Traffic Laws FAQs – Tinted Windows

Traffic Laws FAQs – Tinted Windows

Michigan Traffic FAQs – Tinted Windows

Tinted Windows

Question: Can I have tinted windows on my vehicle?

Answer: The law that covers window applications is MCL 257.709. The use of tinting is limited to the rear side windows, the rear window if the vehicle has outside mirrors on both sides, and the top 4 inches of the front side windows. There is a limited exception for medical necessity with a doctor’s prescription, which allows for tinting to be applied to the front side windows as well. Michigan does not have a specification for the darkness of the window application, but does prohibit applications with a solar reflectivity greater than 35%.

Question: If I have a signed letter by my doctor indicating a medical necessity for tinted windows can another person drive my vehicle if the windows are tinted?

Answer: Yes, provided the special window treatment or application has been determined by a physician or optometrist to be necessary for the protection of a person who is light sensitive or photosensitive, and the owner or operator of a motor vehicle is in possession of a letter signed by a physician or optometrist indicating that the special window treatment or application is a medical necessity as required by MCL 257.709(3)(e). However, the special window treatment or application shall not interfere with or obstruct the driver’s clear vision of the highway or an intersecting highway.

DUI Charges?
Sometimes it’s cheaper in the long run to fight them
Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550

Disclaimer: This Frequently Asked Questions page is provided solely as a means of providing basic answers to questions about the Michigan Vehicle Code and is not designed or intended to provide a basis to contest a citation for a violation of the code. The positions stated are only those of the Michigan Department of State Police and are not binding on any other law enforcement agency or any Court. If our position is supported by case law then it will be enumerated within the answer provided. Source of Information – Traffic Laws FAQ

A historic cannabis shift is one of the latest election year moves

A historic cannabis shift is one of the latest election year moves

AP Story

President Joe Biden may potentially ban TikTok, but he aims to offer young individuals, who largely influence this widely-used social media platform, a more lenient government regulation regarding marijuana.

Facing a decline in support from an important left-leaning voting group, Biden has implemented various strategies aimed at garnering appeal among younger voters, a crucial demographic for his upcoming re-election in November.

His recent decision to reclassify marijuana as a less harmful substance aligns with his ongoing efforts to bring about positive change. This move follows his commendable act of canceling student loans for an additional 206,000 borrowers, demonstrating his commitment to addressing pressing issues. Furthermore, his unwavering support for abortion rights remains a cornerstone of his re-election campaign.

Read more here at the AP News: Biden’s historic marijuana shift is his latest election year move for young voters

SCOTUS Opinion, SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

SCOTUS Opinion, SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

The Constitution provides “no textual justification for saying that the existence or the scope of a State’s power to expropriate private property without just compensation varies according to the branch of government effecting the expropriation.”

The case in question is Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California.

Background:

Background of the Case: George Sheetz, the petitioner, was required by the County of El Dorado to pay a $23,420 traffic impact fee as a condition of receiving a residential building permit. The fee was part of a “General Plan” enacted by the County’s Board of Supervisors to address increasing demand for public services spurred by new development.

Reason for the Case:

Sheetz claimed that conditioning the building permit on the payment of a traffic impact fee constituted an unlawful “exaction” of money in violation of the Takings Clause. He argued that the Court’s decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, and Dolan v. City of Tigard, required the County to make an individualized determination that the fee imposed on him was necessary to offset traffic congestion attributable to his project.

Content of the Case:

The courts below ruled against Sheetz based on their view that Nollan and Dolan apply only to permit conditions imposed on an ad hoc basis by administrators, not to a fee like this one imposed on a class of property owners by Board-enacted legislation.

Final Opinion of the Case:

The Supreme Court held that the Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions. Therefore, the ruling was in favor of Sheetz, overturning the decision of the lower courts.

Read the full SCOTUS Opinion here

Need to Fight the System?
See what we can do for you
Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550

New rule mandates time and a half pay for lower paid employees

New rule mandates time and a half pay for lower paid employees

Qualified lower-paid workers who earn a salary but work more than 40 hours in a week will soon be entitled to guaranteed time-and-a-half pay, thanks to a new labor rule announced by the Biden-Harris administration.

This rule will raise the salary thresholds necessary to exempt a “salaried bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employee from federal overtime pay requirements.”

The salary threshold will increase in two stages. The first increase will take place on July 1, bringing the annual salary equivalent to $43,888. This is a significant jump from the current threshold of $35,568. Following this, on January 1, 2025, the threshold will rise again, reaching $58,656.

The Department of Labor has released this information in a blog with stock photos providing clarity on the matter.

Whitmer Signs Bills for Health Services and Criminal Justice

Whitmer Signs Bills for Health Services and Criminal Justice

LANSING, Mich. – Today, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that aims to establish a licensure framework for dietitian nutritionists. The governor also signed legislation that delivers ongoing funding for trial courts across the state, reducing costs for local municipalities.

 

“Today’s commonsense, bipartisan bills will improve health care licensing for dietitian nutritionists and protect critical funding for trial courts,” said Governor Whitmer. “Together, we will continue delivering on the issues that make a real difference in people’s lives, from health care to public safety. Let’s keep working together to build a brighter, safer future for Michigan.”

 

House Bill 4608, sponsored by state Representative Laurie Pohutsky, establishes licensing requirements and standards for dietitians and nutritionists. By doing so, the bill seeks to ensure that individuals who provide dietary advice and guidance meet certain qualifications and adhere to professional standards.

 

“I sponsored House Bill 4608 to protect Michiganders and help make sure crucial healthcare is accessible and affordable,” said Speaker Pro Tem Laurie Pohutsky (D-Livonia). “Now, when individuals are looking to receive a dietician’s opinion, individuals can easily identify qualified and trustworthy providers — that is very important when it comes to health and wellness. Licensure will also help ensure medical nutrition therapy is covered by insurance, making it much more accessible for countless Michiganders. It is a win to have the governor sign this into law today.”

Justice for All…

House Bill 5392, sponsored by state Representative Sarah Lightner, provides essential funding to ensure trial courts have the necessary resources to operate effectively. By supporting our courts, Michigan becomes a safer place for all its residents.

 

“This bill is a step forward toward our shared goal of courts that are funded fairly all across Michigan while maintaining the independence of the judicial branch,” said State Court Administrator Tom Boyd. “We look forward to providing the Governor and Legislature with the data, information, and recommendations they need to take the next steps in this process as we work together to develop and implement a long-term funding plan that delivers justice for all.”

 

“We appreciate the legislature acting in a bipartisan fashion to extend the expiring sunset,” said Dan Gilmartin, Executive Director and CEO of the Michigan Municipal League. “With Governor Whitmer taking swift action to sign this legislation, we ensure the seamless functioning of the district and municipal courts supported by cities across the state.”