![]() Olson, 22 NY2d 230, where the Court of Appeals, in deciding In further explaining its position that a tint meter is not necessary to sustain a conviction, the Thus, if the officer presents credible testimony that the window(s) did not meet the statutory standard(s) for light transmittance, the court could accept such evidence to sustain the conviction. ![]() The phrase other satisfactory reason or basis affords a court broadĭiscretion to accept credible evidence, other than a tint meter, to establish a prima facie case for a window tinting violation. Satisfactory reason or basis for his opinion” i.e., a tint meter is not the sole means to establish a window tinting violation. Visually determining the amount of light transmitted through a window, or some other Of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 ).Īlthough the court reversed the conviction, it is clear from the above quoted language that aĬonviction would be sustained if the officer did “establish that he possessed any experience in His objection to the sufficiency of the evidence, we nevertheless review it in the exercise Although defendant did not properly preserve As a result, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish theĭefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (cf. Transmitted through a window, or some other satisfactory reason or basis, such as a "tintmeter," for his opinion. Although suchĪ percentage of light transmittance is below the legal threshold (id.), the officer did notĮstablish that he possessed any experience in visually determining the amount of light At trial, the officer testified that heĮstimated that the windows only permitted about 15% light transmittance. 3d 30, the Appellate Term, Second Department, wrote:ĭefendant was charged with driving a vehicle which had excessively tinted side windows This and other similar decisions imply that a window tinting conviction can only be sustained if the officer uses a tint meter to test the windows’ transparency.Ĭounsel’s Office respectfully disagrees with the Board’s conclusion. Therefore, the officer’s testimony was insufficient Offered only a visual estimate that the windows were illegally tinted without using a tint “The officer did not clearly establish what the transparency was for the windows and For example, in the case Kim Hinkson, the Board wrote: ![]() The Board concluded that this testimony was not sufficient to sustain the conviction because a tint meter was not used. ![]() In these cases, the officer has testified that he/she observed very dark tint and that he/she could not see into the vehicle at all. The Appeals Board has issued several decisions reversing window tinting convictions under Testifies that a tint meter was used to test the level of tint on the motor vehicle’s window. Question: Whether a window tinting conviction may only be sustained if the police officer ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |