Help with argument that Seat Belt laws are unconstitutional?

1/3/03 | Richard Brengman

[exit82]

Thanks for the belly laugh! Sounds like a one time shot at boosting the economy if you're not careful!

[Gerish]

Ah yes, the seatbelt law - the best way for our law enforcement officers to make revenue for the State. Never mind that man who just robbed the bank, we need to ticket drivers who are not wearing their seatbelt!!!!!!

Okay my rant is over. Find yourself a lawyer and get the ticket reduced. It probably is your first offense so it should not be a problem. I would rather pay a lawyer than pay the State for such a ridiculous law. Most of the time the Judge will have sympathy for a first offense. I guess the problem people have with this law is Big Brother telling us what to do - AGAIN. Watch....next we will all have to wear helmets when we drive!

[AUH2OY2K]

Please don't kill the messenger, but in all likelihood the court will not entertain your arguments. If you live in Clark County, NV, you can pay a minimal fine and move on. Almost all moving violations can be reduced to parking tickets. It is just a mill here. (I'm licensed in NV, TX, PA, and the Federal District Court)

[Richard-SIA]

A little over a year ago I rolled my Land-Rover after hitting some unexpected black ice.

The top was torn off the vehicle, the same top that the shoulder belt attaches to.
If I had been wearing the seat belt I would have broken my neck, or been decapitated.
As it was I escaped virtually uninjured. Seat belts and helmets MAY diminish injuries, or they may prove fatal, all depending on too many variables to calculate.

Gov. Org. has no business dictating my choice for me.

[TheCrusader]

"So next time, buckle up. If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime!"

Cute reply, but who would have ever thought that not wearing a seat belt would become a crime? Talk about the State becoming our surrogate parent. It's just a money making taxation scam and we all know that. The "state" could care less about anyone's safety. Witness the fact that they legalize cigaretts and booze, and they make a bootle from taxing these deadly toxins. In Massachusetts the police have over 8,000 reasons to stop a vehicle, this is just one more way to bring in the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[Richard-SIA]

I wear the ones I install in my own cars, four point Fuller race harness, but this was Mom's car with the stupid design factory belts.
I know for a fact that factory belts are not a safe design, I know of too many fatalities they have caused.

I share your attitude with being coerced, civil disobediance has a long tradition in this country.

[nunya bidness]

You could argue the "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment. Namely, that certain citizens are exempted from seat belt laws.

It's been argued and ruled in favor of the defendent, but in the case that I know of the judge was aware that the defendent was ready to appeal up after losing.

[WackyKat]

I suggest that you question the court's jurisdiction on the grounds that, as your birth certificate spelled your name in all capital letters, that was the creation of a "corporate entity" or "Strawman" and that, as you have repudiated this "Strawman" by filing a revocation action with your county court clerk, you are no longer bound by the court's juridiction over said "Strawman".
And further, that you have put your self and all personal and real property into a "blind trust" pursuant to the common law and the Magna Carta, and thus are a "Sovereign Citizen" with alloidal title over yourself and are not subject to any 14th Amendment claims of any federal, state or local court.
Or you could just be smart and pay the stupid ticket.

[Porterville]

Check the forth amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Richard-SIA]

Actually, I was busy typing my notes for court.

Did'nt expect so many replies so quickly at this hour.

Check again, I have responded to several post.

[Dolphy]

I'm like that too. What the hell is wrong with us?

I am like that too. I believe it's ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder) which should make us eligible for special college admission consideration, grants and protection from hate crimes. ;)

[Richard-SIA]

This particular cop was, literally, hiding in the roadside bushes looking for someone to ticket!

I cannot accept such tactics as legitimate "Law Enforcement".

[John H K]

You seriously believe that if everyone in the country who had "factory" seat belts didn't use them, fatalities would be reduced?

[djf]

Absolutely not so. If the person has a "drivers license" he is contractually obligated to the State to follow all rules and regulations.

[TheBigB]

I'm not sure how exactl laws will vary from state to state, but in terms of legal precedent, the Illinois Supreme Court in 1996 said that seat belt laws are Constitutional.

From the Minnesota Safety Council website...

Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right, and therefore it can be regulated. Requiring seat belt use is no more an infringement on your rights than being required to turn on your headlights or use turn signals or stop at stop signs.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in the case of People vs Kohrig in 1986 that seat belt laws are constitutional. The court said, "A law whose aim is to reduce the private and public costs resulting from injuries and deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents is within the police power of the State. From the moment of injury, society picks the person up off the highway; delivers him to a municipal hospital and municipal doctors; provides him with unemployment compensation if, after recovery, he cannot replace his lost job, and if the injury causes permanent disability, may assume the responsibility for his and his family's continued subsistence. The law also promotes the economic welfare of the state by reducing the public costs associated with serious injuries and deaths caused by automobile accidents. Safety belt legislation will clearly save money. We are not talking about somebody's individual decision to end up in a car crash and find him or herself in a hospital for 20 years with that individual paying the bill. It's the taxpayers that are going to be paying those bills."

[Cultural Jihad]

Pay the fine and accept the consequences of your freewill actions, rather than trying to make whiney excuses for them. Leave that chore to the liberals.

[mvpel]

TOMORROW?? Why didn't you ask earlier????

Try for a continuance.

Meanwhile, I'll post the text of my brief in opposition here once I scare it up. It relies on Echazabal v. Chevron, a Supreme Court case where they established the principle that an individual is responsible for his own health care choices.

[mvpel]

Richard,

http://www.aidoann.com/pickup-ticket/

This is the incomplete web page of my case that I won for riding unbelted in the back of a pickup. The key document is the motion to dismiss. The judge denied it, but the cop didn't show up at the hearing and I won by default.

[Cultural Jihad]

... civil disobediance has a long tradition in this country.

And the central core of that tradition is to accept the consequences of your actions. Pay the fine and move on to more important things. Then, again, if your goal is to be unhappy, then by all means allow your ego to rule your domain.