Are Radar Detectors Legal? State Laws Explained (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited September 23, 2026). · 24 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
As of September 2026, radar detectors are legal in ordinary passenger vehicles in 49 states. Virginia bans them outright, and Washington DC likely does too. A separate rule bans laser and radar jammers, active interference devices, in at least 12 more states, and federal law bans detectors in commercial trucks nationwide, with no exception in the rule itself for drivers or motor carriers.
Jurisdiction scope: This article covers federal law governing commercial motor vehicles (49 CFR 392.71) and the passive radar-detector and active laser/radar-jammer laws of all 50 states and Washington DC, as identified through primary-source legal research current as of September 2026. It does not cover local or municipal ordinances beyond Washington DC's regulation, military installation policy, or countries outside the United States.
Are radar detectors legal? The direct answer
Yes, in nearly every state. Radar detectors, devices that passively receive police radar and laser signals to warn a driver of speed enforcement ahead, are legal to own and use in an ordinary passenger vehicle in 49 states. Virginia is the only state with an outright ban, and Washington DC likely bans them too under a municipal regulation discussed below.
That direct answer covers detectors only. A second, separate legal question covers laser and radar jammers, active devices designed to interfere with or defeat a radar or laser gun rather than merely detect it. At least 12 states ban jammers specifically, even in states where a passive detector is completely legal. The two device categories are covered by different laws for a reason explained below, and mixing them up is the most common error on sites that rank for this topic.
A third layer sits above both: federal law bans radar detectors outright in commercial motor vehicles nationwide, regardless of what any individual state allows for passenger cars. The full state-by-state breakdown, covering both detectors and jammers, is in the table further down this page.
The federal rule: radar detectors are banned in commercial vehicles nationwide
Federal regulation bans radar detectors in commercial motor vehicles, with no exception in the rule itself for drivers or motor carriers; it applies to CMVs in interstate commerce and, through state adoption of the federal safety regulations, to intrastate CMVs in every state. Under 49 CFR 392.71:
"(a) No driver shall use a radar detector in a commercial motor vehicle, or operate a commercial motor vehicle that is equipped with or contains any radar detector. (b) No motor carrier shall require or permit a driver to violate paragraph (a) of this section."
This rule applies to commercial motor vehicles as defined under 49 CFR 390.5: a vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce with a gross vehicle weight rating, gross combination weight rating, gross vehicle weight, or gross combination weight of 10,001 pounds or more; or designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation; or designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers, including the driver, not for compensation; or that transports placardable quantities of hazardous material. That threshold starts well below the 26,001-pound gross vehicle weight rating that triggers a commercial driver's license under 49 CFR 383.5, so a 10,001-pound box truck, a contractor's pickup-and-trailer combination used in commerce, or a 9-passenger shuttle for hire is a CMV under this rule even though none of them is "CDL-scale." An ordinary passenger car used for personal, non-commercial driving is not covered by 49 CFR 392.71 even in a state that otherwise has no radar-detector restriction of its own.
Several states mirror this federal rule at the state level rather than leaving it to federal enforcement alone. New York bans detectors in vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating over 18,000 pounds, and in commercial vehicles over 10,000 pounds, under N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law 397-a; a connected, operable detector in a covered vehicle is presumptive, rebuttable evidence of use. New Mexico's director of motor transportation is directed by NMSA 65-3-9 to adopt commercial-motor-vehicle equipment regulations no more stringent than the federal safety standards; the regulations adopted under that authority bring the federal detector ban into New Mexico practice, and NMSA 66-8-116.2 sets a 50 dollar penalty assessment for possession of a radar detector in a commercial motor carrier vehicle. Oklahoma separately bans detectors in commercial motor vehicles only, under 47 Okla. Stat. 11-808.1, a rule distinct from Oklahoma's all-driver jammer ban covered below. In all three states, an ordinary passenger vehicle is unaffected.
Detectors vs. jammers: two different legal questions
Most sites that rank for radar-detector searches conflate two different devices and two different bodies of law. A radar detector is a passive receiver. It listens for radar and laser signals and alerts the driver; it does not transmit anything or interfere with anyone else's equipment. A radar or laser jammer is an active device. It is designed to interfere with, scramble, or defeat a police radar or laser gun's own signal.
The FCC treats a radar detector as a Part 15 receiver, defined in its rules as "a receiver designed to signal the presence of radio signals used for determining the speed of motor vehicles" (47 CFR 15.3(ee), with related certification requirements at 47 CFR 15.101, 15.109, and 15.37). That classification makes owning and marketing a detector a certification and labeling issue, not a use-ban issue, at the federal level.
Jamming is a different matter. The general federal statute against interfering with licensed radio communications states:
"No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government."
That is 47 U.S.C. 333. It was written as a general anti-jamming statute for any licensed radio service, not specifically for police radar, and it is several inferential steps removed from the question "is a radar detector legal." It is the statutory hook regulators and courts use against jamming devices generally, and it helps explain why states treat detecting and jamming so differently: at least 12 states ban jammers as a category distinct from detectors, and only Virginia and Washington DC ban passive detecting itself.
Virginia and Washington DC: the two full bans
Virginia. Virginia has the broadest radar-detector law in the country. Under Va. Code 46.2-1079, it is unlawful to operate a vehicle equipped with, to use, or to sell any device, passive or active, that detects or interferes with police radar or laser speed-measurement equipment. The statute covers detecting and jamming in a single provision; Virginia does not need a separate jammer law because its detector ban already reaches both. Mere presence of a covered device in the vehicle is prima facie evidence of a violation. The one narrow defense is that the device had no power source and was not readily accessible to the driver or a passenger, meaning it was effectively stowed away, unplugged, and out of reach. Licensed radio receivers are exempt, as are law-enforcement vehicles.
Washington DC. DC likely bans both detectors and jammers under a District municipal regulation, 18 DCMR 736 ("Radar Detectors and Jammers"), reportedly structured as: section 736.1 banning the sale or offer for sale of a device designed to detect or counteract police radar; section 736.2 banning the use or possession of such a device in an automobile; and section 736.3 exempting the Armed Forces. The section number and its title were confirmed directly on the official DC regulations site, dcregs.dc.gov, which lists section 18-736 as "RADAR DETECTORS AND JAMMERS." The operative text of 736.1 through 736.3 sits behind that site's document viewer and could not be retrieved this session, so this page presents the subsection breakdown as likely correct and corroborated by independent secondary sources, not as a confirmed primary-source fact.
