28.230 --> 01:14:32.965 PATTERSON: WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING WE DO HERE IS INTERESTING BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING 792 01:14:32.965 --> 01:14:37.364 I'VE RUN INTO BEFORE. IN THIS OTHER STATUTE, THEY SAID THIS IS THE LAW OF NEW JERSEY. 793 01:14:37.364 --> 01:14:50.546 AND WHO'S SAYING THAT? IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE OR WHAT DO WE MAKE OF PTTHAT? 794 01:14:50.546 --> 01:14:54.699 WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: I GUESS THIS IS SPECULATION TO SOME EXTENT. THE TEXT OF 795 01:14:54.699 --> 01:14:59.907 PTTTHAT STATUTE SAID NOT JUST THAT IT'S PROHIBITED UNDER NEW JERSEY LAUWW BUT ALSO UNDER 796 01:14:59.907 --> 01:15:05.254 NEW JERSEY REGULATION AND THEY WERE PASSING THIS A YEAR AFTER CO.HHEN HAD SAID WE'RE GO 797 01:15:05.254 --> 01:15:10.224 ING TO USE THIS REGULATION AS THE BENCHMARK FOR COMPLIANCE WITH 74 . JUSTICE 798 01:15:10.224 --> 01:15:14.854 PATTERSON: IT MAY HAVE BEEN CO.HHEN THEY'RE REFERRING TO THERE, RIGHT? 799 01:15:14.854 --> 01:15:18.925 WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUSTICE ALBIN: BUT 528117 IS TARGETING 800 01:15:18.925 --> 01:15:27.523 THE REETTAILER. ITDOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON COULD TINT HIS OWN 801 01:15:27.523 --> 01:15:30.757 CAR. WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: IT SPECIFICALLY BARS THE REETTTAILER FROM 802 01:15:30.757 --> 01:15:38.034 INSTALLING. IT DOES REQUIRE SELLERS TO TELL CUSTOMERS NOT SIMPLEYY I CANNOT INSTALL 803 01:15:38.034 --> 01:15:46.791 TINT ON YOUR CAR BUT TO THEY WILL THEM AFTER MARKET TINT ON FRONT WINDSHIELD IS PROHIBIT 804 01:15:46.791 --> 01:15:52.729 ED UNDER NEW JERSEY LAUW WREGULATION. JUSTICE ALBIN: SO WHEN IT SAYS IT'S 805 01:15:52.729 --> 01:15:57.823 PROHIBITED, THEY'RE APPARENTLY REFERRING TO SOME OTHER LAW. WHAT OTHER LAW WOULD PTTTTHAT 806 01:15:57.823 --> 01:16:02.164 BE? WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THEY'RE REFERRING TO 74 807 01:16:02.164 --> 01:16:08.143 AND TOITS MANNER OFINTERPRETATION BY THE NBC AND THE ADOPTION OF THAT AS A METRICS BY 808 01:16:08.143 --> 01:16:12.275 CO.HHEN. JUSTICE PATTERSON: MAYBE THEY SIMPLEYY WERE REFERRING TO CO.HHEN. 809 01:16:12.275 --> 01:16:16.586 JUSTICE ALBIN: TELL MEE THE LANGUAGE IN COHEN THAT YOU'RE RE-LLYING ON. 810 01:16:16.586 --> 01:16:20.707 WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IS WHERE 811 01:16:20.707 --> 01:16:25.463 -- CO.HHEN HAS GONE THROUGH LOOKING AT THESE TWO LAW DIVISION CASES, ONE OF WHICH SAID 812 01:16:25.463 --> 01:16:31.307 WE DON'T THINK 74 REACHES TINT. THE OTHER OF WHICH SAID WE DO THINK 74 AND THE 813 01:16:31.307 --> 01:16:36.431 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE REACHES TINT. CO.HHEN SAYS, WE USE THIS OPPORTUNITY -- 814 01:16:36.431 --> 01:16:39.132 JUSTICE ALBIN: TELL MEE THE PAGE YOU'RE RELYING ON. WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: 815 01:16:39.132 --> 01:16:44.042 I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS ON PAGE 380. JUSTICE ALBIN: OKAY. 816 01:16:44.042 --> 01:16:48.735 WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: PROBABLEYY AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE. AND BASICALLY ALL IT 817 01:16:48.735 --> 01:16:54.920 SAID IS WE USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESSLY ADOPT THE JUDGE's OPINION IN (CASE CITED) 818 01:16:54.920 --> 01:17:02.487 