Jesse Risley
Staff member
Most states have some sort of obstructed winshield code that would apply to video cameras, GPS units, etc.
I assume the OP was cited for this KS statute (I only copied relevant portions of the statute):
---------------------------
Chapter 8.--AUTOMOBILES AND OTHER VEHICLES
Article 17.--UNIFORM ACT REGULATING TRAFFIC; EQUIPMENT OF VEHICLES
8-1741. Windshields and windows; damaged windshields prohibited; obstruction or impairment prohibited; wipers. (a) No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sign, poster or other nontransparent material upon the front windshield, side wings or side or rear windows of such vehicle which substantially obstructs, obscures or impairs the driver's clear view of the highway or any intersecting highway.
For the full text, see http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteFile.do?number=/8-1741.html
---------------------------
I'm certainly no jurist, but if you wanted to challenge the citation, you would probably need to at least raise some measure of reasonable doubt that your video camera "substantially" obstructed your clear view of the highway. While the OP was perhaps guilty, the wording of the statute does leave it open to some reasonable interpretation. The use of the word "substantially" certainly means that LEOs will use their own discretion and interpret this very differently, as will one judge from another.
I assume the OP was cited for this KS statute (I only copied relevant portions of the statute):
---------------------------
Chapter 8.--AUTOMOBILES AND OTHER VEHICLES
Article 17.--UNIFORM ACT REGULATING TRAFFIC; EQUIPMENT OF VEHICLES
8-1741. Windshields and windows; damaged windshields prohibited; obstruction or impairment prohibited; wipers. (a) No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sign, poster or other nontransparent material upon the front windshield, side wings or side or rear windows of such vehicle which substantially obstructs, obscures or impairs the driver's clear view of the highway or any intersecting highway.
For the full text, see http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteFile.do?number=/8-1741.html
---------------------------
I'm certainly no jurist, but if you wanted to challenge the citation, you would probably need to at least raise some measure of reasonable doubt that your video camera "substantially" obstructed your clear view of the highway. While the OP was perhaps guilty, the wording of the statute does leave it open to some reasonable interpretation. The use of the word "substantially" certainly means that LEOs will use their own discretion and interpret this very differently, as will one judge from another.
Last edited by a moderator: