I believe that most people would strongly object to the idea of another individual being able to restrict what they can and cannot do with their personal/private property. As Americans we are accustom to the concept of being able to do whatever we please with items that we legally purchase. For instance, an individual goes to their local Wal-Mart and purchases a brand-new 60 inch flat screen TV. Then the individual proceeds to bring the new TV outside to the parking lot and shatter it using a sledgehammer. No one can pose any sort of legal objection to the individual's actions. Although drastic, this is an example of the rights an individual possesses in regards property that they rightfully own through legal purchase. So why would the same legal premise not apply to an individual who chooses to install window tint on their personal vehicle. .
The argument to be made is not that window tint laws should be completely nonexistent but that they should be revised to much more reasonable standards. Majority of the 50 states enforce some type of restrictive laws in regards to auto window tint. Although the laws vary from state to state, there is only one constant factor that is shared amongst the states as the primary reason for the implementation of tint laws. The safety of police officers is the consensus basis for why tint laws are in place. The argument made from the point of police agencies is that an officer not being able to see clearly into a vehicle in the course of a traffic stop is highly dangerous. Officers argue that there is no way of knowing if they are walking into a threatening scenario when approaching a vehicle with tinted windows. I certainly do not argue that officers have no validity in their stance on the situation but I do in fact argue that there are specific ways in which traffic stops can be handled that would allow for the restructure of auto tint laws. All police issued vehicles whether a basic squad car or undercover unit, are equipped with functioning PA systems.