INSOFAR AS AS IT HOLDS THAT N.J.S.A. 39:THREE-74 PROHIBITS THE USE OF TINTED WINDOWS WHICH 819 01:17:02.487 --> 01:17:12.220 FAILS TO MEET THE APPLICABLE STANDARD NOW SET FORTH IN N.J.A.C. 13:20-33.7. I BELIEVE 820 01:17:12.220 --> 01:17:19.429 IT READ THE SAME AS IT DOES NOW, WHICH A FEW THINGS TOUCHING ON TINT BUT THE SPECIFIC 821 01:17:19.429 --> 01:17:32.788 PORTION IS PARAGRAPH D. THAT SAYS, A MOTOR VEHICLE OTHER THAN A POLICE VEHICLE OR A 822 01:17:32.788 --> 01:17:37.175 MOTOR VEHICLE FOR CWHICH AW MEDICAL EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE MOTOR 823 01:17:37.175 --> 01:17:41.775 VEHICLE COMMISSION SHALL NOT BE CERTIFIED WHICH HAS TINTED SPRAY OR PLASTIC MATERIALADDED 824 01:17:41.775 --> 01:17:47.819 TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GLAZE NOT GUILTY THE FRONT WINDSHIELD OR WINDOWS, VENTS, WINGS 825 01:17:47.819 --> 01:17:51.753 -- JUSTICE ALBIN: A LITTLE LOUDER. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. WILLIAM P. 826 01:17:51.753 --> 01:17:56.879 COOPER-DAUB: WINDOWS, VENTS, WINGS, DEEFFLECT TORS OR SIDE SHIELDS TO THE IMMEDIATE RIGHT 827 01:17:56.879 --> 01:18:02.211 OR LEFT OF THE DRIVER BECAUSE -- AND NOW IT'S ECHOING 74 -- SUCH CONDITION CHANGES THE 828 01:18:02.211 --> 01:18:07.186 VISION AND LIGHT TRANSMISSION PROPERTIES OF THE GLAZEIING IN AREAS WHERE DRIVER VISIBILITY 829 01:18:07.186 --> 01:18:11.888 SHALL NOT BE OBSCURED OR OBSTRUCTED. JUSTICE PATTERSON: DO YOU THINK CO.HHHEN 830 01:18:11.888 --> 01:18:18.307 WENT VER THE LINE FOF DEFERENCEO TO THE LEGISLATURE WITH REGARD TO POLICY? DO YOU 831 01:18:18.307 --> 01:18:23.913 SEE WAHHAT I'M ASKING? THERE'S A LOT FOOF INTERPRETIVE ACTIVITY GOING ON IN CO.HHHEN 832 01:18:23.913 --> 01:18:31.110 THAT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT A LEGISLATURE DOES. AND WHAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH DOES IN 833 01:18:31.110 --> 01:18:38.591 REGULATIONS, WHICH IS TO REALLY PARE DOWN AND REGULATE AN AREA OF TRAFFIC EXPERTISE THAT 834 01:18:38.591 --> 01:18:44.878 IS REALLY UNUSUAL IN A JUDICIAL OPINION. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME ON THAT? 835 01:18:44.878 --> 01:18:48.285 WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: I DON'T THINK SO, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE I THINK THAT CO.HHHEN WASN'T 836 01:18:48.285 --> 01:18:53.067 SO MUCH EXPRESSING ITS OWNEXPERTISE AS RE-LLLYING ON THE EXPERTISE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE 837 01:18:53.067 --> 01:18:58.436 COMMISSION AND THE MOTOR VEHICLE DIRECTOR AS THE LEGISLATURE OFTEN DOES IN ASKING THE 838 01:18:58.436 --> 01:19:05.190 NBC TO CREATE REGULATIONS FOLLOWING THE STATUTES. JUSTICE PATTERSON: BUT 839 01:19:05.190 --> 01:19:12.272 THE COURT DID GET INTO QUITE A BIT OF THE WEEDS WITH RESPECT TO WHAT CONSTITUTES UN-SAFE 840 01:19:12.272 --> 01:19:17.593 TINTING. WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: WELL, I THINK THEY WERE LOOKING AT THIS 841 01:19:17.593 --> 01:19:24.664 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVISION AS INTERPRETING -- I'M SORRY. AS INTERPRETING -- AS A 842 01:19:24.664 --> 01:19:29.490 REASONABLE AND CONVINCEIING AND MAYBE ABOVE ALL CLEAR AND EASY TO APPLY INTERPRETATION 843 01:19:29.490 --> 01:19:35.563 OF THE STATUTE AND HOW THE STATUTE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO AFTER MARKET WINDOW TINTS. 