A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 56-5-5015, RELATING TO SUNSCREEN DEVICES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT VEHICLES.
Summary
H3851 amends South Carolina Code Section 56-5-5015, the state law governing sunscreening devices on motor vehicles, to add law enforcement vehicles to the list of vehicles exempt from the statute’s restrictions. Under current law, the section already exempts vehicles registered to individuals with a qualifying medical affidavit and law enforcement vehicles used regularly to transport a canine trained for law enforcement purposes. This bill expands that exemption so that all law enforcement vehicles are excluded from the sunscreen-device requirements.
The bill is narrow in scope and does not change the general rules for private vehicles, medical exemptions, or the process for obtaining and carrying a physician or optometrist affidavit. Its practical effect is to give police and other law enforcement fleets broader flexibility to use tinted or sunscreening materials without violating the existing light-transmittance and reflectance limits. The fiscal note states that the Department of Motor Vehicles would have no expenditure impact because the bill does not operationally or fiscally affect the agency.
Impact
If enacted, H3851 would amend Section 56-5-5015(H) of the South Carolina Code to create a broader statutory exemption for law enforcement vehicles from the state’s sunscreen-device/tint restrictions. It would leave the medical exemption and the canine-transport exemption in place while adding a general law enforcement vehicle exemption. The bill would take effect upon approval by the Governor and is not expected to create a fiscal impact for DMV or state expenditures.
Sentiment
The available legislative record suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill. The House Education and Public Works Committee recommended that it do pass, indicating support at the committee level. No vote totals or recorded floor debate are provided, and there are no committee transcripts in the available materials, so the broader sentiment can only be inferred from the committee’s favorable report and the absence of documented opposition in the record provided.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether law enforcement vehicles should receive a blanket exemption from tint restrictions rather than only the narrower existing exemption for vehicles used to transport trained canines. Supporters likely view the change as a practical law-enforcement accommodation, while any potential concern would center on whether broader exemptions could reduce visibility or create enforcement inconsistencies. The record provided does not identify named opponents or specific objections, and the bill was recommitted after committee action, suggesting procedural movement rather than a clearly documented substantive dispute.