Could South Carolina police use a battery powered meter to enforce window tint limits?

Plain-English summary

In 2012, the South Carolina Attorney General found that the state window tint statute neither prescribed a particular testing device nor excluded battery powered tint meters. A Holly Hill police chief described using a portable meter and calibration panels after an installer challenged tickets based on the readings.

The AG did not certify the described meter’s accuracy or decide that its readings were admissible in every case. It said a court would have to assess the evidence and factual questions in an individual prosecution. The opinion cited decisions from other jurisdictions involving portable meters but left the definitive South Carolina admissibility answer to the courts.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2012. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later
AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current
legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy
mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the South Carolina window tint statute forbid battery powered meters? A: The AG found no statutory device requirement or exclusion that prohibited such a meter as an enforcement method.

Did the AG rule that the Holly Hill meter was accurate?
A: No. The chief reported its stated accuracy and use of calibration panels, but the AG said it could not resolve factual questions about a particular reading.

Would a tint meter reading automatically be admitted in court? A: The opinion did not say so. It left the admissibility of the measurement to the court in each case.

What prompted the request for an opinion?
A: A window tint installer had complained that Holly Hill’s battery powered meters were inaccurate and unreliable, and that citations based on them were unlawful. The AG answered the legal question about the statute’s silence on testing methods while reserving proof questions for courts.

Background and statutory framework

Chief Robert Wunderlich asked whether battery powered tint meters could be used to enforce the state window tint law. The opinion quoted the statute’s window restrictions and light transmission requirements, then distinguished a legal bar on an enforcement method from the factual and evidentiary question of whether a specific test supports a charge.

Official title

Regarding the use of battery-operated tint meters to enforce S.C. Code Ann. §56-5-5015, South Carolina’s “window tinting” law (“tint law”).

Requester

By: Chief Robert H. Wunderlich, Town of Holly Hill Police Department

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-1-2012/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/wunderlich-r-h-os-9401-3-1-12-use-of-battery-operated-tint-meters.pdf

Original opinion text

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

March 1, 2012

Chief Robert H. Wunderlich
Town of Holly Hill Police Department
P.O. Box 1108
Holly Hill, SC 29059
Dear Chief Wunderlich:
We received your letter requesting an opinion of this office regarding the use of battery-operated tint meters to enforce S.C. Code Ann. §56-5-5015, South Carolina's "window tinting" law ("tint law"). By way of background, you state:
[t]he meters we use are Tint Meter Enforcer TM-100 sold by Laser Labs, Inc. They are powered by a 9-volt battery and are certified as accurate to within plus or minus 2%. Based on this, we do not issue citations for a measurement of 25% or higher. We also use the included calibration test panels to verify the accuracy of the meters. Specifically, §56-5-5015(A) provides, in pertinent part, that:
[n]o person may operate a motor vehicle that is required to be registered in this State on any public highway, road, or street that has a sunscreen device on the windshield, the front side wings, and side windows adjacent to the right and left of the driver and windows to the rear of the driver that do not meet the requirements of this section .... 1 You inform us that a window tint installer has complained that your police department unlawfully issued citations based upon a violation of this provision, because the battery-operated tint meters are inaccurate and unreliable. We note that §56-5-5015 does not dictate what device or method of proof should be used for enforcement purposes. Significantly, the provision does not exclude the use of any device for enforcement, such as a tint meter. We are unable to find any opinions in South Carolina, or other jurisdictions, holding that results from a battery-operated device may not be used in a prosecution for violating the tint law. To the contrary, there are numerous cases upholding the use of portable tint meters iJn tum, §§56-5-5015 (C) & (D) provide minimal light transmission requirements for "sunscreening devices" that are located on "the side wings or side windows" and ''the rear-most window" of a car. Such devices must "be nonreflective," and have a light transmission of "not less than twenty-seven percent."

REMBERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING • POST OFFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

Chief Wunderlich
Page2
March 1, 2012

on cars stopped for violating various state tint laws. See, e.g., United States v. Odom, 2004 WL 1179309,
3 (S.D. N.Y. 2004) (noting that, although the officer never tested the tint of the defendant's window with a tint meter, the officer nevertheless had probable cause to stop the car]; State v. Schaefer, 1999 WL 44154, 2 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) [holding traffic stop was permissible, because the officer had a reasonable belief that the car's dark window tinting was in violation of the statutory limit and a tint meter test of the car confirmed the windows were too dark]; State v. Davis, 2012 WL 121231, 3 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) [upholding use of a tint meter to corroborate officer's reason to stop of defendant's car for illegally tinted windows]; State v. Jones, 2010 WL 4615418, 2 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) [upholding stop of defendant's car for suspected window tint violation and the testing of the level of window tint with a window tint meter]. However, we advise that the question of what evidence or method of proof is admissible to support a charge of violating the tint law must be left to the discretion of a court of competent jurisdiction. See Ops. S.C. Atty. Gen., November 23, 2010; July 17, 1989. The admissibility of any evidence needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Many questions of fact would need to be resolved before any definitive conclusion could be reached. Of course, this office is not authorized to make such a factual determination in a legal opinion. See Ops. S.C. Atty. Gen., February 21, 2012; July l, 2003; February 26, 2001. As we have stated previously, "[u]nlike a fact-finding body such as a ... court, we do not possess the necessary fact-finding authority and resources required to adequately determine ... factual questions." Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., February 19, 1999. Ultimately, the definitive answer as to whether or not evidence from a tint meter would be admissible at trial could only be given by the appellate courts of this State in an appropriate case. 2 Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., January 10, 2012.

2

To further support a charge for violating the tint law, §56-5-5015(E) provides:
[e]ach vehicle equipped with an after-factory sunscreening device, whether installed by a consumer or professional window tinter, at all times must bear a certificate of compliance. The certificate of compliance must be of a size and form prescribed by the Department of Public Safety. Each certificate of compliance must be properly attached to the vehicle on the inside and lower right hand comer of each window containing an after-factory installed sunscreen device and must contain the following information: ( 1) the percentage of light transmission allowed by the sunscreening device; (2) the identity of the installer by name, address, and telephone number; and (3) date of installation.

In addition, §56-5-SOIS(G) (2) provides that no person may install any sunscreening product or material on vehicles titled for use on the public roads of this State without permanently affixing the certificate of compliance. Penalties are provided for a violation of this provision.

Chief Wunderlich
Page3
March 1, 2012

If you have any further questions, please advise.

Very truly yours,

N. Mark Rapoport
Senior Assistant Attorney General

~"1WED AND APPROVED BY:

~9c~/;i__
Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General