Help with argument that Seat Belt laws are unconstitutional?

1/3/03 | Richard Brengman

[Richard-SIA]

First time, went to clerks office to answer the ticket, post "bail", and demand a court date.

Second time, expecting to have my day in court, I was instead sent to talk with the D.A., who then set my NEW court date.

Dec. 2 will be my third visit to the court system.

[AdamSelene235]

So do you believe having your can ransacked via the Terry doctrine is an unreasonable consequence of failing to wear a seatbeat?

[Phaedrus]

"If you just take the reaming and pay the fine, or plead "guilty with explanation", you are done immediatly (sic)."

Not correct. You may argue the law instead of the facts.

[Ready4Freddy]

You might address that to the person who posted it (wasn't moi :).

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't know what "Terry doctrine" you reference. Seat belt laws are not violations of the Constitution which was the initial question asked.

I don't believe the officer ticketing one for a seatbelt violation has the right to do anything else particularly "ransack" any cars.

[Phaedrus]

Yes, sorry, no offense intended.

I just attended my seat belt mitigation hearing yesterday afternoon and made my objections focusing on the law itself. The judge listened politely and told me if I didn't obey the law I would be ticketed and reduced my fine to $60 from $101. Next case. I ain't a happy camper and told the Clerk's Office as much when I paid my fine.

There is no way "the system" at the municipal court level is going to listen to reasoned argument. It's too much like making sausage, a messy process, in-and-out, be a good boy and pay your fine.

Here in WA there's some challenge to the law on the basis that it is "unconstitutionally vague", which is thechno-speak for "we need a legal excuse dump this turkey". This argument may appeal to the lawyers because it provides cover for "the system" but it leaves me cold.

I believe the challenge should be direct:
1. The law is an intrusion into the personal or private in the guise of "public safety". Law, by definition, exists to ensure peaceful and proper behavior between or among people.
2. Again and again throughout the country the courts at all levels have ruled that law enforcement agencies are not responsible for an individual's safety. This is usually in the context of someone who has been injured by a criminal or who feels 911 was too slow in responding. This legal position should be able to be used to defeat seat belt laws and helmet laws, it seems to me.

There is an initiative process in the state but so many of the people here tend to be sheep who don't understand that government knows only how to grow and that small tyrannies tend to become large ones over time. And they fail to see that there should be no monetary incentive for law enforcement to spend the taypayers' money levying fines, thus not only taxing the citizenry twice but spending their time and other resources not preventing crime, their primary responsibility. And the legislators who voted for this turkey law should be targeted for defeat.

But how can the people be made to understand that this corruption of the legal system leads to deeper and wider corruptions that can ultimately end in certified official tyranny?

My license and registration are current and I am insured, as required by the law. These laws make some public safety sense. It was a sunny, dry afternoon and I was plodding along on a neighborhood street at 25 miles per hour, minding my own business. And I was and am hot that some cop could stop me, red lights flashing, to ask "Is there some reason you're not wearing your seat belt?" Well, I don't need a reason ... and the horse you rode in on ... my humble but heartfelt opinion.

[AdamSelene235]

I don't believe the officer ticketing one for a seatbelt violation has the right to do anything else particularly "ransack" any cars.

Anytime one is detained (a level above a contact, and below an arrest) for a suspected crime, the officier can perform a Terry frisk (Terry vs. Ohio 1968) for his safety. Keeping in mind the 4th amendment only protects against "unreasonable" searches, Terry allows for a search of anything the detained could grab. In the case of a traffic stop, this includes a frisk of your person and a search of anything in reach of the driver and passengers.

So by criminalizing the failure to wear a seatbelt, you are essentially giving the police a tool to ransack any car occupied by a person who fails to wear a belt or in practice any person who they *claim* was not wearing a belt.

While I have never been arrested, I have lived in places where the WOD is in high gear such as downtown Atlanta. I have had my vehicle and person searched on several occasions during routine traffic stops occasionally at gunpoint. When you have a gun in your face and some guy is digging through your glove box without a warrant, you begin to get the crazy notion that something might be a wee bit wrong with this country.

[justshutupandtakeit]

While resident of as much a police state as is in the country where such activities have been going on for at least 100 yrs, Chicago, I have never had such difficulties as you describe. Only in the last decade here have women taken in to the stations been able to avoid a routine full body search.

Nor has the presence of the Terry doctrine had that much of a universal effect on the courts which routinely exclude any evidence seized in such searches. Seat belt violations are unlikely to change that even if they can cause enormous practical difficulties for any charged.

It is not likely that a such stops will be expanded into searches for reefer. While those made in proximity to high-traffic crack houses (which most citizens will be unaware of) could very well do just that.

You will not find me defending the WoSD (aka the dealer profit maximization process) or most of the abominal concommitants which accompany it.

[AdamSelene235]

While resident of as much a police state as is in the country where such activities have been going on for at least 100 yrs, Chicago, I have never had such difficulties as you describe.

You are in the wrong demographic for such treatment.

Nor has the presence of the Terry doctrine had that much of a universal effect on the courts which routinely exclude any evidence seized in such searches.

Items found in Terry searches are perfectly admissable in court. Only "unreasonable" warrantless searches are prohibited by the 4th. You have no freedom from certain warrantless searches at an airport or during a detention.

Seat belt violations are unlikely to change that even if they can cause enormous practical difficulties for any charged.

It is the very nature of the crime i.e. in mala prohibita that is the problem. A victimless crime does not have an injured party to complain to the police and so victimless crimes require an intrusive state to meddle where they have not been invited. Seat belt laws merely provide the police with yet another tool to perform warrantless searches of vehicles. There is no injured party as a witness so in practice actually violation of the law isn't even necessary for a seatbelt triggered detention.

It is not likely that a such stops will be expanded into searches for reefer.

Using minor traffic infractions as a tool for warantless searches of vehicles and people is standard practice, there is even a national training program "Operation Pipeline". I imagine seatbelt triggered searches will be used for all sorts of contraband including against those who mistakenly believe they have a natural right to possess tools for self defense. A locking briefcase is a quick fix to the problems presented by Terry as even a flimsy lock provides a solid 4th Amendment barrier.

[Final Authority]

You can move to New Hampshire where one is still free to act on ill informed decisions. Interestingly enough, routine surveys find that NH residents use their seatbelts at a rate higher than the national rate without mandatory laws. Not only that, NH residents insure their vehicles, even when it is not mandatory, at higher rates than neighboring states where it is. What does that say? All I can think of is that NH has a tradition of taking personal responsibility and not needing the government to intrude in every aspect of ones life. Please move here if you are ready for the challenge.