You Know What Really Grinds My Gears....The Sequel!

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by GGG

The question is "Is it an offense to own a vehicle with tinted windows or is it an offense to drive a vehicle on a public road with tinted windows."

For example I can have a quad parked in my driveway but I can't drive a quad down the street. So if the vehicle is parked in a driveway with tinted windows I don't believe that is an offense. Hence where the parking lot question comes in. If the parking lot is treated as a non roadway then you don't have a car for lack of a better work is unsuitable to drive on a roadway. Having a unsuitable car to drive parked in a driveway is acceptable.

But the ticket isn't for having an unsuitable vehicle on a public road. You can still get a seatbelt ticket in a parking lot and cops are still called out for people parking in handicapped stalls.

Being on private property doesn't give you a free-for-all to do what you please. You still have to follow the same laws on private property when it comes to your vehicle.

It's not like a cop will come across an uninisured or u registered vehicle in a parking lot and excuse them because they're on private property. So not sure why tinted windows should be the exception.

Edit: and I agree about the driveway but that is different. That is private property which is usually your own. Even though parking lots are private property it's still considered a public space.

[GGG]

Per the link to the Code the following appear to be offenses.

Prohibition

72

(1)

A person shall not install a windshield or glazing in a motor
vehicle unless the glazing complies with sections 70 and 71.

(2)

A person shall not install glazing in a camper unit unless the
glazing complies with section 70.

(3)

A person shall not operate a motor vehicle on a highway unless
the windshield and window glazing comply with sections 70 and

71.

So it is an offense to install it, and an offense to operate but not an offense to have it. So unless he was operating the motor vehicle he can get off on the ticket unless a parking lot is considered a public road way.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by GGG

Per the link to the Code the following appear to be offenses.



So it is an offense to install it, and an offense to operate but not an offense to have it. So unless he was operating the motor vehicle he can get off on the ticket unless a parking lot is considered a public road way.

No sorry, you are wrong on this one. Having tinted windows allowed you to be fined regardless if you are driving or not. Tinted windows is a non-moving violation, not a moving violation. Same as if your car is parked on your driveway and the registration is expired, you can still get a ticket for it even if you aren't driving it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

It's not like a cop will come across an uninisured or u registered vehicle in a parking lot and excuse them because they're on private property. So not sure why tinted windows should be the exception.

I actually got a ticket and successfully got it dismissed (officer didn't show up) on a ticket for not having stickers on my car in a parking lot. I don't see how this is any diffrence.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

No sorry, you are wrong on this one. Having tinted windows allowed you to be fined regardless if you are driving or not. Tinted windows is a non-moving violation, not a moving violation. Same as if your car is parked on your driveway and the registration is expired, you can still get a ticket for it even if you aren't driving it.

Please link to the section of the Act which states this. In reading section 70, 71, and 72 on window glazing it is illegal to install and illegal to operate. It is not illegal to own. I am happy to be proven wrong as I could be missing the section that addresses this but from my skim through the act 70,71 and 72 are the relavent sections.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

So my analogy is bad, but your analogy about fixing your car and getting a ticket for doing so isn't? Come on now, pot meet kettle.
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2009_122.pdf
You can't claim that you cannot get a ticket because your car is on "private property". Private property or not if it's against the law it's against the law, regardless how dumb you think the law is.
Also the ticket he got was a non-moving violation, which is the not the same as a moving violation.

Yes, my analogy was pretty much dead on, it's an extreme example of the same situation. Vehicle not being operated, on private property, which does not meet the standards set out in the equipment regs. Meanwhile, again, yours completely fails to recognize the difference between a traffic offence and a criminal code offence and the policy underlying each regime.

You quote a regulation to me without bothering to post the enabling statute. All the reg provides is the standards to use in enforcing the actual law. Here it is:

65

(1) Except as otherwise permitted under this Act, a person shall
not do any of the following:

drive or operate a vehicle on a highway unless that vehicle
complies with the vehicle and equipment standards set out
in the regulations in respect of that vehicle;
(b) permit another person to drive or operate a vehicle on a
highway unless that vehicle complies with the vehicle and
equipment standards set out in the regulations in respect
of that vehicle;
(c) where that person is the owner of a vehicle, drive or
operate the vehicle on a highway unless the vehicle and its
equipment are maintained
(i) in good working order, and
(ii) in a condition that meets the requirements of this
Act;
(d) drive or operate a vehicle on a highway unless the vehicle
and its equipment are used in a manner or as prescribed or

provided for by regulation;

Again, it's not against the law to have tinted windows, or to have a car with no headlights, or to have a car equipped with a giant helicopter blade on top for that matter. It's against the law to fail to meet certain standards set out in the regulation WHILE engaging in the actions described in the Traffic Safety Act.

