322 A.3d 223
Pa. Super. Ct.2024Background
- Ryan A. Castaneira was stopped by police in January 2023 due to the allegedly illegal tint on his 2017 Honda Accord’s windows.
- Officer Dudek measured the window tint’s light transmittance at 31%, below the required 70% under Pennsylvania regulations.
- After being warned and given the chance to remove the tint (which Castaneira refused), he was cited under 75 Pa.C.S. § 4107(b)(2) for unlawful activities related to vehicle equipment regulations.
- Castaneira was found guilty at the magisterial district court and, upon appeal, at a trial de novo in common pleas, where he was fined $25.
- He appealed, raising several issues, including statutory interpretation, sufficiency of the charging instrument, legality of the stop, and constitutional challenges to the tint test.
Issues
| Issue | Castaneira's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of § 4107(b)(2) fine to non-bus/motor carrier vehicles | Fine improperly imposed because only applies to buses/motor carriers | Statute applies to any vehicle; enhanced penalties for buses/motor carriers only | Fine affirmed; statute applies to all vehicles |
| Whether ability to see through tint (per § 4524(e)(1)) prevents prosecution under § 4107 or stops | Officer could see through window, so no basis to stop or prosecute under window tint rules | Table X and regulations impose transmittance requirements separate from § 4524; stop justified | Stop and conviction proper due to regulatory violation despite ability to see in |
| Sufficiency of citation (Rule 403) | Citation lacked specificity on standard violated (Table X not referenced) | Citation cited correct statute and provided factual basis (31% transmittance) and prior warning | Citation sufficient; requirements met |
| Warrantless window tint meter use as unconstitutional search | Officer’s use of tint meter without a warrant was an unreasonable search | Tint measurement akin to inspection for VIN/engine number; no reasonable privacy expectation | Use of tint meter permissible; not an unreasonable search |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Roberts, 293 A.3d 1221 (Pa. Super. 2023) (sets forth standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Kriegler, 127 A.3d 840 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Commonwealth may charge multiple violations from a single act)
- Commonwealth v. Brubaker, 5 A.3d 261 (Pa. Super. 2010) (distinguishes between statutory window tint provisions and regulatory violations)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 209 A.3d 912 (Pa. 2019) (standard of review for constitutional questions)
- Commonwealth v. Bowens, 265 A.3d 730 (Pa. Super. 2021) (scope and balance of privacy under PA Constitution)
- Commonwealth v. Green, 168 A.3d 180 (Pa. Super. 2017) (canine sniff as a minimally intrusive search)
- Commonwealth v. Lutz, 270 A.3d 571 (Pa. Super. 2022) (plain view doctrine for observation through windows)