What can be stated with full confidence is a debunk: a citation widely repeated across vendor and retailer sites for DC's rule, "DC Code 50-1401.01(a)," is false. That exact section was opened directly and is a driver's license fee, exam, and age-requirement statute. It has nothing to do with radar detectors. Any source repeating that citation for a DC radar-detector ban is citing the wrong law.
States that ban laser and radar jammers (but not detectors)
In the following 12 states, passive radar detectors remain legal. What each state bans is a jamming device built to interfere with or defeat police speed-measuring equipment. All twelve reach radar jammers; most also name laser jammers, while Nebraska and Indiana write their bans around radio-frequency interference rather than laser (the table gives each state's actual wording).
| State | What's banned | Section |
|---|---|---|
| California | Equipping, using, buying, possessing, manufacturing, selling, or distributing a radar or laser jamming device | Cal. Veh. Code 28150 |
| Colorado | Using, possessing, selling, or driving with a radar jamming device inside the vehicle (class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense) | C.R.S. 42-4-1415 |
| Illinois | Operating or controlling a vehicle equipped with a radar or laser jamming device | 625 ILCS 5/12-613 |
| Indiana | Signal jammers generally, under a broad anti-jamming law that also names police radar | Ind. Code 35-45-2-6 |
| Iowa | Selling, operating, or possessing a speed-detection jamming device, a simple misdemeanor with device seizure and forfeiture | Iowa Code 321.232; 321.482 |
| Minnesota | Selling, offering for sale, using, or possessing a radar jammer | Minn. Stat. 169.14, subd. 12 |
| Nebraska | Operating or possessing a device designed to interfere with police speed-measurement radar | Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,274 to 60-6,276 |
| Oklahoma | Using, possessing, manufacturing, or selling a radar or laser jamming device, for any vehicle | 47 Okla. Stat. 11-808 |
| South Carolina | Equipping a vehicle with, or using, a device that jams, scrambles, neutralizes, disables, or interferes with police radar or laser | S.C. Code 56-5-3870 |
| Tennessee | Possessing, selling, driving with, or actively using a laser or radar jammer | Tenn. Code 39-16-610 |
| Texas | Using, installing, operating, or selling a radar interference device (jammer, scrambler, or diffuser) | Tex. Transp. Code 547.616 |
| Utah | Driving with a radar jamming device inside the vehicle, or knowingly using one to interfere with police radar or laser | Utah Code 41-6a-609 |
Two jurisdictions that ban detecting itself, Virginia and the District of Columbia, are not listed again here because their statutes already fold jammer coverage into the detector ban described above rather than treating jammers as a separate offense.
Two statutes deserve a specific note because they are easy to miss. Indiana's law is not written as a radar statute at all; it is a general "signal jammer" law covering personal communications services, GPS, and wireless networking that happens to name police radar, and it carries the harshest penalty on this list. Nebraska's statute is titled a "radar transmission device" law, wording that could mislead a reader into thinking it targets detectors, but its operative definition targets interference devices, not passive ones, and it bans possessing one, not just using it.
Windshield mounting and placement rules
Where a radar detector is mounted can raise a separate legal question from whether owning one is legal at all. General windshield-mounting restrictions apply to any suction-mounted device, including dashcams and GPS units, and most states list narrow exceptions for what may sit between the driver and the windshield.
Minnesota is a specific example worth flagging. Its windshield-obstruction statute, Minn. Stat. 169.71, subd. 1, bans objects suspended between the driver and the windshield except an enumerated list: sun visors, mirrors, driver-monitoring equipment, GPS and navigation units placed near the bottom of the windshield, electronic toll-collection devices, and one specific authorized device. Radar detectors are not on that exception list, so a suction-mounted unit read literally against the statute's text carries a placement risk distinct from Minnesota's separate jammer ban described above.
California's general windshield-obstruction statute, Cal. Veh. Code 26708, works similarly: its enumerated exceptions cover mirrors, small corner stickers, sun visors, and a 5-inch-square electronic communication device at the top center of the windshield, and radar detectors are not named. A suction-mounted unit sitting directly in the driver's sightline could be read as an obstruction under the statute's plain language, though a dash-mounted or visor-clipped unit is not typically swept up in practice.
The same placement question applies to other windshield-mounted electronics, including dashcams and window-tint compliance more broadly; see the window tint laws page for the related visibility rules that apply near the windshield.
Radar detector and laser jammer laws by state: full 51-jurisdiction table
Northeast states
The table below covers 9 states in the Northeast.
| State | Radar detectors | Laser/radar jammers | Section | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Maine | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Massachusetts | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| New Hampshire | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| New Jersey | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| New York | Legal (banned in heavy/commercial vehicles) | Not researched | N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law 397-a | Restricted to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating over 18,000 pounds, and commercial vehicles over 10,000 pounds. A connected, operable detector in a covered vehicle is presumptive, rebuttable evidence of use. Ordinary passenger cars are unrestricted. |
| Pennsylvania | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Rhode Island | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Vermont | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
Midwest states
The tables below cover 12 states in the Midwest.
Great Lakes states
The table below covers 5 Great Lakes states.
| State | Radar detectors | Laser/radar jammers | Section | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois | Legal | Banned | 625 ILCS 5/12-613 | Petty offense, with a minimum fine of $50 for a first offense and $100 for a second or subsequent offense, for operating a vehicle equipped with a jamming device. Device seizure is mandatory at the time of the violation. Safe harbor if the device is locked in an opaque box, or outside the passenger compartment and not in operation. |
| Indiana | Legal | Banned | Ind. Code 35-45-2-6 | Level 6 felony, up to Level 5 if used against critical infrastructure or public-safety communications. The harshest jammer penalty identified in this research. |
| Michigan | Legal, explicitly exempted | Not researched | MCL 750.508(4) | Michigan's police-scanner statute states in plain text that it does not apply to the use of radar detectors, an affirmative exemption rather than a mere absence of a hit. |
| Ohio | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Wisconsin | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
Plains states
The table below covers 7 Plains states.
| State | Radar detectors | Laser/radar jammers | Section | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iowa | Legal | Banned | Iowa Code 321.232; 321.482 | Selling, operating, or possessing a speed-detection jamming device is prohibited, a simple misdemeanor under the chapter's general penalty section (321.482); the device is also subject to seizure and forfeiture (321.232(3)). Peace-officer use and FCC-legal equipment are excluded. |
| Kansas | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Minnesota | Legal | Banned | Minn. Stat. 169.14, subd. 12 | Selling, offering for sale, using, or possessing a radar jammer is prohibited statewide. See the mounting section above for a separate windshield-placement caveat that applies to detectors specifically. |
| Missouri | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Nebraska | Legal | Banned | Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,274 to 60-6,276 | Titled a "radar transmission device" law, but its operative definition targets interference devices, not passive detectors. Operating or possessing, not just using, one is unlawful. |
| North Dakota | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| South Dakota | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
Southern states
The tables below cover 16 states in the South, plus the District of Columbia.
