Sec. 4. (a) This section does not apply to a
manufacturer's tinting or glazing of motor vehicle windows or
windshields that is otherwise in compliance with or permitted by
FMVSS205 as promulgated in 49 CFR 571.205. Proof from the
manufacturer, supplier, or installer that the tinting or glazing is in
compliance with or permitted by FMVSS205 must be carried in the
vehicle.
(b) This section does not apply to the driver of a vehicle:
(1) that is owned by an individual required for medical reasons to
be shielded from the direct rays of the sun; or
(2) in which an individual required for medical reasons to be
shielded from the direct rays of the sun is a habitual passenger.
The medical reasons must be attested to by a physician or optometrist
licensed to practice in Indiana, and the physician's or optometrist's
certification of that condition must be carried in the vehicle. The
physician's or optometrist's certificate must be renewed annually.
(c) A person may not drive a motor vehicle that has a:
(1) windshield;
(2) side wing;
(3) side window that is part of a front door; or
(4) rear back window;
that is covered by or treated with sunscreening material or is tinted with
material that has a total solar reflectance of visible light of more than
twenty-five percent (25%) as measured on the nonfilm side and light
transmittance of less than thirty percent (30%) in the visible light
range.
(d) Any treatment allowed under subsection (c) for a windshield
may:
(1) be applied only to the uppermost part of the windshield; and
(2) extend no further than the AS-1 line.
(e) A person may not tint or otherwise cover or treat with
sunscreening the parts of a vehicle described in subsection (c) or (d) so
that operation of the vehicle after the tinting or sunscreening is
performed is a violation of subsection (c) or (d). However, it is not a
violation of this chapter if this work is performed for a person who
submits a physician's or optometrist's statement as described in
subsection (b) to the person who is to perform the work.
(f) A vehicle may be stopped to determine compliance with this
section. However, a vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of a
vehicle, or a passenger in a vehicle may not be inspected, searched, or
detained solely because of a violation of this section.
[Pre-1991 Recodification Citation: 9-8-6-38(e); (f);
(g).]
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.7. Amended by P.L.128-1995,
SEC.1; P.L.12-2003, SEC.1; P.L.217-2014, SEC.42; P.L.164-2018,
SEC.9.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2022 · leading case:
Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. 2012).
Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. 2012).
· cites it 4× “NOTES [1] See Ind.Code § 9-19-19-4. [2] The trial court also sentenced Abbott to one year for marijuana possession.”
Erving Sanders v. State of Indiana, 989 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. 2013).
· cites it 4× “” Ind. Code § 9-19-19-4 (c). It is an affirmative defense if the solar reflectance of visible light is not more than 25% and the light transmittance is at least 30%.”
Gregory Johnson v. State of Indiana, 992 N.E.2d 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “Recently, in Sanders , our supreme court highlighted the deference to be given to police officers who have pulled over a vehicle for a perceived violation of Indiana Code Section 9-19-19-4, the Indiana Window Tint Statute.”
Herbert v. State, 891 N.E.2d 67 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 10× “” Ind.Code § 9-19-19-4(c). To the extent Herbert contends that the traffic stop was unreasonable because Deputy Heath "did not possess any instrument or device to determine whether or not the window tint on Herbert's vehicle was legal[,]” Appellant’s Br.”
Callahan v. State, 719 N.E.2d 430 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Indiana Code section 34-28-5-3 states that an officer may detain a person who he in good faith believes has committed an infraction or ordinance violation for a time sufficient to inform him of the allegation, obtain his name, address, and date of birth or his driver’s license,…”
Dezmon Gaines v. State of Indiana, 973 N.E.2d 1239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “ISSUES Gaines raises two issues on interlocutory appeal, which we restate as: (1) Whether Indiana Code section 9-19-19-4, which prescribes the requirements for a vehicle’s tinted windows, is void for vagueness; and (2) Whether Gaines’ search was reasonable.”
Abbott v. State, 950 N.E.2d 357 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “See Ind.Code § 9-19-19-4 (2004). 3 . Although we will not consider post hac justifications for the search, we cannot help but note that the car in which Abbott was the passenger had just been observed to stop in front of a house where the target of a controlled buy, Brown, was…”
K.K. v. State of Indiana, 40 N.E.3d 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Under Indiana Code section 9-19-19-4(c), a person may not drive a'motor vehicle that has a windshield, side window that is part of a front door; or a rear back’ window that is tinted to the extent that the occupants cannot be easily identified or recognized through the window…”
Wilkerson v. State, 933 N.E.2d 891 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 9-19-19-4(c) provides in pertinent part: A person may not drive a motor vehicle that has a: (1) windshield; (2) side wing; (3) side window that is part of a front door; or (4) rear back window; that is covered by or treated with sun-screening material or is tinted to…”
Erving Sanders v. State of Indiana, 981 N.E.2d 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “The State asserts that Ind.Code § 9-19-19-4 does not require an officer to conclusively determine that a window has a light transmittance of less than thirty percent before stopping a vehicle for a suspected window tint violation.”
Ind. Code § 9-19-19-4(c): 11 cases
Herbert v. State, 891 N.E.2d 67 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“” Ind.Code § 9-19-19-4(c). To the extent Herbert contends that the traffic stop was unreasonable because Deputy Heath "did not possess any instrument or device to determine whether or not the window tint on Herbert's vehicle was legal[,]” Appellant’s Br.”
Erving Sanders v. State of Indiana, 989 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. 2013).
“” Ind. Code § 9-19-19-4 (c). It is an affirmative defense if the solar reflectance of visible light is not more than 25% and the light transmittance is at least 30%.”
Gregory Johnson v. State of Indiana, 992 N.E.2d 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“Recently, in Sanders , our supreme court highlighted the deference to be given to police officers who have pulled over a vehicle for a perceived violation of Indiana Code Section 9-19-19-4, the Indiana Window Tint Statute.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.