844 01:19:35.563 --> 01:19:38.867 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE MEANING OF SECTION 74, 845 01:19:38.867 --> 01:19:43.092 IN PARTICULAR ITS USE OF THE PHRASE NON-TRANSPARENT MATERIAL THAT WE FOCUSED ON 846 01:19:43.092 --> 01:19:48.355 AND THE LANGUAGE IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH AS WELL ABOUT UN-INTERFERENCE WITH THE DRIVER'S 847 01:19:48.355 --> 01:19:51.258 VISION? WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: YES, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THAT AS WE ALREADY 848 01:19:51.258 --> 01:20:00.088 KIND OF TALKED ABOUT, THE LEGISLATURE CAN'T REALLY HAVE BEEN IN A REALISTIC WAY 849 01:20:00.088 --> 01:20:04.063 CONSIDERING (CASE CITED). I THINK THOSE PARAGRAPHS SHOULD BE READ NIIN CONJUNCTION. 850 01:20:04.063 --> 01:20:08.278 THE SECOND PARAGRAPH GIVES US AN IDEA IN GENERAL OF WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. AMONG 851 01:20:08.278 --> 01:20:13.986 OTHER THINGS LIKE WINDSHIELD WIPERS AND THINGS LIKE PSHGS THEY'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT THINGS 852 01:20:13.986 --> 01:20:19.942 THAT ARE APPLIED TO A WINDSHIELD STUCK ONTO A WINDSHIELD OR ONTO FRONT WINDOWS. PARAGRAPH 853 01:20:19.942 --> 01:20:26.776 THREE SERVES AS SORT OF A CATCHALL FOR NURT SITUATIONS NOT ANTICIPATED TO SAY YOU CAN'T 854 01:20:26.776 --> 01:20:33.998 INSTALL -- EQUIP, CONSTRUCT, LOAD A CAR SO AS TO UN-DDULY INTERFERE WITH A DRIVER'S VISION. 855 01:20:33.998 --> 01:20:40.721 SO THEY FUNCTION TOGETHER AND AS THEY GET INTERPRETED TODAY TO APPLY -- 856 01:20:40.721 --> 01:20:45.825 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: HOW ABOUT MSMS. MCCLAIN's POINT THAT THE LAST PARAGRAPH REFERS ONLY 857 01:20:45.825 --> 01:20:50.057 TO THE DRIVER'S VISION? WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: IT'S CERTAINLY CLEAR THAT 858 01:20:50.057 --> 01:20:56.706 THE LEGISLATURE's CONCERN IN PASSING THAT LAW WAS ABOUT MAINTAINING SAFETY ON THE ROAD. 859 01:20:56.706 --> 01:21:03.329 WE CERTAINLY KNOW FROM THE LEGISLATURE's FOR RECENT MENTIONS OF OFFICER SAFETY AND PASSING 860 01:21:03.329 --> 01:21:10.081 THE MEDICAL EXEMPTION SCHEME THAT THAT IS ALSO A CONCERN THAT IMPACTS -- THAT THE LEGISLATURE 861 01:21:10.081 --> 01:21:21.729 IS WORRIED ABOUT. SORRY. I GUESS I'LL JUST GO TO THE SECOND POINT ON WHY 862 01:21:21.729 --> 01:21:29.079 THIS IS DESIRABLE. FIRST, THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE. ANYTHING THAT REDUCES A DRIVER'S 863 01:21:29.079 --> 01:21:33.537 VISIBILITY FORWARD OR TO THE SIDES CAN IN-CCREASE RISKS OF ACCIDENTS, RISKS OF HARM TO 864 01:21:33.537 --> 01:21:39.452 THE DRIVER, TO DRIVERS OR PEDESTRIANS AROUND THEM. I THINK THAT MY COLLEAGUE HAD MADE 865 01:21:39.452 --> 01:21:45.658 A STATEMENT SOMETHING LIKE TINT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH A DRIVER'S VISION OUT OF THE CAR. 866 01:21:45.658 --> 01:21:51.384 I THINK THAT'S SIMPLEYY WRONG. THERE ARE CERTAINLY STUDIES OUT THERE WHICH I DID NOT 867 01:21:51.384 --> 01:21:56.855 CITE TO IN MY BRIEF BUT CERTAINLY STUDIES LOOKING AT THE EFFECTS OF TINT ON A DRIVER'S 868 01:21:56.855 --> 01:22:04.028 ABILITY TO VIEW OBJECTS AS THEY'RE DRIVING. AND OF COURSE WE'RE TALKING NOT JUST ABOUT 869 01:22:04.028 --> 01:22:09.731 A YOUNG DRIVER WITH PERFECT VISION ON A CLEAR, SUNNY DAY. THIS ALSO REALLY CAN START 870 01:22:09.731 --> 01:22:15.463 TO IMPACT DRIVERS AS THEY AGE AND THEIR VISION DEE GRADES. DRIVERS WHO REQUIRE CORRECTIVE 871 01:22:15.463 --> 01:22:29.005 LENZOS. CERTAINLY THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WHERE YOU WANT AS MUCH VISION AS POSSIBLE. 