8-1741.
Windshields and windows; damaged windshields prohibited; obstruction or impairment prohibited; wipers.
(a) No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sign, poster or other nontransparent material upon the front windshield, side wings or side or rear windows of such vehicle which substantially obstructs, obscures or impairs the driver's clear view of the highway or any intersecting highway.
(b) No person shall drive any motor vehicle with a damaged front windshield or side or rear windows which substantially obstructs the driver's clear view of the highway or any intersecting highway.
(c) The windshield on every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a device for cleaning rain, snow or other moisture from the windshield, which device shall be so constructed as to be controlled or operated by the driver of the vehicle.
(d) Every windshield wiper upon a motor vehicle shall be maintained in good working order.
History:
L. 1974, ch. 33, § 8-1741; L. 1993, ch. 37, § 1; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case:
State v. Carpenter, 642 P.2d 998 (Kan. 1982).
State v. Carpenter, 642 P.2d 998 (Kan. 1982).
· cites it 4× “We note that K.S.A. 8-1741 covers the subject of windshields on motor vehicles.”
United States of Am. v. Curtis Dennis Callarman, 273 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir. 2001).
“” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1741 (b). Streeter’s windshield had a crack about 12 inches across and 6 inches high, large enough that Officer Voigt could view it from behind the car.”
State v. Cyrus, 1 A.3d 59 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 2× “§ 5/12-503(c) (West 2008) ("materially obstructs the driver's view"); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1741 (a) (2001) *74 ("substantially obstructs, obscures or impairs the driver's clear view"); 75 Pa.”
United States v. Alcarez-Mora, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (D. Kan. 2003).
· cites it 4× “Officer Oehm testified to his knowledge of the Kansas statute providing: (b) No person shall drive any motor vehicle with a damaged front windshield or side or rear windows which substantially obstructs the driver’s clear view of the highway or any intersecting highway.”
Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
“438 (1) (1997); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1741 (b) (2003); Minn.”
United States v. Duque-Nava, 315 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (D. Kan. 2004).
“The Tenth Circuit has examined K.S.A. 8-1741 under similar facts. In affirming the district court’s refusal to suppress evidence, the court stated: [Defendant’s] windshield had a crack about 12 inches across and 6 inches high, large enough that Officer Voigt could view it from…”
United States v. Lindsey, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (D. Kan. 2003).
“K.S.A. 8-1741(b) forbids a person to "drive any motor vehicle with a damaged front windshield or side or rear windows which substantially obstructs the driver's clear view of the highway or any intersecting highway.”
State v. McCarter (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
“To stop a driver for a broken windshield under K.S.A. 8-1741(b), as was done here, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion based on "'a particularized and objective basis'" to believe the windshield crack substantially obstructs the driver's view.”
— K.S.A. § 8-1741(b) — 3 cases
United States v. Alcarez-Mora, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (D. Kan. 2003).
“Officer Oehm testified to his knowledge of the Kansas statute providing: (b) No person shall drive any motor vehicle with a damaged front windshield or side or rear windows which substantially obstructs the driver’s clear view of the highway or any intersecting highway.”
United States v. Lindsey, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (D. Kan. 2003).
“K.S.A. 8-1741(b) forbids a person to "drive any motor vehicle with a damaged front windshield or side or rear windows which substantially obstructs the driver's clear view of the highway or any intersecting highway.”
State v. McCarter (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
“To stop a driver for a broken windshield under K.S.A. 8-1741(b), as was done here, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion based on "'a particularized and objective basis'" to believe the windshield crack substantially obstructs the driver's view.”
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.