Question for the LEO's

[BMCSean]

I just got a ticket in Coppell for having tinted taillight lenses. Looking through the statutes I can't find anything about the modification of the lense being illegal. They are not blacked out but just tinted and still meet all standards for taillamps. The Officer told me it was a federal statute that you can't alter the lenses and that they have to be red reflective material, to which I told him they were clear from the factory ( 2009 fusion). He was hesistant to discuss it anymore after I said that. For court I figure I will print out the Texas statute sec 547.325 and .322, and take a picture at night with a flash to show that they are still reflective.

Any other suggestions?

Oh and FTP.

[Swamp Donkey]

I'll never understand this tailight tinting phase.

Chalk it up to being old I guess.

[ELVIS]

dont play the hardass roll at court and tell the judge you will go to jail before you pay this ticket because you werent doing anything wrong.

on a side note, its a relatively nice jail.

god bless.

[BMCSean]

I'll never understand this tailight tinting phase.

Chalk it up to being old I guess.

The stock taillights on a pre 2010 fusion are clear and chrome and look like those gay ricer ones. I had the guy who paints all the bikes for Strokers give them a translucent dark grey coating.

[Swamp Donkey]

The stock taillights on a pre 2010 fusion are clear and chrome and look like those gay ricer ones. I had the guy who paints all the bikes for Strokers give them a translucent dark grey coating.

I understand in this case. I always hated the Lightning tailights for that reason. Good luck with the citation!

[BMCSean]

dont play the hardass roll at court and tell the judge you will go to jail before you pay this ticket because you werent doing anything wrong.

on a side note, its a relatively nice jail.

god bless.

I just want them to drop it, or else!

[A_A_G]

Pics?

[kingjason]

A taillamp shall emit a red light plainly visible at a distance of 1,000 feet from the rear of the vehicle. Maybe this orrrr hang on a second let me look for the ole blue dot rule.

Whats the ticket say.

[Machx2]

§ 547.325
(a) Except as provided by Subchapter F, a motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, or pole trailer shall be equipped with at least two red reflectors on the rear of the vehicle. A red reflector may be included as a part of a taillamp.
(b) A reflector shall be:
(1) mounted at a height from 15 to 60 inches; and
(2) visible at night at all distances:
(A) from 100 to 600 feet when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlamps; or
(B) from 100 to 350 feet when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps if the vehicle was manufactured or assembled before January 1, 1972.

So you will want to get a picture of them reflecting light at 600 feet. And..


Sec. 547.322. TAILLAMPS REQUIRED.
(a) Except as provided by Subsection
(b), a motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole trailer, or vehicle that is towed at the end of a combination of vehicles shall be equipped with at least two taillamps.
(b) A passenger car or truck that was manufactured or assembled before the model year 1960 shall be equipped with at least one taillamp.
(c) Taillamps shall be mounted on the rear of the vehicle:
(1) at a height from 15 to 72 inches; and
(2) at the same level and spaced as widely apart as practicable if a vehicle is equipped with more than one lamp.
(d) A taillamp shall emit a red light plainly visible at a distance of 1,000 feet from the rear of the vehicle.(e) If vehicles are traveling in combination, only the taillamps on the rearmost vehicle are required to emit a light for the distance specified in Subsection (d).
(f) A taillamp or a separate lamp shall be constructed and mounted to emit a white light that:
(1) illuminates the rear license plate; and
(2) makes the plate clearly legible at a distance of 50 feet from the rear.
(g) A taillamp, including a separate lamp used to illuminate a rear license plate, must emit a light when a headlamp or auxiliary driving lamp is lighted.

A picture that the lights are visible at 1,000 feet in the dark.

[BMCSean]

Right, but I can't find what he was talking about the altering of lenses being illegal?

[92lxstang]

§ 547.325. REFLECTORS REQUIRED.
(a) Except as provided
by Subchapter F, a motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, or pole
trailer shall be equipped with at least two red reflectors on the
rear of the vehicle. A red reflector may be included as a part of a
taillamp.
(b) A reflector shall be:
(1) mounted at a height from 15 to 60 inches; and
(2) visible at night at all distances:
(A) from 100 to 600 feet when directly in front of
lawful lower beams of headlamps; or
(B) from 100 to 350 feet when directly in front of
lawful upper beams of headlamps if the vehicle was manufactured or
assembled before January 1, 1972.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

[03trubluGT]

That's a bullshit ticket. The burden to prove the tail lights don't meet the standard should be on the officer, not the guy that got the ticket.


Can u post a pic of the car?

[Machx2]

Right, but I can't find what he was talking about the altering of lenses being illegal?

I don't know about anything having to do with altering the lenses. Unless it is a new law and I didn't get the memo? Maybe a city ordinance? Whats the citation for?

[GE]

Man Card revoked for having a Ford Fusion.

[Machx2]

That's a bullshit ticket. The burden to prove the tail lights don't meet the standard should be on the officer, not the guy that got the ticket.


Can u post a pic of the car?

I agree. Unless it is crazy dark tinted ones. I've seen one that I swear the guy used paint on his tail lights. Could barely see it.