South Atlantic states
The table below covers 8 South Atlantic states, plus the District of Columbia.
| State | Radar detectors | Laser/radar jammers | Section | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delaware | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| District of Columbia | Likely banned (unconfirmed) | Likely banned (unconfirmed) | 18 DCMR 736 | The official regulations host (dcregs.dc.gov) lists section 18-736, titled Radar Detectors and Jammers; the operative text of 736.1 to 736.3 sits behind a document viewer and was not retrieved, so the rule is stated as likely rather than confirmed. |
| Florida | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Georgia | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Maryland | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| North Carolina | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| South Carolina | Legal | Banned | S.C. Code 56-5-3870 | Misdemeanor, up to a 1,000 dollar fine, for equipping a vehicle with or using a device that jams, scrambles, neutralizes, disables, or interferes with police radar or laser. |
| Virginia | Banned | Banned (same statute) | Va. Code 46.2-1079 | Unlawful to operate a vehicle equipped with, use, or sell any device, passive or active, that detects or interferes with police radar or laser. Mere presence is prima facie evidence of a violation. |
| West Virginia | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
East South Central states
The table below covers 4 East South Central states.
| State | Radar detectors | Laser/radar jammers | Section | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Kentucky | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Mississippi | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Tennessee | Legal | Banned | Tenn. Code 39-16-610 | Tiered offense: possessing or selling a jammer, or driving with one inside, is a Class C misdemeanor; actively using one to interfere with police radar or laser is a Class B misdemeanor, up to 6 months. FCC-legal equipment is excluded. |
West South Central states
The table below covers 4 West South Central states.
| State | Radar detectors | Laser/radar jammers | Section | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arkansas | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Louisiana | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Oklahoma | Legal (banned in commercial vehicles) | Banned | 47 Okla. Stat. 11-808 (jammers); 11-808.1 (commercial-vehicle detectors) | Two separate rules. Section 11-808 bans jammers for every driver in every vehicle. Section 11-808.1 bans detectors only in commercial motor vehicles, mirroring the federal CMV rule. Passenger-car detectors are legal. |
| Texas | Legal | Banned | Tex. Transp. Code 547.616 | Class C misdemeanor to use, install, operate, or sell a radar interference device (the statute names jammer, scrambler, and diffuser). CB and ham radio equipment is excluded. |
Western states
The tables below cover 13 states in the West.
Mountain states
The table below covers 8 Mountain states.
| State | Radar detectors | Laser/radar jammers | Section | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Colorado | Legal | Banned | C.R.S. 42-4-1415 | Class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense to use, possess, sell, or drive with a jamming device inside the vehicle. FCC-legal equipment (CB, ham radio) is excluded. |
| Idaho | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Montana | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Nevada | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| New Mexico | Legal (banned in commercial vehicles) | Not researched | NMSA 65-3-9; penalty table at NMSA 66-8-116.2 | NMSA 65-3-9 directs the director of motor transportation to adopt commercial-motor-vehicle equipment regulations no more stringent than federal safety standards; those adopted regulations bring the federal detector ban into New Mexico practice, enforced under a 50 dollar penalty-assessment line item (NMSA 66-8-116.2). Ordinary passenger vehicles are unrestricted. |
| Utah | Legal | Banned | Utah Code 41-6a-609 | Infraction to drive with a radar jamming device inside the vehicle, or to knowingly use one to interfere with police radar or laser. Affirmative defense if the device was inoperative at the time. |
| Wyoming | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
Pacific states
The table below covers 5 Pacific states.
| State | Radar detectors | Laser/radar jammers | Section | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| California | Legal | Banned | Cal. Veh. Code 28150 | Infraction (misdemeanor for 4 or more devices) to equip, use, buy, possess, manufacture, sell, or distribute a jamming device. Passive detectors are legal. |
| Hawaii | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Oregon | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
| Washington | Legal | Legal | N/A | No radar-detector or jammer statute identified (as of September 2026). |
Penalties: what happens if you're caught
Penalty severity for the jammer-ban states varies enormously, from an infraction to a felony. Iowa makes a violation a simple misdemeanor under the chapter's general penalty (Iowa Code 321.482), and additionally subjects the device to seizure and forfeiture under 321.232(3). Illinois treats it as a petty offense with a minimum fine of $50 for a first offense and $100 for a second or subsequent offense, not a capped range, and its statute specifically bars officers from stopping or searching a vehicle solely on suspicion of that violation. Colorado and Tennessee sit at misdemeanor level: Colorado's is a Class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense, and Tennessee tiers the offense from a Class C misdemeanor for mere possession up to a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months, for actively using a jammer against police radar. South Carolina's misdemeanor carries a fine up to 1,000 dollars. Indiana stands alone at the top of the scale: a Level 6 felony, escalating to Level 5 if the jamming targets critical infrastructure or public-safety communications, is the most severe penalty identified anywhere in this research.
Virginia and DC work differently, since their statutes reach the detector itself rather than only a jamming device. In Virginia, simply having a covered device in the car is prima facie evidence of a violation of Va. Code 46.2-1079, shifting the practical burden onto the driver to show the narrow no-power-source, not-readily-accessible defense. DC's penalty framework could not be independently verified from primary source this session, for the reasons explained above.
Federal enforcement of the commercial-vehicle detector ban under 49 CFR 392.71 runs through the motor-carrier safety compliance system rather than an ordinary traffic-ticket penalty schedule, and applies uniformly regardless of which state the commercial vehicle is operating in. A related question, traffic camera ticket exposure, and broader DUI stop procedure, are governed by entirely separate statutes from anything on this page.
Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about radar detector and laser jammer laws in the United States as of September 2026. It covers federal law (49 CFR 392.71, 47 U.S.C. 333) and the laws of all 50 states and the District of Columbia as identified through primary-source legal research; it is not legal advice. Laws change, and enforcement can vary by jurisdiction and by officer. If you are facing a citation or have a specific legal question about your situation, consult a lawyer licensed in your state.
Related articles
- Windshield mounting restrictions
- Window tint laws
- Dashcam legality and privacy laws
- Traffic camera ticket laws
- DUI laws
Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of September 16, 2026. Last updated: September 16, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are radar detectors legal in my state?
