Tinted windows might deflect the sun, but they attract the eyes of police officers. A trooper could not see through the windows of the defendant’s car, so he pulled it over. During the traffic stop, the trooper discovered narcotics and paraphernalia in the car. The defendant was charged with DUI as well as other offenses and filed a motion to suppress the evidence. The trial court denied the motion, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed. On appeal, the defendant argued that because the trooper’s testimony failed to establish that he was correct that her window-tint was not manufacturer applied when he stopped her car, the stop was illegal. The Court found the argument to be meritless. The trooper testified that the windows on the vehicle were so darkly tinted that he could not see inside. This testimony was corroborated by photographs entered into evidence at the suppression hearing. Thus, there was probable cause to stop the vehicle for a window tint violation.