872 01:22:29.005 --> 01:22:34.298 JUSTICE ALBIN: WHAT IS THE STANDARD THAT THIS COURT SHOULD ARTICULATE THAT WOULD BE THE 873 01:22:34.298 --> 01:22:40.149 BASIS FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO HAVE REASONABLE AND ARTICULABLE SUSPICION TO STOP A CAR? 874 01:22:40.149 --> 01:22:45.566 WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: YOUR HONOR, THE STATE FOOF COURSE AGREES WITH DEFENSE 875 01:22:45.566 --> 01:22:51.682 THAT THE OFFICER HAS TO BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE AND EXPLAIN WHY THERE'S REASONABLE SUSPICION 876 01:22:51.682 --> 01:22:56.261 OF A VIOLATION. YES. IT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR AN OFFICER TO COME -- JUSTICE 877 01:22:56.261 --> 01:23:02.401 ALBIN: HOW ABOUT THE LANGUAGE IN CO.HHEN? YOU'VE RE-LIED ON THE LANGUAGE IN CO.HHEN. 878 01:23:02.401 --> 01:23:07.417 WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: I DON'T THINK THERE HAS TO BE A FORMULA, YOU KNOW, 879 01:23:07.417 --> 01:23:13.117 AN OFFICER MUST USE THESE MAGIC WORDS. JUSTICE ALBIN: BUT YOU'RE RE-LLYING 880 01:23:13.117 --> 01:23:19.088 ON CO.HHEN AND I'M NOW REFERRING YOU BACK TO THE PAGES THAT YOU REFERRED US TO. HERE 881 01:23:19.088 --> 01:23:26.113 RAAARE THE -- ON PAGE 380, HERE THE OFFICER'S REASONABLE SUSPICION BASED ON HIS INITIAL 882 01:23:26.113 --> 01:23:30.902 OBSERVATION THAT THE WINDOWS WERE SO DARKLY TINTED AS TO OBSTRUCT VISION WAS CONFIRMED 883 01:23:30.902 --> 01:23:38.088 AFTER HE STOPPED THE VEHICLE. OKAY. IT HAD BEEN DARKENED BY AN AFTER MARKET PRODUCT. 884 01:23:38.088 --> 01:23:45.517 THAT WAS ON PAGE 380. AND ON 381, WE ARE ALSO SATISFIED THAT THE OFFICER BELIEVED A DARKLY 885 01:23:45.517 --> 01:23:51.007 TINTED WINDOW PRESENTED A SIGNIFICANT OBSTRUCTION. THE LANGUAGE THERE 886 01:23:51.007 --> 01:24:01.492 IS SORT OF INDICATEIING THAT THE DARKNESS OF THE TINT WAS OBSTRUCTING VISION INSI AND THAT WAS 887 01:24:01.492 --> 01:24:07.387 THE REASONABLE BASIS TO STOP. SHOULD THAT BE A STANDARD THAT THIS -- THAT SHOULD GOVERN 888 01:24:07.387 --> 01:24:11.004 THESE TYPES OF STOPS? WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: YOUR HONOR, CO.HHEN WAS 889 01:24:11.004 --> 01:24:15.697 CERTAINLY SAYING THAT THE OFFICER'S TESTIMONY IN THAT CASE ESTABLISHED REASONABLE SUSPICION. 890 01:24:15.697 --> 01:24:19.912 THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THE ONLY WAY OF ESTABLISHING REASONABLE SUSPICION, BUT AN 891 01:24:19.912 --> 01:24:24.449 OFFICER DOES HAVE TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN, OF COURSE, WHAT DID THE OFFICER SEE THAT MADE 892 01:24:24.449 --> 01:24:30.702 HER OR HIM BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS AFTER MARKET TINT INSTALLED IN THE FRONT WINDOWS. DID 893 01:24:30.702 --> 01:24:36.016 THE OFFICER HAVE TRAINING ABOUT PTTTHAT? DID THE OFFICER HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH PRIOR STOPS 894 01:24:36.016 --> 01:24:43.626 FOR TINTED WINDOWS OR VHHAVE, YOU KNOW, OTHER MATERIALS IN ORDER TO ENABLE THEM TO DECIDE 895 01:24:43.626 --> 01:24:49.806 WHETHER THEY'RE TINTED -- AFTER MARKET TINTED WINDOWS. DID THE OFFICER SEE PERHAPS WRING 896 01:24:49.806 --> 01:24:55.140 CLING IN THE TINTING THAT TIPPED HER OFF TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AFTER MARKET TINTING. 