DC Police Board Targets Racial Bias in Window-Tint Stops

Metropolitan Police Department officers in Washington, D.C., have used window-tint violations as a pretext to stop drivers and investigate other suspected offenses, according to the D.C. Office of Police Complaints.

A window-tint stop, which is a minor traffic violation, can lead to prolonged detention, questioning, a vehicle search for drugs or guns, arrest, or contact with federal immigration, which raises serious Fourth Amendment and racial profiling concerns.

For years, the office has received complaints from D.C. residents, particularly members of the city’s Black community, about the enforcement of window-tint laws. Although District regulations govern vehicle window tint, officers must have the proper equipment and understand the law to enforce it correctly.

Independent of the Metropolitan Police Department, the Office of Police Complaints investigates complaints against law enforcement officers and provides civilian oversight of the District’s police forces.

The Police Complaints Board unanimously approved a policy report prompted by several complaints about MPD officers stopping drivers and issuing notices of infraction for window tint. The office investigated those complaints and found that many officers did not understand the District’s window-tint law.

Visible light transmission, or VLT, measures the percentage of light that can pass through a vehicle’s windows and tint film. In the District, front-side windows must allow at least 70% of light to pass through. Back and rear-side windows may be darker, allowing at least 35% light transmission for trucks and SUVs and 50% for sedans. Unless a driver has a medical exemption, applying darker film to front-side windows is illegal and may result in a citation.

The Office of Police Complaints maintains that officers who lack the necessary training and cannot explain how a vehicle’s window tint violates the law should not initiate stops for suspected tint violations.

Investigators found several instances in which officers issued notices of infraction without first measuring the window tint. The office also found an Instagram video in which an MPD sergeant incorrectly explained the law to the public. Investigators also interviewed MPD officers to assess their understanding of the regulations.

“They were under the impression that the D.C. law requires that there’s no window tint whatsoever on a front windshield,” said Marke Cross, the office’s executive director. “And they didn’t even know that they were supposed to actually test the window tint before they can even issue a warning or an NOI for an infraction.”

According to Cross and Chief Investigator Mona Andrews, many of these cases are dismissed when adjudication officers discover that tickets are missing required information, such as tint measurements. Cross said some officers avoid issuing tickets because they believe doing so eliminates the need to measure the tint.

Cross said the misunderstanding extends beyond patrol officers.

“I even had a discussion with an assistant chief, and their knowledge of the law wasn’t quite intact. So this is sort of, from the top down,” he said. “Like I said, they believe that the law prohibits any tint on a windshield whatsoever, but that’s not the case — it’s 30%.”

The Police Complaints Board’s report includes four recommendations for MPD. First, officers should not initiate window-tint stops unless they have received the proper training and possess approved tint meters.

Second, current officers and academy recruits should receive formal training on window-tint laws. The board also recommended clarifying language in MPD’s general order on traffic enforcement. One section appears to give officers discretion over whether to issue a notice of infraction for illegal window tint, while another says an infraction requires some form of written notice. The Office of Police Complaints said the conflicting language may lead officers to believe enforcement is discretionary when it is not.

The board’s final recommendation calls for a review of MPD’s window-tint enforcement practices to determine whether bias plays a role in the stops. That recommendation prompted discussion among board members about officers’ reasons for initiating them.

“It was pretty clear that all these stops that we’ve received complaints about were pretextual,” Cross said. “The window tint was being used as an excuse to stop the car, but the primary law enforcement objective was looking for guns, drugs, things like that.”

The Office of Police Complaints has received complaints for years alleging racial profiling in window-tint enforcement. Between 2007 and 2012, Black drivers accounted for 97% of complaints involving window-tint violations, according to the office. Most of those stops occurred east of Rock Creek Park, where many of the District’s Black residents live.

These concerns are not new. Back in 2013, the Police Complaints Board raised questions about racial and geographic profiling. At the time, the board found that officers were not receiving adequate instruction on how to enforce the law and also recommended clearer policies and additional training. More than a decade later, the same concerns about racial patterns in stops remain unresolved.

MPD has argued that officers cannot identify a driver’s race through heavily tinted windows. The disparity, however, has raised questions about whether enforcement disproportionately targets Black neighborhoods.

Responding to the office’s concerns before the board issued its formal recommendations, MPD said it found no evidence that its officers were more likely to stop Black or Hispanic drivers during daylight hours. Police Complaints Board member Edward Sanders questioned the department’s emphasis on daytime stops.

“But what about overall?” Sanders asked.

Board member Bobbi Strang raised another concern. She said the stops could be connected to federal immigration enforcement, although no such connection has been established.

“Looking at some of the complaints we got with the mixed task force is that there have been multiple complaints on the mixed task force on tint where Customs and Border Patrol, Homeland Security Investigations were present,” she said. “So, it looked also like a potential back door to get around D.C. prohibition on doing immigration enforcement.”

Officers do not automatically receive tint meters. Only those who have completed the required training are issued the devices. MPD’s general order says an officer without a meter may call a certified officer to measure a vehicle’s tint.

During the board’s virtual meeting, one member described a complaint in which officers allegedly detained a driver for approximately 40 minutes while waiting for a tint meter. According to the complaint, officers discussed finding other reasons to justify the stop and eventually released the driver without issuing a citation. The incident raised concerns among board members about potentially unlawful detention under the Fourth Amendment.

“What they train is that you shouldn’t be pulling over anybody for tint if you’re not certified and you don’t have a meter because you’re supposed to measure,” Andrews said. “So, why are you stopping somebody for tint if you’re not trained and you don’t have a tint meter? How are you going to finish the stop?”

Sydney Goitia-Doran is a senior journalism major and environmental studies minor at Howard University. She is the editor-in-chief of The Hilltop and a climate intern at The Washington Post. You can connect with her on Instagram @sydneygdmedia.

Madison Maynard is a senior broadcast journalism major at Howard University. She hosts Time to Talk Politics on WHBC 96.3 HD3 and serves as the anchor of Spotlight Network’s Herd It All, where she is building her career as an aspiring political reporter. You can follow her on Instagram  @44wethepeople.

SEE ALSO:

CBC Lynching Panel Confronts America’s Suspicious Black Hanging Deaths

An HBCU Student Goes To Class And Then The Gun Range: Here’s Why