EDIT: GGG is also right - the regulation does internally provide in ss.70 to 72 things you can't do. It then stipulates that failing to follow those rules is an offence in s.115. This has no particular effect on its own, except that the Traffic Safety Act in s.157(1)(b) says that anyone who does anything that a regulation under the Act says is an offence commits an offence under the Act. So the items quoted by GGG are also incorporated into the TSA.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by GGG

I actually got a ticket and successfully got it dismissed (officer didn't show up) on a ticket for not having stickers on my car in a parking lot. I don't see how this is any diffrence.

You got it dismissed because the officer didn't show up, not because he was wrong for giving you a ticket.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

You got it dismissed because the officer didn't show up, not because he was wrong for giving you a ticket.

I am aware of that but officers tend not to show up when they can't win. I am waiting for the references to the act which prohibit owning a vehicle with tinted windows when not in operation.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by GGG

I am aware of that but officers tend not to show up when they can't win. I am waiting for the references to the act which prohibit owning a vehicle with tinted windows when not in operation.

Do you guys really not know the difference between a moving violation and non-moving violation? Hint: look at the names.

As for your waiting for a reference to the act.

70

(1)

A person shall not install, replace or cover the window
glazing in a windshield or in a left or right side window of a motor
vehicle that is beside or forward of the driver with a transparent,

translucent or opaque material.

A person shall not install, replace or cover.

So the window tint got there magically? Someone had to install or replace it. At no point in that section does it mention anything about the car being operated at the time.

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by GGG

I am waiting for the references to the act which prohibit owning a vehicle with tinted windows when not in operation.

Fair enough, but is a business parking lot considered private property for these purposes.

I mean...you didn't drive there, install the tint to keep your car cool with full intentions to remove it before you drove home.

If they had come into your back yard and ticketed you while the car was on blocks missing an engine I could see you having an issue.


.02

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Do you guys really not know the difference between a moving violation and non-moving violation? Hint: look at the names.

As for your waiting for a reference to the act.


A person shall not install, replace or cover.

So the window tint got there magically? Someone had to install or replace it. At no point in that section does it mention anything about the car being operated at the time.

So its illegal to install it, I agree, but its not illegal to have it. To make the ticket stick you would need to prove or have the person admit that they installed or replaced the tint. You could have bought the car with it. This is the whole crux of my argument. There is a law against installing and in 72 against operating but not a law against posessing.

Where I have no idea is how a parking lot is treated. Does this meet the criteria of being operated? I don't know.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

So the window tint got there magically? Someone had to install or replace it. At no point in that section does it mention anything about the car being operated at the time.

Okay. First of all, an officer cannot ticket you for an offense he did not witness. For example, if an officer knows you left Calgary at noon, and he knows you somehow made it to Edmonton by 1:45, obviously you were speeding... but you cannot be issued a speeding ticket, unless he actually saw you exceeding the speed limit.

Second, these are absolute liability offenses, meaning there's no element of intent. As a result, it becomes even more important to establish that the person committed the ACT in question. Now, I don't install my own window tint (or wouldn't if I had it), I would have a shop do it for me. They would be guilty of an offence under s.70(1). I would not, because I did not "install, replace or cover" anything - I paid a shop for a service. Or maybe I didn't even do that - maybe I bought the car used, and the person before me had it installed. Either way, I didn't commit the actus reus described in the provision.

So, to sum up, as an officer cannot, by looking at your car, determine that you committed the act in question, he cannot cite you under that provision. Moreover, even if he was completely sure you HAD done it, without evidence (i.e. his witnessing the act in question), he can't cite you for it.

Originally Posted by GGG

Where I have no idea is how a parking lot is treated. Does this meet the criteria of being operated? I don't know.

Probably not, although there is an Ontario case that said "[Accused] was operating that motor vehicle in the act of parking that vehicle, and leaving it parked, while that vehicle was insured. Since that vehicle belonged to him, and he had full control over that vehicle, both before and after it was an insured vehicle, his leaving that vehicle in a parked position after it became uninsured on a highway constitutes the operation of a motor vehicle in the context of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act."