897 01:24:55.140 --> 01:25:00.506 SO CERTAINLY AN OFFICER HAS TO BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE SOME REASON WHY SHE BELIEVED THERE 898 01:25:00.506 --> 01:25:06.041 WAS AFTER MARKET TINTING BUT IT DOES NOT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE EXACTLY THE LANGUAGE USED BY 899 01:25:06.041 --> 01:25:10.633 THE OFFICER IN CO.HHEN. JUSTICE SOLOMON: YOU'RE RE-LLYING UPON THE CONSUMER 900 01:25:10.633 --> 01:25:17.945 FRAUD AMENDMENT TO SAY ANY TINTING ADDED IS REASONABLE SUSPICION. IF UYYOU OBSERVE WHAT 901 01:25:17.945 --> 01:25:26.475 YOU BELIEVE IS AFTER MARKET TINTING BASED ON THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT AMENDMENT, THEN THAT'S 902 01:25:26.475 --> 01:25:30.539 A VIOLATION AND THE STOP ISVALID. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? WILLIAM P. 903 01:25:30.539 --> 01:25:35.678 COOPER-DAUB: YOUR HONOR, WE'RE RELYING ON THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT AMENDMENT AS ONE OF 904 01:25:35.678 --> 01:25:39.774 SEVERAL THINGS THAT TELL US HOW THE LEGISLATURE UNDERSTANDS THIS LAUWW TO OPERATE TODAY. 905 01:25:39.774 --> 01:25:47.863 CERTAINLY THERE'S DIFFERENT QUESTIONS OF WHAT VOLATES THE STATUTE AND WHAT CREATES 906 01:25:47.863 --> 01:25:53.071 REASONABLE SUSPICION. SO UNDER THIS -- UNDER THE STATUTE, ANY LEVEL OF AFTER MARKET TINTING 907 01:25:53.071 --> 01:26:00.267 IS PROSCRIBED. SIMPLEYY PRAGMATIC KELLY, IF THERE'S VERY LIGHT TINTING ON, IT COULD BE 908 01:26:00.267 --> 01:26:08.039 DIFFICULT FOR AN OFFICER TO SHOW REASONABLE SUSPICION UNLESS THEY CAN SAY IT WAS PEELING 909 01:26:08.039 --> 01:26:12.907 OFF, WRING CLING, IT WAS DISORDER. JUSTICE SOLOMON: IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT 910 01:26:12.907 --> 01:26:18.098 YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING IS, AND I'M NOT TAKING A POSITION ON THIS, I'M JUST ASKING, YOU 911 01:26:18.098 --> 01:26:23.530 SEEM TO BE SAYING IF THERE IS ANY AFTER MARKET TINTING YOU'VE GOT THE VIAL KWLALGS. 912 01:26:23.530 --> 01:26:28.804 THEN THE QUESTION IS, HAS HE ARTICULATED ENOUGH FACTS TO ESTABLISH THAT IT WAS SOMEHOW 913 01:26:28.804 --> 01:26:32.890 AFFECTING HIS VISION AND SAFETY AND ET CETERA? WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: 914 01:26:32.890 --> 01:26:40.452 YOUR HONOR, THE FACTS -- AS AFTER MARKET TINTING OF ANY KIND WOULD BE -- ON THE FRONT 915 01:26:40.452 --> 01:26:45.880 OR FRONT SIDES WOULD BE A VIOLATION, THE ARTICULABLE FACTS ONLY HAVE TO GO TO WHY THE 916 01:26:45.880 --> 01:26:50.321 OFFICER BELIEVED THERE IS TINTING THERE. THE OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE TO NECESSARILY SEPARAT 917 01:26:50.321 --> 01:26:58.030 LY CLOOD, INDEPENDENTLY CONCLUDE THAT PTTHAT PARTICULAR TINTING PRESENTED A SAFETY 918 01:26:58.030 --> 01:27:00.974 VIOLATION. JUSTICE ALBIN: WE'RE LOOKING FOR AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD. WE DON'T 919 01:27:00.974 --> 01:27:06.455 WANT POLICE OFFICERS TO BE ABLE TO TESTIFY, OH, YEAH, YOU KNOW, I COULD TELL, THERE MUST HAVE 920 01:27:06.455 --> 01:27:13.286 BEEN A LITTLE BIT MORE TINTING. THAT'S WHY I THINK THE CO.HHHEN COURT, WHICH WASN'T EVEN 921 01:27:13.286 --> 01:27:21.317 USING REASONABLE ARTICULABLE STANDARD, THEY WERE USING CAR TAKING, WAS REFERRING TO THIS 922 01:27:21.317 --> 01:27:26.623 DARK TINTING SUGGESTING IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR THE OFFICERS TO LOOK IN-SSIDE. BECAUSE 923 