I'm saying 1. I was not in violation of anything 2. It should not have taken them a week to cite me if I were therefore the person who issued the ticket can not be considered knowledgeable in these violations.
There's no evidence if they can't prove a crime right? Even if the police show up at your house with a warrant for a dead body and they found cocaine all over the place, that can't be used as evidence. How can one's opinion of the darkness of windows be justification for a random search?
I feel sorry for you. Your misunderstanding of how the legal system works is unbelievable.
Regarding the first bit there. 1. You don't NEED to be in violation of anything. The officer doesn't decide that part. Only a judge can convict you. If an officer "suspects" or has "reasonable cause" than he will issue a citation. Officers can, and often DO issue invalid, incompetent, and sometimes even illegal tickets. They can arrest you - for no reason whatsoever. In fact thats what they often do to prostitutes and problem homeless. They aren't charged with anything, just brought in.
You fail to understand the concept of "reasonable cause". It doesn't matter that you did nothing, an officer of the law has a duty to investigate when he "suspects" something. It isn't a violation of your privacy and 4th amendment rights when the violation is in plain view. He can and will ask you to roll up your window while he checks your tint and if you resist he's likely to impound it, so give that a shot. OR even better, a real good cop with a lot of spare time might JUST petition a justice for a warrant, and search it just because.
Or he might just arrest you for no reason and search the vehicle as a matter of course. This particular arrest/search is not constitutional but I guarantee it happens everyday.
And to the second part - I'd normally cite precedent here, but suspect that you are incapable of understanding that concept. I'll just say - that if you are served with a search warrant and they find something else illegal while legally searching for something else - it is completely permitted in court and you are going DOWN.
As long as the "original" search is permitted (such as in the case of an arrest - the immediate surroundings, including the vehicle in which that person was driving), a search warrant, or if you simply say "yes, you may search", or if you present yourself for re-entry to the USA from a foreign land, or if you trespass upon property deemed by the dept of homeland security as a "port of entry", or enter a marina designated as such, or attempt to board a domestic flight, or attempt to enter nearly all government owned facilities, such as the Social Security office, various govt agency buildings, federal buildings, courthouses, etc. In all those cases you are also subject to search. Therefore - when the feds bust you for dealing coke, they can certainly nail you for fencing stolen property.
It should not have taken them a week to cite me if I were therefore the person who issued the ticket can not be considered knowledgeable in these violations.
There are several logical fallacies presented.
It presumes that a person continuously monitors that particular space, which is known to not be true as a matter of course. It takes them as long as it takes them. Consider yourself lucky the car is still there.
It also concludes that a person isn't "knowledgable" about something based on a time frame. This is ludicrous.
It also concludes that someone isn't guilty of a crime simply because they haven't been caught yet.