But that's a case where you had a Court pretty clearly trying to massage the law to fit facts. Realistically, the TSA differentiates between "operate" and "park" in a number of areas (see s.53) indicating that they're two different things. And really, a court will often just go back to the plain meaning rule in interpreting statutes like this. In order to "operate" a car you at least need to be inside the car and have it running, from a common sense perspective.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by GGG

So its illegal to install it, I agree, but its not illegal to have it. To make the ticket stick you would need to prove or have the person admit that they installed or replaced the tint. You could have bought the car with it. This is the whole crux of my argument. There is a law against installing and in 72 against operating but not a law against posessing.

Where I have no idea is how a parking lot is treated. Does this meet the criteria of being operated? I don't know.

Tell you what, go to court tell the judge that's your argument. I'm done with this because you're trying to play the lawer, when common sense doesn't agree with you. Also you have still not even awknowledged the difference between a moving an non-moving violation.

[undercoverbrother]

If only CP had police officers that post on here on a regular basis......

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Okay. First of all, an officer cannot ticket you for an offense he did not witness. For example, if an officer knows you left Calgary at noon, and he knows you somehow made it to Edmonton by 1:45, obviously you were speeding... but you cannot be issued a speeding ticket, unless he actually saw you exceeding the speed limit.

Second, these are absolute liability offenses, meaning there's no element of intent. As a result, it becomes even more important to establish that the person committed the ACT in question. Now, I don't install my own window tint (or wouldn't if I had it), I would have a shop do it for me. They would be guilty of an offence under s.70(1). I would not, because I did not "install, replace or cover" anything - I paid a shop for a service. Or maybe I didn't even do that - maybe I bought the car used, and the person before me had it installed. Either way, I didn't commit the actus reus described in the provision.

So, to sum up, as an officer cannot, by looking at your car, determine that you committed the act in question, he cannot cite you under that provision. Moreover, even if he was completely sure you HAD done it, without evidence (i.e. his witnessing the act in question), he can't cite you for it.

Ok. I'm sure this is the first time in history someone has gotten a ticket for a tinted window while parked.

Enjoy your day.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Ok. I'm sure this is the first time in history someone has gotten a ticket for a tinted window while parked. Enjoy your day.

It may or may not be, but
1. I'm looking at the actual piece of legislation that's relevant;
2. It doesn't say that having tinted windows on your car is an offence;
3. In order to commit an offence you need to commit the actus reus described in an offence; and
4. I went to law school just to make sure of #3.

So unless someone can provide me an explanation as to why I'm reading the law wrong, or another piece of legislation that bears on this issue, I'm going to have to conclude that the ticket was wrongly issued. They can pull you over and ticket you for this stuff if they see you driving with the non-approved equipment but wandering through a parking lot posting citations on windshields is a no-go from what I can see.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

If only CP had police officers that post on here on a regular basis......

There's a few on Beyond.ca. I remember when something like this came up there before and the reply was essentially since the private property was public access that the applicable laws still applied. You'd have to prove in court that the vehicle wasn't going to be driven on public roads with the tint on it, and not the other way around.

In Alberta, the Traffic Safety Act applies anywhere a car can be driven that's accessible to the public, even private property.

Likewise, Vehicle Equipment Regulation laws apply to any registered vehicle with the intent of being driven on public roads.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by btimbit

There's a few on Beyond.ca. I remember when something like this came up there before and the reply was essentially since the private property was public access that the applicable laws still applied. You'd have to prove in court that the vehicle wasn't going to be driven on public roads with the tint on it, and not the other way around.

In Alberta, the Traffic Safety Act applies anywhere a car can be driven that's accessible to the public, even if it’s privately owned.

Likewise, Vehicle Equipment Regulation laws apply to any registered vehicle with the intent of being driven on public roads

So if the vehicle wasn't plated or registred that would be a good way to show that....

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by btimbit

You'd have to prove in court that the vehicle wasn't going to be driven on public roads with the tint on it, and not the other way around.

Why would you have to prove this? I recognize you're not a cop but I don't see anything that suggests this.

In Alberta, the Traffic Safety Act applies anywhere a car can be driven that's accessible to the public, even private property.

It applies everywhere, not just areas that are accessible to the public, but you still have to do the things it tells you not to do in order to commit an offence and be punished with a ticket.

Likewise, Vehicle Equipment Regulation laws apply to any registered vehicle with the intent of being driven on public roads.

I'm pretty sure this is simply wrong. Intent has nothing to do with these offences. If there's an element of intent, it's usually a criminal provision, which can't be enacted by the Province.

[OutOfTheCube]

Or just accept that with tinted windows you will, at various times, get dinged with a $50 tickets, parked or otherwise. Pay the tint tax and move on.