01:27:26.623 --> 01:27:30.172 THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD. NO? WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: 924 01:27:30.172 --> 01:27:37.249 WELL, I THINK ONE PROBLEM WITH TRYING TO BASE IT OFF THE DARKNESS OF THE TINTING OR , 925 01:27:37.249 --> 01:27:42.752 YOU KNO, ALL THESE PROPOSED TESTS ABOUT WHETHER AN OFFICER CAN SEE IN, WHETHER THEY CAN'T, 926 01:27:42.752 --> 01:27:48.272 CERTAINLY THE STATE'S POSITION WOULD BE FIRST IF AN OFFICER OR ANYBODY STANDING OUTSIDE 927 01:27:48.272 --> 01:27:56.711 CAN'T SEE INTO THE CAR AT ALL -- JUSTICE ALBIN: . NOT AT LL. AS TO OBSTRUCT 928 01:27:56.711 --> 01:27:59.679 VISION. I'M USING THE LANGUAGE OF CO.HHEN. WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: THE 929 01:27:59.679 --> 01:28:07.530 SECOND POINT OF PTTHAT WAS TO BE THIS IS NOT -- IT MAY SOUND OBJECTIVE IN READING IT BUT 930 01:28:07.530 --> 01:28:12.364 ITDOESN'T PROVIDE A PARTICULARLY OBJECTIVE CLEAR STANDARD. THE PROBLEM BEING THAT DIFFERENT 931 01:28:12.364 --> 01:28:17.260 TINTING WILL LOOK DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. DEPENDING ON HOW BRIGHT IT IS 932 01:28:17.260 --> 01:28:21.332 OUT, THE ANGLE OF THE LIGHT, THE ANGLE OF THE VIEWER, THE AMOUNT FOOOF LIGHT IN-SSIDE 933 01:28:21.332 --> 01:28:26.104 THE CAR. PERHAPS EVEN THE COLOR OF THE IN-TTTERIOR. THERE ARE ALL THESE DIFFERENT 934 01:28:26.104 --> 01:28:31.422 FACTORS THAT COULD MEAN THAT A CAR IONE CIRCUMSTANCE YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE INTO 935 01:28:31.422 --> 01:28:34.426 AND LATER IN A DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE YOU WOULD NOT. JUSTICE ALBIN: YOU'RE 936 01:28:34.426 --> 01:28:39.648 THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. YOU GIVE ADVICE TO THE STATE POLICE AND ALL THE POLICE 937 01:28:39.648 --> 01:28:44.952 DEPARTMENTS IN THE STATE. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ADVISE A POLICE OFFICER WHEN HE HAS OR 938 01:28:44.952 --> 01:28:51.161 SHE HAS REASONABLE AND ARTICULABLE SUSPICION TO STOP A CAR BECAUSE IT HAS AFTER MARKET 939 01:28:51.161 --> 01:28:55.497 TINTING? WHAT ADVICE ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE? WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: WELL, 940 01:28:55.497 --> 01:29:00.550 IT WOULD BE -- AGAIN WE'RE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT THINGS THAT COULD CLUE THE OFFICER INTO 941 01:29:00.550 --> 01:29:08.022 THE FACT THAT THERE'S AFTER MARKET TINTING. WE KNOW THAT UNDER FEDERAL REGULATIONS THAT 942 01:29:08.022 --> 01:29:12.102 MANUFACTURERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE WINDOWS ANY DARKER -- JUSTICE ALBIN: 943 01:29:12.102 --> 01:29:20.415 DARKER THAN NORMAL. IMAGE THIS FOR A MOMENT. WE'RE THE CLASS. YOU'RE ADVISEIING US 944 01:29:20.415 --> 01:29:25.366 SO WE CAN GO OUT ON THE ROAD AND ENFORCE THIS LAUWW. WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: 945 01:29:25.366 --> 01:29:33.335 CERTAINLY TO BE LOOKING FOR WINDOWS THAT ARE DARKER THAN WHAT UN-TINTED WINDOWS LOOK LIKE. 946 01:29:33.335 --> 01:29:39.919 ILLUSTRATEIIVE AIDS. ALSO OF COURSE TO BE LOOKING FOR WRINGKKLES OR PEELING OR OTHER 947 01:29:39.919 --> 01:29:49.529 SIGNS LIKE THAT PPTTHAT MAY CLUE AN OFFICER OF TINTING BEING PRESENT. I DO 948 01:29:49.529 --> 01:29:56.220 JUST WANT TO KIND OF CONCLUDE I THINK BY SAYING THAT THE GREAT ADDVVANTAGE OF THE 949 01:29:56.220 --> 01:30:01.335 INTERPRETATION THAT