Yes, in 49 of the 50 states. Virginia bans radar detectors outright under Va. Code 46.2-1079, and Washington DC likely bans them under a municipal regulation. In every other state, passive detectors are legal for ordinary passenger vehicles, though at least 12 states separately ban laser or radar jammers. Check the full state-by-state table above for your state.
Is it illegal to have a radar detector in your car?
Only in Virginia, where mere presence of the device is prima facie evidence of a violation, and likely in Washington DC. In the other 49 states, owning and using a passive radar detector in a passenger vehicle is legal, subject to state jammer bans that reach only active interference devices; DC's status is unconfirmed.
Are laser jammers legal?
Not in at least 12 states. California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah all ban radar jammers, and most of them laser jammers as well, even though passive radar detectors remain legal in every one of those states. Virginia and DC fold jammer coverage into their broader detector bans.
Can you get a ticket just for having a radar detector?
In most states, no, since a passive detector by itself is not independently illegal. In Virginia, simple presence of the device is prima facie evidence of a violation. In commercial motor vehicles nationwide, having a radar detector at all violates 49 CFR 392.71 regardless of use.
Are radar detectors legal in commercial trucks?
No. Federal law, 49 CFR 392.71, bans radar detectors in commercial motor vehicles, with no exception in the rule itself for the driver or the motor carrier; it applies to CMVs in interstate commerce and, through state adoption of the federal safety regulations, to intrastate CMVs in every state. New York, Oklahoma, and New Mexico separately write a version of this rule into state law for covered heavy or commercial vehicles.
Where can I mount a radar detector legally?
General windshield-obstruction rules, not radar-detector-specific rules, govern this. Minnesota's exception list for objects near the windshield does not include radar detectors, and California's windshield-obstruction statute does not name them either, so a suction-mounted unit sitting directly in the driver's sightline carries some placement risk in those states. See the windshield mounting restrictions page for the general rule.
Will a radar detector get you pulled over?
No primary source in this research addresses general police practice around detector possession alone. What is sourced: in Virginia, presence of the device is prima facie evidence of a violation, which is a legal standard rather than a stop-justification rule. Illinois's jammer statute specifically bars officers from stopping or searching a vehicle solely on suspicion of that particular violation. Outside ban states and CMVs, passive possession of a detector is not itself illegal.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Code of Federal Regulations Title 49
§ 392.71Radar detectors; use and/or possession.In force
(a) No driver shall use a radar detector in a commercial motor vehicle, or operate a commercial motor vehicle that is equipped with or contains any radar detector. (b) No motor carrier shall require or permit a driver to violate paragraph (a) of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2006
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc. v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2006, 471 F.3d 1350)“…noise emissions, 49 C.F.R §§ 325.1-325.93, radar detectors, 49 C.F.R § 392.71, and records storage, 49 C.F.R § 379.5.…”
- United States v. Michael James Knight (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2002, 306 F.3d 534)“…arrier Safety Administration regulations and Iowa law See 49 C.F.R. § 392.71 (a); Iowa Code § 321.449 ; Iowa Admini…”
- Commonwealth v. Petroll (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1999, 558 Pa. 565)“…5/6/96, at p. 29; N.T. Trial, 5/10/96, at p. 235); see 49 C.F.R. § 392.71 . See also 67 Pa.Code §§ 229.181, 231…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 383.5Definitions.In force
As used in this part: Administrator means the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, the chief executive of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, an agency within the Department of Transportation. Alcohol or alcoholic beverage means: (1) Beer as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5052(a), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, (2) Wine of not less than one-half of one per centum of alcohol by volume, or (3) Distilled spirits as defined in section 5002(a)(8), of such Code. Alcohol concentration (AC) means the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood or breath. When expressed as a percentage it means grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Alien means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 47 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Samson v. Federal Express Corp. (District Court, M.D. Florida 2012, 874 F. Supp. 2d 1360)“…al requirement of obtaining a commercial driver’s license. 49 C.F.R. §§ 383.5 , 390.3(b). The regulations broadly def…”
- Carl Daugherty v. The City of El Paso (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1995, 56 F.3d 695)“…medication. 2 . See 49 C.F.R. §§ 383.5 , 383.23, 383.71, 391.41 (1994). The ci…”
- Rizzo v. Children's World Learning Centers, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1996, 84 F.3d 758)“…tics from operating large trucks or buses. 49 C.F.R. §§ 383.5, 383.23, 383.71, 391.41 (1994); Daughe…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 390.5Definitions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
Unless specifically defined elsewhere, in this subchapter: Accident means— (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, an occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle operating on a highway in interstate or intrastate commerce which results in: (i) A fatality; (ii) Bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or (iii) One or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the accident, requiring the motor vehicle(s) to be transported away from the scene by a tow truck or other motor vehicle. (2) The term accident does not include: (i) An occurrence involving only boarding and alighting from a stationary motor vehicle; or (ii) An occurrence involving only the loading or unloading of cargo. Alcohol concentration (AC) means the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood or breath. When expressed as a percentage it means grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Assistant Administrator means the Assistant Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration or an authorized delegee.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 225 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Camp v. TNT Logistics Corp. (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2009, 553 F.3d 502)“…393.100 through 393.136 of this subchapter.” According to 49 C.F.R. § 390.5 , a “motor carrier” is “a for-hi…”
- Consumers County Mutual Insurance v. P.W. & Sons Trucking, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 2002, 307 F.3d 362)“…en it relied on a Department of Transportation regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 390.5, to determine whether Paillet was an “…”
- Cassara v. DAC Services, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2002, 276 F.3d 1210)“…om the scene by a tow truck or other motor vehicle. 49 C.F.R. § 390.5 (2000). The definition expressly exclud…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Windshield Mounting Laws
Code of Virginia, Title 46.2: Motor Vehicles
§ 46.2-1079Radar detectors; demerit points not to be awardedIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle on the highways of the Commonwealth when such vehicle is equipped with any device or mechanism, passive or active, to detect or purposefully interfere with or diminish the measurement capabilities of any radar, laser, or other device or mechanism employed by law-enforcement personnel to measure the speed of motor vehicles on the highways of the Commonwealth for law-enforcement purposes. It shall be unlawful to use any such device or mechanism on any such motor vehicle on the highways. It shall be unlawful to sell any such device or mechanism in the Commonwealth. However, provisions of this section shall not apply to any receiver of radio waves utilized for lawful purposes to receive any signal from a frequency lawfully licensed by any state or federal agency. This section shall not be construed to authorize the forfeiture to the Commonwealth of any such device or mechanism.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1994
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Christopher J. Brehany (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 1994, 39 F.3d 1178)“…gton Memorial Parkway in northern Virginia, in violation of Va.Code Ann. Sec. 46.2-1079 (Michie 1994), as assimilated by 36 C.F…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Dashboard Camera Legality and Privacy Laws: Is It Illegal to Use Dashcams in North America?
