Minnesota Window Tint Law 2026

The 50% figure in subd. 4(3) is scoped to "any side window or rear window" and does not reach the windshield. Attributing 50% to a Minnesota windshield strip would imply a permitted strip that the statute does not allow.

Recorded as prose, not as a marker or a length, because there is no permitted extent to measure. The catch-all "or in any other way reducing light transmittance" leaves no room for a tinted band of any depth. The only relief is subd. 4a(a)(1), which exempts glazing "that ha[s] not been modified since the original installation" and original replacement glass conforming to FMVSS 205 — i.e. factory glass, not aftermarket film. This is the first state extracted with a genuinely absolute windshield rule; contrast Massachusetts, which permits a 6-inch strip of TRANSPARENT material, and the AS-1 states.

The strictest side-window figure in the dataset so far. The "plus or minus three percent" clause is statutory text, not a lab convention, so the practical floor is 47%. It is recorded in the row notes rather than in the value because the stated standard is 50%. ASSEMBLY basis: in subd. 4(3) the subject of "has a light transmittance of less than 50 percent" is "any side window or rear window", not the applied material — the measured object is the window. The same clause also carries an independent obstruction standard — material that "obstruct[s] or substantially reduce[s] the driver's clear view through the window" violates subd. 4(3) even at full compliance with the percentages.

Minnesota does not step down behind the driver — one figure governs every side and rear window, and all the variation comes from the subd. 4a(a)(3) vehicle-class list. The "plus or minus three percent" clause is statutory text, not a lab convention, so the practical floor is 47%. It is recorded in the row notes rather than in the value because the stated standard is 50%. ASSEMBLY basis: in subd. 4(3) the subject of "has a light transmittance of less than 50 percent" is "any side window or rear window", not the applied material — the measured object is the window.

DELIBERATELY NOT A NO_RESTRICTION ROW. The pickup exemption in subd. 4a(a)(3)(i) reaches only "the rear windows of a pickup truck" — it does not mention side windows. So the subd. 4(3) 50% floor continues to apply to a pickup's side windows behind the driver, unlike a van's. The value here restates subd. 4(3) because nothing displaces it for this class and position; the citation is to the exemption that stops short. Merging pickups and vans into one "exempt behind the driver" value would legalize tint the statute prohibits.

Minnesota states no mirror condition attached to tinting the rear window — the rear window carries the same 50% floor as the front side windows unless a subd. 4a(a)(3) class exemption applies. The "plus or minus three percent" clause is statutory text, not a lab convention, so the practical floor is 47%. It is recorded in the row notes rather than in the value because the stated standard is 50%. ASSEMBLY basis: in subd. 4(3) the subject of "has a light transmittance of less than 50 percent" is "any side window or rear window", not the applied material — the measured object is the window.

The ±3% tolerance applies to the reflectance figure as well, so the practical ceiling is 23%. Minnesota layers a second, non-numeric reflectivity rule on top: subd. 4(2) prohibits ANY window "composed of, covered by, or treated with any material that has a highly reflective or mirrored appearance", which bites regardless of the 20% measurement.

Same figure and tolerance front and rear. The subd. 4(2) mirrored-appearance ban applies to "any window on the vehicle" and is NOT lifted by the subd. 4a(a)(3) class exemptions in the way the percentages are, since those exempt glazing from subdivision 4 as a whole only for the listed windows.

No state agency is involved — no application, no permit, no sticker. The instrument is a carried prescription or physician's statement, but with four cumulative content requirements, including that it state the MINIMUM PERCENTAGE to which transmittance may be reduced. That is unusually specific: the physician effectively sets the vehicle's legal limit. Two-year maximum validity unless the physician marks the condition permanent, matching Maryland's structure. Subd. 4a(b) extends the exemption to a driver relying on a statement issued to someone NOT present in the vehicle, where that person is the driver's parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling or spouse, or someone for whom the driver is a personal care attendant, and the statement specifies the make, model and plate of one or two vehicles.

Structurally stronger than West Virginia's label duty. Minnesota places the marking requirement inside subd. 4 — the list of conditions under which a person "must not drive or operate" the vehicle — so an unmarked but otherwise perfectly legal film makes the vehicle unlawful to DRIVE, not merely unlawful to have installed. The duty carries a date qualifier (post-1 August 1985) that the dataset must not drop. Subd. 5 separately bars selling or applying non-compliant material as part of a business transaction, a misdemeanor.