People v. Dunmire

Defendant was charged with 2 counts of aggravated DUI and 2 counts of DUI. Defendant filed motion to suppress, claiming that officer lacked training or tools to ascertain whether his car windows were illegally tinted which officer claimed was the basis for the traffic stop. Court erred by granting Defendant’s motion to suppress because it applied an incorrect standard applicable to the 4^th amendment. The 4^th amendment requires a totality of the circumstances approach, and the facts of each individual case must be considered. As a substantial amount of window tinting is now legal, police must have some ability to discern between legally and illegally tinted windows, and that method must be reliable. Officer’s testimony that he could not see anything through Defendant’s window provided a reasonable, articulable suspicion of violation of Vehicle Code. (HOLDER WHITE and CAVANAGH, concurring.)