New York Vehicle and Traffic Law
§ 397-aRadar detectors and laser detectors prohibitedIn force
Radar detectors and laser detectors prohibited. 1. No radar detector or laser detector shall be used in any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than eighteen thousand pounds or in any commercial vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than ten thousand pounds. The presence in such vehicle of a radar detector or laser detector connected to a power source and in an operable condition is presumptive evidence of its use by any person operating such vehicle. Such presumption shall be rebutted by any credible and reliable evidence which tends to show that such radar detector or laser detector was not in use. 2. The provisions of this section shall not be construed as authorizing the seizure or forfeiture of a radar detector or laser detector, unless otherwise provided by law. 3. A violation of the provisions of this section shall constitute a traffic infraction punishable by a fine of not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1993
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Patricia S. Caldwell (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 1993, 989 F.2d 1056)“…do prohibit use of radar detectors, e.g., N.Y.Veh. & Traf.Law § 397-a (only in vehicles weighing over 18,000…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Oklahoma Statutes, Title 47: MOTOR VEHICLES
§ 11-808.1Unlawful acts - Radar detectorsIn force
It shall be unlawful for any person to: 1. Possess, operate or use a radar detector while operating or as a passenger in a commercial motor vehicle; 2. Operate a commercial motor vehicle in which a radar detector is installed or present; or 3. Install or have installed a radar detector in a commercial motor vehicle. Added by Laws 2012, c. 207, § 5, emerg. eff. May 8, 2012.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oklegislature.gov
§ 11-808Jammers and speed measuring devices - Use, possession,In force
manufacture, sale or distribution prohibited - Exemption. A. As used in this section: 1. "Jammer" means any instrument, device, or equipment designed or intended for use with a vehicle or otherwise to jam or interfere with in any manner a speed measuring device operated by a law enforcement officer in the vicinity; and 2. "Speed measuring device" shall include, but is not limited to, devices commonly known as radar speed meters or laser speed meters. B. It shall be unlawful for any person to use or possess a jammer. C. It shall be unlawful to manufacture, advertise or offer for sale, sell or otherwise distribute any jammer in this state. D. This section shall not apply to any person who lawfully possesses a license issued by the Federal Communications Commission for the use of a jammer. Added by Laws 1981, c. 270, § 1. Amended by Laws 2003, c. 411, § 14, eff. Nov. 1, 2003.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oklegislature.gov
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 750.508Equipping vehicle with radio able to receive signals on frequencies assigned for police or certain other purposes; violation; penalties; radar detectors not applicableIn force
(1) A person who has been convicted of 1 or more felonies during the preceding 5 years shall not carry or have in his or her possession a radio receiving set that will receive signals sent on a frequency assigned by the federal communications commission of the United States for police or other law enforcement, fire fighting, emergency medical, federal, state, or local corrections, or homeland security purposes. This subsection does not apply to a person who is licensed as an amateur radio operator by the federal communications commission. A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both. (2) A person shall not carry or have in his or her possession in the commission or attempted commission of a crime a radio receiving set that will receive signals sent on a frequency assigned by the federal communications commission of the United States for police or other law enforcement, fire fighting, emergency medical, federal, state, or local corrections, or homeland security purposes.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2018
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Gilbert (Michigan Supreme Court 1982, 414 Mich. 191)“…to determine whether the defendant can be prosecuted under MCL 750.508; MSA 28.776 for equipping his motor veh…”
- People v. Burkes (Michigan Court of Appeals 1982, 113 Mich. App. 674)“…ter” radar-detecting device, contrary to the prohibition of MCL 750.508; MSA 28.776. The trial court dismissed…”
- People v. Kremko (Michigan Court of Appeals 1974, 52 Mich. App. 565)“…perating police radio in a motor vehicle without a license (MCLA 750.508; MSA 28.776). A pat-down search was the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 66
§ 66-8-116.2Penalty assessment misdemeanors; Motor Carrier ActIn force
As used in the Motor Vehicle Code and the Motor Carrier Act [Chapter 65, Article 2A NMSA 1978], "penalty assessment misdemeanor" means, in addition to the definitions of that term in Sections 66-8-116 and 66-8-116.1 NMSA 1978, violation of the following listed sections of the NMSA 1978 for which, except as provided in Subsection E of this section, the listed penalty is established: A. GENERAL COMMON NAME OF OFFENSE SECTION VIOLATED PENALTY ASSESSMENT $300.00 Failure to register 300.00 motor carrier 66-3-1.1 300.00 500.00 Failure to carry tax 1,000.00 identification 50.00 permit 65-1-26 50.00 Failure of motor carrier 50.00 100.00 to comply with weight distance 100.00.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 42: Vehicles and Traffic
§ 42-4-1415Radar jamming devices prohibited - penaltyIn force
(1) (a) No person shall use, possess, or sell a radar jamming device. (b) No person shall operate a motor vehicle with a radar jamming device in the motor vehicle. (2) (a) For purposes of this section, radar jamming device means any active or passive device, instrument, mechanism, or equipment that is designed or intended to interfere with, disrupt, or scramble the radar or laser that is used by law enforcement agencies and peace officers to measure the speed of motor vehicles. Radar jamming device includes but is not limited to devices commonly referred to as jammers or scramblers. (b) For purposes of this section, radar jamming device shall not include equipment that is legal under FCC regulations, such as a citizens' band radio, ham radio, or any other similar electronic equipment. (3) Radar jamming devices are subject to seizure by any peace officer and may be confiscated and destroyed by order of the court in which a violation of this section is charged. (4) A violation of subsection (1) of this section is a class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense, punishable as provided in section 42-4-1701 (3)(a)(II)(A).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Iowa Code, Chapter 321: MOTOR VEHICLES AND LAW OF THE ROAD
