The state just wants to save some taxpayer and insurance money by having everyone buckle up, so taxpayers and insurance companies don’t have to waste their money on stupid drivers who feel their “rights” should trump a basic safety law that is proven to save lives and money.
Since you’re so distraught over seat belts, why not see if you can make a deal with the state…You can ignore the seat belt law if you let the state waive your right to receiving emergency services for you or your unbuckled passengers should you be involved in an accident.
-OR-
How about setting up a bond ($100K min. per person in your car, plus your regular liability and prop damage insurance) so you can drive around beltless and if something terrible happens, you can cover yourself and people in your car without contributing your burden towards our insurance rates for lawful drivers?
What I am personally ‘distraught’ over is the possibility for the police to abuse their powers. Frankly I htink you shol dbe distraught about it too.
Still, I sort of agree with your idea although I’d change the implementation.
My idea would be to deny insurance benefits to anyone who didn’t wear a seatbelt. If I’m an insurer then I will pay based upon the assumption that you follow the law. If you don’t then I won’t pay.
Given that this might shift the burden to the state maybe the insurance should pay the minimum fee allowable in your area to reimburse the hospital for your emergency care and then the minimum necessary to reimburse the state for long term care afterwards. No fancy treatments or nice rehab for you.
FTR I can’t imagine why people don’t wear a seatbelt. It’s so ingrained in me that I wear it when I expect to drive less than a block (essentially habit for me).
I’m not distraught over this misperceived notion that the police are abusing their powers if they do a seatbelt checkpoint. If they catch a few drunk drivers and ticket parents who don’t have their children buckled up, all the better. For all you know, they just might have saved the lives of those children minutes down the road after making the parents buckle them up. And they may have also taken that drunk off the road just in time before the accident he would have caused.
I would be distraught if I was the drunk and I’m not wearing the seatbelt as I am driving up to the checkpoint though…Now, as for the 10 kilos and the glock stashed under my seat…:smack:
Again, thanks to everyone for their input on this. As I said previously, I DO wear my seat belt - I was just wondering why it is OK for ANYONE, including the state, to tell me I HAVE to, even if I don’t want to. You have all given me lots of explanations (some I agree with, some I don’t, but all of them certainly valid) and I appreciate that you have answered my question.
FTR, I will continue to wear my seat belt because it is for my own good and I know it - so those of you who got “nasty” with me can just please back off, OK? But I will still feel weird, as usual, about Big Brother telling me what is in my best interest.
Why is it that checkpoints to nab drug couriers are illegal, and checkpoints to check seatbelts are legal? What if the cops say it’s a checkpoint for seatbelts but they’re really looking for something else?
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.
Your comment above deserves some attention. Can the police simply pull someone over based upon their “belief” that the driver was not wearing a seatbelt?
Let me ask you a question: can the police pull someone over based on their “belief” that the driver was speeding?
Most people would answer that question with a yes, or, if analytically inclined, might ask on what the belief was based. If the “belief” was based on the fact that most drivers speed, and so this driver was probably speeding also, I think most people would agree that the belief was unreasonable. And the law would agree with them.
Would it surprise you, Whack-A-Mole, to learn that the “belief” police have for pulling you over for a seatbelt vilation must be as firmly grounded as the “belief” that you have committed any other traffic violation?
In other words, for this, as for any other law, the police must possess probable cause to stop you. This doesn’t men simply a “belief” as your post would have the reader believe. Your posts suggests that the police, on the merest of inchoate hunches, can initiate a traffic stop for a seatbelt violation. This isn’t true. Before they can pull you over, they must be able to point to a set of facts that, taken together, establish probable cause to believe you weren’t wearing your seatbelt. When the polic ehave probable cause, it is not unreasonble to seize the offender for the purpose of issuing a citation, and the Fourth Amendment is not implicated.
Now that you know this, I hope your future posts will reflect this new-found knoweldge.
Checkpoints are generally legal if they are established with guidelines ahead of time, and do not permit the officers mannign the checkpoints to exercise random discretion.
If a checkpoint for seatbelts were in place, it seems difficult to imagine what you mean by “look for something else.” A the checkpoint, cars would need only slow or briefly stop so that the officer could be assured that a seatbelt was being worn.
Of course, if contraband of some kind were in plain view, or if other violations of law were immediately evident, then the officer could act on that.
But how do you picture it working, SPECIFICALLY, for the cops to set up a checkpoint that is for seatcbelts, but “they’re really looking for something else?”
Not sure if it refers to the cases cited earlier in the thread on illegal drug searches, but I do recall police setting up a DWI checkpoint with a drug-sniffing dog handy that checked each car stopped.
If the police were to set up a checkpoint ostensibly to check for seatbelts, it’s unclear to me how they could justify stopping a car long enough to permit a dog to sniff the car. Since ratatoskK’s concern apparently was other searches masquerading as seatbelt checks, I’d suggest that the use of drug dogs at a checkpoint that was advertised as a seatbelt compliance point would not survive constitutional muster.
Then call your state representatives and tell them to change the law. “Bad” law isn’t necessarily unconstitutional as long as it was properly enacted and does not discriminate against a protected class. There is a natural solution to laws you disagree with – get them repealed.
This is a question for the legislature, not the courts. There is clearly no fundamental right to not wear a seatbelt. As such, the legislature gets to decide whether it is important for the state to regulate this practice or not. The state has chosen to do so; if you want it not to, lobby your state legislature and change its mind. Your thesis is that this is a bad law, and while I disagree, you might be right – but if it’s bad it’s bad because it’s paternalistic and a foolish waste of state resources, not because there is some fundamental freedom being infringed. Therefore, it’s not unconstitutional.
To address Whack-a-Mole’s concern – I agree that there is a huge potential for police abuse of this power. However, that doesn’t implicate it’s constitutionality on its face. The legal question at this stage, (and impliededly the question in the OP) is whether the law as it reads and if properly applied and enforced violates some fundamental right, and it clearly doesn’t. Now if cops use this law to persecute innocent individuals, then the law may be unconstitutional as applied to that person, and that’s something he can raise in his defense. And if you feel there is a real danger of this (and I think you’re right), then you should work to get the law repealed. But the mere fact that a law exists which could be abused by employees of the state can’t make it unconsitutional on its face. Think about it for a few seconds and this becomes obvious – pretty much any law – and certainly any law regulating criminal conduct – can be abused by corrupt state officials. That is a serious problem, but repealing the entire criminal code wouldn’t be enough to solve it. Corruption has to be addressed at a more specific level and, if there are particular laws which facilitate corruption tremendously, then the legislature can reconsider their providence. But if a law is unconstitutional merely because it provides an opportunity for corruption, then almost no law is constitutional and we’re back to the State of Nature.
Everyone today has heard about Martin Luther King and his use of “non-violent protest.” What is not known equally as well is that Rev. King saw the inside of several jails because of these protests. He was willing to pay the price. That is a big part of why he was so respected and successful in his crusade for justice.
[ul] [sup]I’m not sure people today understand the difference between “non-violent protest” and “civil disobedience”.[/sup][/ul]
[sup]I’m not sure people today understand the difference between “non-violent protest” and “civil disobedience”.[/sup][/ul]