York, PA - York County public defenders had hoped the Pennsylvania Superior Court would look at the seven appeals of drivers who were stopped by the same police officer for the tint on their vehicles' windows and make a ruling on what is enough cause to initiate a traffic stop.

Instead, the court handled each case separately.

In each case, the drivers, who were stopped last year by Penn Township Police Officer Steve Gebhart, were convicted of charges ranging from drug possession to driving under the influence.

None was charged with illegal window tinting, the reason Gebhart testified he stopped the cars in the first place.

Before going to trial, each defendant filed a motion maintaining the traffic stop for window tinting was unlawful and that evidence of any other crime should be suppressed from trial. The suppression motions were denied by York County judges.

On appeal, the Superior Court vacated two convictions - one for drug paraphernalia and one for from driving under the influence - affirmed four convictions, and has yet to rule on the seventh.

The two overturned cases were returned to York County with instructions for the judges to grant the suppression motions before addressing any other issues.

In one vacated case, the court ruled, "Merely seeing tinted windows does not give rise to reasonable suspicion that an offense is taking place. Not all tinting is illegal . . ."

In the other vacated case, the court said, "Merely seeing that some windows are darker than an untinted one does not reasonably cause a person to suspect a crime is taking place."

The court held in all cases that officers must comply with the sun-screening statute - being unable to see inside a vehicle - before stopping a vehicle to determine if the window tint is illegal or make any other inquiries of the driver.

Assistant public defender Anthony Tambourino said the court looked at the specific facts of each case.

"In the instances where the officer did not specifically state he could not see inside the car because of the window tint, they reversed" the judges' decisions denying suppression.

"Where he said he saw window tint and couldn't see inside the vehicle, they affirmed," he added.

Tambourino said he had hoped the appellate court would see seven appeals on traffic stops "by the same officer and filed by the same attorney" and inquire whether the suspect window tinting was a "pretext" for stopping the drivers.

When these cases were appealed to the Superior Court in January, Penn Township Police Chief Russell Rhodes said most drivers are not cited in his jurisdiction for sun-screening but are given "faulty equipment" notices to bring their vehicles into compliance.

He then added, once a driver is stopped, "a good officer . . . looks for anything out of whack."

"Pretext stops are undetermined under the constitution," Tambourino said.

He said any future appeals on window tint cases might include argument on pretext stops.

The law

Sun screening and other materials prohibited.

No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sun screening device or other material which does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle through the windshield, side wing or side window of the vehicle.

Source: Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Title 75.