§ 321.232Speed detection jamming devices — penalty.In force
1. A person shall not sell, operate, or possess a speed detection jamming device, except as otherwise provided in this section, when the device is in a vehicle operated on the highways of this state or the device is held for sale in this state. 2. This section does not apply to speed measuring devices purchased by, held for purchase for, or operated by peace officers using the devices in performance of their official duties. 3. A speed detection jamming device sold, operated, or possessed in violation of subsection 1 may be seized by a peace officer and is subject to forfeiture as provided by chapter 809 or 809A. 4. For the purposes of this section: a. “Speed detection jamming device” means any active or passive device, instrument, mechanism, or equipment that is designed or intended to interfere with, disrupt, or scramble the radar or laser that is used by a peace officer to measure the speed of motor vehicles. “Speed detection jamming device” does not include equipment that is legal under federal communications commission regulations, such as a citizens’ band radio, a ham radio, or other similar electronic equipment. b.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
§ 321.482Violations — simple misdemeanors unless otherwise provided.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
It is a simple misdemeanor for a person to do an act forbidden or to fail to perform an act required by this chapter unless the violation is by this chapter or other law of this state declared to be a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or a felony. Chapter 232 has no application in the prosecution of offenses committed in violation of this chapter which are simple misdemeanors.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Howe (Supreme Court of Iowa 2005, 706 N.W.2d 360)“…d plead guilty to the amended citation. 2 See generally Iowa Code § 321.482 (2005) (stating violations of chapter…”
- State v. Cooley (Supreme Court of Iowa 1998, 587 N.W.2d 752)“…ode section 321.25, a simple misdemeanor. See Iowa Code § 321.482 (violation of any act governed by chap…”
- State v. Hartog (Supreme Court of Iowa 1989, 440 N.W.2d 852)“…provisions of Iowa Code section 321.555. See Iowa Code §§ 321.482 , 321.555(2), 805.-8(2)(c). Befo…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, Iowa Windshield Mounting Laws (2026 Guide)
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 169: TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
§ 169.14SPEED LIMITS, ZONES; RADARIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Duty to drive with due care. No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions. Every driver is responsible for becoming and remaining aware of the actual and potential hazards then existing on the highway and must use due care in operating a vehicle. In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care. Subd. 1a. License revocation for extreme speed. The driver's license of a person who violates any speed limit established in this section, by driving in excess of 100 miles per hour, is revoked for six months under section 171.17, or for a longer minimum period of time applicable under section 169A.53, 169A.54, or 171.174. Subd. 2. Speed limits.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 53 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1988, 422 N.W.2d 713)“…h to the Saltzman Resort. This request was made pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 169.14, subd. 5 (1986), which provides:…”
- State v. Loge (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2000, 608 N.W.2d 152)“…intent to prove a violation of the statute. See generally Minn.Stat. § 169.14 (1998) (speeding); Butler v. Engel,…”
- State v. Stone (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1997, 572 N.W.2d 725)“…iver's license (Minn.Stat. § 171.27 (1996)); 6. Speeding (Minn.Stat. § 169.14 (1996)); 7. Driving with no seat belt…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Reckless Driving Laws: Penalties, Racing and License Rules, Minnesota Traffic Camera Ticket Laws: The 2025-2029 Pilot Program Explained
§ 169.71WINDSHIELDIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Prohibitions generally; exceptions. (a) A person shall not drive or operate any motor vehicle with: (1) a windshield cracked or discolored to an extent to limit or obstruct proper vision; (2) any objects suspended between the driver and the windshield, other than: (i) sun visors; (ii) rearview mirrors; (iii) driver feedback and safety monitoring equipment when mounted immediately behind, slightly above, or slightly below the rearview mirror; (iv) global positioning systems or navigation systems when mounted or located near the bottommost portion of the windshield; (v) electronic toll collection devices; and (vi) an identifying device as provided in section 169.58, subdivision 5, when the device is mounted or located near the bottommost portion of the windshield; or (3) any sign, poster, or other nontransparent material upon the front windshield, sidewings, or side or rear windows of the vehicle, other than a certificate or other paper required to be so displayed by law or authorized by the state director of the Division of Emergency Management or the commissioner of public safety. (b) Paragraph (a), clauses (2) and (3), do not apply to law enforcement vehicles.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-07 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Varnado (1998) treated a Minn. Stat. 169.71 windshield violation as probable cause to stop but held it is only a petty misdemeanor that did not justify a frisk. State v. Smith (2002) assumed without deciding that the tinted window subdivision was unconstitutional and held the exclusionary rule still did not bar the evidence.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Smith (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2002, 652 N.W.2d 546)✓A deputy stopped a car he could not see through for excessive tint under Minn. Stat. 169.71, subd. 4; the court assumed without deciding that the tint statute violated equal protection and held the exclusionary rule did not reach the evidence found after the stop.
- Gerding v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2001, 628 N.W.2d 197)✓An officer stopped Gerding after seeing an object hanging from her rear vision mirror; the court read the then-current Minn. Stat. 169.71, subd. 1 to bar any suspended object except sun visors and mirrors, whether or not it obstructed vision, so the stop was justified.