EXISTS THAT IS RE-PPEATED ALL OVER ON-LINE FOR THE PUBLIC TO READ AND 950 01:30:01.335 --> 01:30:07.991 WHICH IS BEING ENFORCED AND WHICH COHEN UPHELD IS, IS THAT IT'S SO CLEAR AND EASY FOR 951 01:30:07.991 --> 01:30:15.438 EVERYBODY TO APPLY,INGS THAN SIMPLEYY SAYING, YOU CAN'T APPLY TINT IF IT'S NON-TRANSPARENT, 952 01:30:15.438 --> 01:30:23.109 IF IT'S MAYBE OOPAQUE. IF IT'S UN-DDULY INTERFEREIING. IF IT'S VERY DARK OR EVEN IF 953 01:30:23.109 --> 01:30:28.397 IT MEANS YOU CAN'T SEE IN IS STILL ACTUALLY A SUBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR WAHHAT IS LAWFUL 954 01:30:28.397 --> 01:30:33.634 AND WHAT IS NOT. BECAUSE IT WILL DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE VIEWER AND ALL SORTS 955 01:30:33.634 --> 01:30:38.940 OF DIFFERENT CONDITIONS T GREAT ADDVVANTAGE OF THE TEST WE'RE ADDVVOCATEIING FOR IS THAT 956 01:30:38.940 --> 01:30:44.789 IT'S SO CLEAR-CUT. IT'S EASY FOR EVERYBODY TO APPLY. EVERYBODY CAN GO ON-LINE AND SAY 957 01:30:44.789 --> 01:30:51.168 I WANT TO INSTALL TINT ON MY FRONT WINDOWS. OH, I'M IN NEW JERSEY, I CAN'T. I CAN ADD 958 01:30:51.168 --> 01:30:57.322 IT TO MY BACK WINDOWS. SO IT'S EASY FOR JUDGES TO APPLY, JUDGES TO APPLY AND OFFICERS 959 01:30:57.322 --> 01:31:00.440 TO APPLY IN DETERMINEIING WHAT'S LAWFUL. JUSTICE ALBIN: I WANT TO CLEAR 960 01:31:00.440 --> 01:31:06.176 THIS UP IN MY HEAD. WE'VE LOOKED AT THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT. SO LET'S SAY IT'S VIOLATIVE. 961 01:31:06.176 --> 01:31:15.845 WHAT MOTOR VEHICLE STATUTE PROHIBITS -- PERMITS A POLICE OFFICER AT A STOP LOOKING AT 962 01:31:15.845 --> 01:31:22.480 37-FOUR BASED UPON THE AFTER MARKET TINTING? WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: I 963 01:31:22.480 --> 01:31:25.236 APOLOGIZE, YOUR HONOR. COULD YOU RE-PPEAT YOUR QUESTION? JUSTICE ALBIN: 964 01:31:25.236 --> 01:31:35.352 WHAT MOTOR VEHICLE LAW, NOT -- NOT REFERRING TO THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT -- CREATES A MOTOR 965 01:31:35.352 --> 01:31:40.602 VEHICLE VIOLATION FOR THE AFTER MARKET TINTING? WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: THE 966 01:31:40.602 --> 01:31:50.649 VIOLATION IS UNDER 39:THREE-74. AND THAT ENABLES PENALTYIIES GENERALLY OF I THINK A FINE 967 01:31:50.649 --> 01:31:57.286 OF BETWEEN 20 -- I THINK THE LIMITS ARE 20 TO $500. MY UNDERSTANDING THE GENERAL VIOLATION 968 01:31:57.286 --> 01:32:04.920 IS A FINE OF $55. JUSTICE ALBIN: SO YOU REFER BACK TO 39374. 969 01:32:04.920 --> 01:32:07.840 WILLIAM P. COOPER-DAUB: YES, YOUR HONOR. FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, THE STATE WOULD ASK IF 970 01:32:07.840 --> 01:32:14.046 THIS COURT DECIDES TO REACH THIS ISSUE, THAT IT DOES AGREE WITH THE COURT IN CO.HHEN AND 971 01:32:14.046 --> 01:32:19.626 FIND AS AN EASY AND CLEAR-CUT RULE THAT AFTER MARKET TINTING IS ALLOWED ON REAR WINDOWS 972 01:32:19.626 --> 01:32:23.338 AND NO AFTER MARKET TINTING IS ALLOWED ON FRONT WINDOWS. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: 973 01:32:23.338 --> 01:32:32.695 MS. MKCCLANE, BRIEFREBUTTAL? MARGARET MC LANE: TO START WITH YOUR HONOR'S 974 01:32:32.695 --> 01:32:41.677 QUESTION ABOUT 13:22.7, ASSUMING I FOUND THE CORRECT PROVISION ON MY PHONE, I BELIEVE 975 01:32:41.677 --> 01:32:49.127 IT ACTUALLY MIRRORS THE 33.SEVEN. IT'S JUST 33.SEVEN DEALS WITH PRIVATE INSPECTION 976 01:32:49.127 --> 01:32:55.536 FACILITIES WHEREAS 32.SEVEN DEALS WITH OHFFFICIAL INSPECTION FACILITIES SO THE SAME REASONING 977 01:32:55.536 --> 01:33:01.457 APPLIES IN PTTHAT WE USED TO INSPECT PASSENGER CARS FOR ALL SORTS OF THINGS. NOW WE ONLY 978 01:33:01.457 --> 01:33:07.805 CHECK THEM FOR EEMMISSIONS. AND SO IT IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT TO THE 979 01:33:07.805 --> 01:33:11.070 INTERPRETATION OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE CODE. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: AT A PRIVATE 980 01:33:11.070 --> 01:33:16.882 INSPECTION STATION, THE OENLY INSPECTIO CONDUCTED RELATES TO AN EEMMISSION STANDARD? 981 01:33:16.882 --> 01:33:23.034 MARGARET MC LANE: I BELIEVE THAT'S ALSO THE CASE IN AN OFFICIAL STATION AS 982 01:33:23.034 --> 01:33:29.723 WELL. PASSENGER STANDARDS ARE ONLY CHECKED FOR EEMMISSIONS AND DIAGNOSTICS OF THE COMPUTER. 983 01:33:29.723 --> 01:33:35.265 THAT WAS 2010. AFTER THE FRAUD STATUTE AND THE MEDICAL EXEMPTIONS. A LATER ENACTMENT 984 01:33:35.265 --> 01:33:41.601 THAT SAYS WE DON'T CHECK PASSENGER CARS ANY MORE FOR THINGS THAT AREN'T EEMMISSIONS RE- 985 01:33:41.601 --> 01:33:47.632 LATED. PRIMEAAARILY TO SAVE MONEY, BUT THAT IS A LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT. IN 986 01:33:47.632 --> 01:33:56.556 -- SO EVERYTHING I SAID WHEN I WAS UP HERE THE FIRST TIME ABOUT HOW 74 DOESN'T REALLY 987 01:33:56.556 --> 01:34:01.576 APPLY TO WINDOW TINT. HOWEVER, IF THIS COURT IS GOING TO FIND THAT IT REGULATES WINDOW 988 01:34:01.576 --> 01:34:10.255 TINT, THAT'S SOMEWHERE IN THIS AREA OF NOT NON-TRANSPARENT BUT IS QUITE DARK, IT 989 01:34:10.255 --> 01:34:17.040 SHUOOULD SDOPT THE SAME LIMITATIONS AS THE COURT IN CO.HHEN DID OF THE TINT HAS TO BE SO 990 01:34:17.040 --> 01:34:22.244 DARK THAT IT'S A SIGNIFICANT OBSTRUCTION. IT CAN'T JUST BE ANY LEVEL OF TINT. IT HAS 991 01:34:22.244 --> 01:34:28.061 TO ACTUALLY BE A SIGNIFICANT OBSTRUCTION. AND THE OFFICER IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE ABLE 992 01:34:28.061 --> 01:34:31.962 TO ARTICULATE THOSE FACTS. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: WHAT MEANING DO YOU GIVE 993 01:34:31.962 --> 01:34:38.438 TO THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT STATUTE? MARGARET MC LANE: I THINK THAT ITCAN'T 994 01:34:38.438 --> 01:34:45.569 DICKTTATE WHAT THE MOTOR VEHICLE CODE MAKES AS AVIOLATION. IT CAN REGULATE THE BEHAVIOR 995 01:34:45.569 --> 01:34:52.312 OF TINT INSTALLERS, BUT IT CAN'T MAKE SOMETHING, A MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATION THAT IS NOT 996 01:34:52.312 --> 01:35:00.200 A MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATION UNDER TITLE 39. AND INSOFAR AS IT HAS ANY RELEVANCE, I DO 997 01:35:00.200 --> 01:35:07.724 THINK IT'S -- IT WAS ENACTED PERHAPS IN RESPONSE TO COHEN's ADOPTION OF THIS REGULATION, 998 01:35:07.724 --> 01:35:14.264 BUT AS I SAID THE REGULATIONS DON'T APPLY ANYMORE. THERE'S NOW RULES THAT SAY THE LAW 999 01:35:14.264 --> 01:35:19.679 HAS CHANGED. THESE REGULATIONS DON'T APPLY TO PASSENGER VEHICLES. SO I THINK IT HAS 1000 01:35:19.679 --> 01:35:28.389 NO RELEVANCE TO WHAT SECTION 74 MEANS. AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S LL I WANTED 1001 01:35:28.389 --> 01:35:31.763 TO REE--BUT ON UNLESS THE COURT HAS FURTHER QUESTIONS. CHIEF JUSTICE 1002 01:35:31.763 --> 01:35:35.844 RABNER: THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO ALL COUNSEL. WE'LL TAKE THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT.