The United States Constitution protects citizens against “unreasonable search and seizures.”1 When conducting a traffic stop, a police officer must have “reasonable articulable suspicion,” that a motor vehicle violation has occurred.2 This standard is less strict than the commonly known “probable cause,” primarily to balance individual privacy interests with the government’s interest in protecting police officers during traffic stops.3 In the state of Maryland, motor vehicle windows may be tinted, provided they allow at least 35 percent light transmittance and there is a sticker stating the percentage of tinting permanently attached to the window.4 In 2011, the Court of Appeals of Maryland determined that when an officer had training and experience in recognizing legally tinted windows, and was unable to see the inhabitants of a car on a sunny morning, he had reasonable suspicion sufficient to support a traffic stop.5 However, the court was clear that the observation must be in the context of what a properly tinted window would look like, and the officer must be able to credibly articulate the difference between the two.6
In a recent decision, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that this rule will be applicable to drivers regardless of where their car is registered.7 A Virginia driver was pulled over in Prince George’s County based on his darkly tinted windows.8 His car’s windows were in accordance with Virginia law, where his vehicle was registered.9 His vehicle was subsequently searched, and over 700 grams of marijuana discovered.10 The Defendant argued that the evidence should be suppressed, as his car was not registered in Maryland, and Md. Code 22-406(i)(1) applies only to cars registered in Maryland.11 He cited to an Illinois case, where the court determined that Illinois tinted window laws only apply to Illinois registered vehicles, to “avoid running afoul of interstate-commerce provisions of U.S. Constitution.”12 The Maryland Court did not find that argument persuasive, deciding that the officer had a right to make an investigatory stop based on the darkly tinted windows.13
This decision should be a warning to all out-of-state drivers that when driving in the state of Maryland, they must comply with Maryland’s tinting law, or risk opening themselves up to a reasonable suspicion stop.
Molly Miller is a 3L at the University of Baltimore. She currently is a law clerk at Funk & Bolton, P.A., in their Insurance Litigation Department, and previously interned with the Court of Special Appeals as well as the Organized Crime Unit in the Attorney General’s Office. She is an Associate Editor for the University of Baltimore Law Forumand is a member of the Women’s Bar Association. In her free time, she enjoys distance running, hiking, reading, and dogs.
1 U.S. Const. amend. IV.
2 Baez v. State, No. 351, 2018 WL 4171743, at *3 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 31, 2018) (citing U.S. v. Callarman, 272 F.3d 1284, 1287 (10th Cir. 2001).
3 Kristen N. Keiser, Recent Decisions: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 57 Md. L. Rev. 1208, 1213 (1998).
4 MD Code Ann., Transp. § 22-406.
5 Turkes v. State, 199 Md. App. 96, 20 A.3d 173 (2011).
6 Id.
7 See Baez, at *5.
8 Id. at *2.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id. at *4.
12 Id. at *4 (citing People v. Strawn, 210 Ill.App.3d 783, 790, 155 Ill.Dec. 269, 569 N.E.2d 269, 275 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991).
13 Baez, at *4.
ublawforum.com 
Leave a comment