- State v. Varnado (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1998, 582 N.W.2d 886)✓Officers stopped Varnado for a cracked windshield and frisked her before seating her in a squad car; the court called that Minn. Stat. 169.71 violation a petty misdemeanor that justified the stop but not the frisk, and reinstated the suppression order.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use, Minnesota Window Tint Laws (2026): Legal VLT Limits, Minnesota Windshield Mounting Laws (2026 Guide)
South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 56: MOTOR VEHICLES
§ 56-5-3870Motor vehicle speed detection jamming devicesIn force
(A) It is unlawful for a motor vehicle to be equipped with or for an operator of a motor vehicle to employ any device that is designed for jamming, scrambling, neutralizing, disabling, or interfering with radar, laser, or any other electronic device used by a law enforcement agency to measure the speed of a motor vehicle. (B) A person who violates a provision contained in this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one thousand dollars.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov
Utah Code, Title 41: Motor Vehicles
§ 41-6a-609Radar jamming devices and jamming radar prohibited -- Defense -- Exceptions -- Penalties.In force
(1) As used in this section, "radar jamming device" means any instrument or mechanism designed or intended to interfere with the radar or any laser that is used by law enforcement personnel to measure the speed of a motor vehicle on a highway. (2) (a) A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway with a radar jamming device in the motor vehicle. (b) A person may not knowingly use a radar jamming device to interfere with the radar signals or lasers used by law enforcement personnel to measure the speed of a motor vehicle on a highway. (3) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under Subsection (2)(a) that the radar jamming device was in an inoperative condition or could not be readily used at the time of the arrest or citation. (4) This section does not apply to law enforcement personnel acting in their official capacity. (5) A person who violates this section is guilty of an infraction.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
United States Code Title 47
§ 333Willful or malicious interferenceIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Robert Johnson v. American Towers, LLC (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2015, 781 F.3d 693)“…s without authorization from the FCC. 47 U.S.C. § 333. (“No person shall willfully or maliciou…”
- United States v. Gerritsen (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2009)“…e with a licensed or authorized radio communica- tion under 47 U.S.C. § 333; and (3) three counts of transmit- ting…”
- United States v. Baxter (District Court, D. Maine 2012, 841 F. Supp. 2d 378)“…unications or signal.” 47 C.F.R. § 97.101 (d); see also 47 U.S.C. § 333 . The forfeiture amount for intentional…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: How to Detect and Block Listening Devices in Your Home (2026)
California Vehicle Code
§ 26708In forcecited in 7 of our articles
(a) (1) A person shall not drive any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied upon the windshield or side or rear windows. (2) A person shall not drive any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied in or upon the vehicle that obstructs or reduces the driver’s clear view through the windshield or side windows. (3) This subdivision applies to a person driving a motor vehicle with the driver’s clear vision through the windshield, or side or rear windows, obstructed by snow or ice. (b) This section does not apply to any of the following: (1) Rearview mirrors. (2) Adjustable nontransparent sunvisors that are mounted forward of the side windows and are not attached to the glass.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-07 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 56 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):California courts read section 26708(a)(2) to require an objective basis that an object actually obstructed the driver's view. People v. White (2003) held an air freshener on a mirror did not justify a stop where the officer never said it blocked his view; People v. Colbert (2007) found such a basis on fuller testimony.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. White (California Court of Appeal 2003, 132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 371)✓An officer stopped a car for a tree-shaped air freshener on the mirror; the court held section 26708(a)(1) does not reach an object not affixed on the windshield, and that with no testimony the view was obstructed there was no reasonable basis under subdivision (a)(2).
- People v. Colbert (California Court of Appeal 2007, 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 912)✓An officer stopped a car for a 4.75-inch tree air freshener on the mirror and testified from his own experience how an object that size hides cars and pedestrians; the court held that testimony gave an objectively reasonable basis under section 26708(a)(2).
- Klarfeld v. State of California (California Court of Appeal 1983, 142 Cal. App. 3d 541)✓A tint installer and car owners challenged sections 26708 and 26708.5 as vague; the court held the terms are not unconstitutionally vague and declared applied tint may not go on the windshield or front side windows, but may go behind the driver if the car has required mirrors.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: California Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), Window Tint Laws by State (2026): Legal VLT Limits, California Window Tint Laws (2026): Legal VLT Limits
§ 28150In force
(a) No vehicle shall be equipped with any device that is designed for, or is capable of, jamming, scrambling, neutralizing, disabling, or otherwise interfering with radar, laser, or any other electronic device used by a law enforcement agency to measure the speed of moving objects. (b) No person shall use, buy, possess, manufacture, sell, or otherwise distribute any device that is designed for jamming, scrambling, neutralizing, disabling, or otherwise interfering with radar, laser, or any other electronic device used by a law enforcement agency to measure the speed of moving objects. (c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), a violation of subdivision (a) or (b) is an infraction. (d) When a person possesses four or more devices in violation of subdivision (b), the person is guilty of a misdemeanor. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has a valid federal license for operating the devices described in this section may transport one or more of those devices if the license is carried in the vehicle transporting the device at all times when the device is being transported.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Code of the District of Columbia, Title 50: Motor and Non-Motor Vehicles and Traffic. - Chapter 14: Operators’ Permits and Identification Cards. - Subchapter I: General.
§ 50-1401.01Fee; examination; age requirements; lost permits; provisions for armed forces personnel; contents; operation without permit prohibited; restrictions for minors.In force
(1) The Mayor is authorized to issue a new or renewed motor vehicle operator’s permit, valid for a period not to exceed 8 years plus any time period prior to the expiration date of a previous license not to exceed 2 months, to any individual 17 years of age or older, subject to the following conditions and any other conditions the Mayor may prescribe to protect the public: (A) The applicant shall pay an application fee of $30, which may be increased by the Mayor to compensate the District for processing and evaluating the application and issuing the permit. Alternatively, the Mayor is authorized to prorate existing fees to correspond to the duration of the license issued. (i) Effective October 1, 2015, an applicant for an operator’s permit shall pay an application fee of $47, which the Mayor may increase or decrease to compensate the District for processing and evaluating the application and issuing the permit. The Mayor may prorate the fee to correspond to the duration of the license issued. (ii) Repealed. (iii) Repealed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lucas Wall v. Lucinda Barbers (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2014, 82 A.3d 794)“…t unless they have obtained a new license through renewal. D.C. Code § 50-1401.01 (a)(1). The DMV is given broad discret…”
- Jerome Bradley v. District of Columbia (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2015, 107 A.3d 586)“…v. Hamid, 531 A.2d 628, 643 (D.C. 1987). 2 D.C. Code § 50-1401.01 (d) (2001). 3 D.C. Code…”
- Carper v. District of Columbia (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2025)“…disagreed and found Mr. Carper guilty, concluding that (1) D.C. Code § 50-1401.01(d) prohibits driving in the District of…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 65
§ 65-3-9Commercial motor vehicles; equipment; regulationsIn force
The director shall adopt regulations not inconsistent with or more stringent than applicable federal safety standards concerning the following parts and accessories necessary for the safe operation of a commercial motor carrier: A. lighting devices, reflectors and electrical equipment; B. brake systems and performance; C. glazing and window obstructions; D. fuel systems; E. coupling devices and towing methods; F. tires and wheels; G. heaters; H. exhaust systems; I. frames and body components; J. suspension systems; K. steering systems; L. cargo securement; M. emergency safety equipment; and N. any other miscellaneous parts and accessories he deems necessary.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Texas Transportation Code
§ 547.616RADAR INTERFERENCE DEVICES; OFFENSEIn force
(a) In this section, "radar interference device" means a device, a mechanism, an instrument, or equipment that is designed, manufactured, used, or intended to be used to interfere with, scramble, disrupt, or otherwise cause to malfunction a radar or laser device used to measure the speed of a motor vehicle by a law enforcement agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state, including a "radar jamming device," "jammer," "scrambler," or "diffuser." The term does not include a ham radio, band radio, or similar electronic device. (b) A person, other than a law enforcement officer in the discharge of the officer's official duties, may not use, attempt to use, install, operate, or attempt to operate a radar interference device in a motor vehicle operated by the person. (c) A person may not purchase, sell, or offer for sale a radar interference device to be used in a manner described by Subsection (b). (d) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this subsection is a Class C misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Code of Federal Regulations Title 47
§ 15.101Equipment authorization of unintentional radiators.In force
(a) Except as otherwise exempted in §§ 15.23, 15.103, and 15.113, unintentional radiators shall be authorized prior to the initiation of marketing, pursuant to the procedures for certification or Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) given in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter, as follows: Table 1 to Paragraph (a) Type of device Equipment authorization required TV Broadcast Receiver SDoC or Certification. FM Broadcast Receiver SDoC or Certification. CB Receiver SDoC or Certification. Superregenerative Receiver SDoC or Certification. Scanning Receiver Certification. Radar Detector Certification. All other receivers subject to Part 15 SDoC or Certification. TV Interface Device SDoC or Certification. Cable System Terminal Device SDoC or Certification. Stand-alone Cable input selector switch SDoC or Certification. Class B personal computers and peripherals SDoC or Certification. CPU boards and internal power supplies used with Class B personal computers SDoC or Certification. Class B personal computers assembled using authorized CPU boards or power supplies SDoC or Certification. Class B external switching power supplies SDoC or Certification.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
§ 15.3Definitions.In force
(a) Auditory assistance device. An intentional radiator used to provide auditory assistance communications (including but not limited to applications such as assistive listening, auricular training, audio description for the blind, and simultaneous language translation) for: (1) Persons with disabilities: In the context of part 15 rules (47 CFR part 15), the term “disability,” with respect to the individual, has the meaning given to it by section 3(2)(A) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A)), i.e., a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individuals; (2) Persons who require language translation; or (3) Persons who may otherwise benefit from auditory assistance communications in places of public gatherings, such as a church, theater, auditorium, or educational institution. (b) Biomedical telemetry device. An intentional radiator used to transmit measurements of either human or animal biomedical phenomena to a receiver. (c) Cable input selector switch.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2008, 524 F.3d 227)“…ts or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service.” 47 C.F.R. § 15.3(m). The rules governing unlicensed devi…”
- Rocky Mountain Radar, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1998, 158 F.3d 1118)“…generates and emits radio frequency energy, as defined in 47 C.F.R. § 15.3(o). 3 A…”
- Radar Solutions, Ltd. v. United States Federal Communications Commission (District Court, W.D. Texas 2009, 628 F. Supp. 2d 714)“…t the Spirit II constituted an “intentional radiator” under 47 C.F.R. 15.3(o) and did not qualify for any exemptio…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Sources and References
- 49 CFR 392.71 - Radar detectors banned in commercial motor vehicles(ecfr.gov).gov
- 49 CFR 390.5 - Commercial motor vehicle definition (10,001+ lbs GVWR/GCWR, 8+ paid or 15+ unpaid passengers, or placarded hazmat; below the 26,001 lb CDL threshold at 49 CFR 383.5)(law.cornell.edu)
- NMSA 65-3-9 - New Mexico rulemaking delegation directing the director of motor transportation to adopt CMV equipment regulations no more stringent than federal safety standards (does not itself name radar detectors)(nmonesource.com).gov
- NMSA 66-8-116.2 - New Mexico penalty-assessment schedule, including the $50.00 line item for possession of a radar detector in a commercial motor carrier vehicle(nmonesource.com).gov
- N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law 397-a - Radar detectors restricted in heavy and commercial vehicles(legislation.nysenate.gov).gov
- 47 Okla. Stat. 11-808.1 - Radar detectors banned in commercial motor vehicles(oklegislature.gov).gov
- 47 U.S.C. 333 - Federal prohibition on willful interference with licensed radio communications(uscode.house.gov).gov
- 47 CFR 15.3(ee) - FCC definition of a radar detector as a Part 15 receiver(ecfr.gov).gov
- Va. Code 46.2-1079 - Virginia ban on radar detectors and interference devices(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
- D.C. Code 50-1401.01(a) - driver's license fee and exam statute, confirmed unrelated to radar detectors despite being widely miscited(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- 18 DCMR 736, "RADAR DETECTORS AND JAMMERS" - section number and title confirmed on the official DC Office of Documents and Administrative Issuances regulations site; operative subsection text (736.1-736.3) sits behind that site's document viewer and was not independently retrieved this session(dcregs.dc.gov).gov
- 18 DCMR 736 - secondary-source mirror of the reported subsection breakdown (sale ban / use-and-possession ban / Armed Forces exemption); mirror returned HTTP 503 this session and was not opened(dcrules.elaws.us)
- Cal. Veh. Code 28150 - California ban on radar/laser jamming devices(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- C.R.S. 42-4-1415 - Colorado ban on radar jamming devices; subsection (4) classifies a violation as a class 2 misdemeanor TRAFFIC offense under 42-4-1701(3)(a)(II)(A), a distinct, lighter classification from a plain class 2 misdemeanor(olls.info).gov
- 625 ILCS 5/12-613 - Illinois ban on radar or laser jamming devices; subsection (c) sets a minimum fine of $50 for a first offense and $100 for a second or subsequent offense (statutory minimums, not a capped range); subsection (d) makes device seizure mandatory(ilga.gov).gov
- Ind. Code 35-45-2-6 - Indiana signal jammer law including police radar(iga.in.gov).gov
- Iowa Code 321.232 (ban and seizure/forfeiture under 321.232(3)) and 321.482 (general chapter penalty: a violation is a simple misdemeanor) - Iowa ban on speed-detection jamming devices(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. 169.14, subd. 12 - Minnesota ban on radar jammers(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,274 to 60-6,276 - Nebraska ban on radar interference devices(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- 47 Okla. Stat. 11-808 - Oklahoma ban on radar/laser jamming devices for all vehicles(oklegislature.gov).gov
- S.C. Code 56-5-3870 - South Carolina ban on radar/laser jamming devices(scstatehouse.gov).gov
- Tenn. Code 39-16-610: Tennessee ban on laser/radar jammers (text from the recordinglaw statute corpus; Tennessee publishes its code through LexisNexis, official public portal)(lexisnexis.com)
- Tex. Transp. Code 547.616 - Texas ban on radar interference devices(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Utah Code 41-6a-609 - Utah ban on radar jamming devices(le.utah.gov).gov
- MCL 750.508(4) - Michigan statutory exemption for radar detectors(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. 169.71, subd. 1 - Minnesota windshield obstruction exceptions, radar detectors not listed(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Cal. Veh. Code 26708 - California windshield obstruction exceptions, radar detectors not listed(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov