A few days ago I was waiting in court for a hearing and heard a trial on a seat belt violation. In my state, it is a $25 fine, no court costs, no points, not sent to the insurance company. The guy would have been better off paying the ticket instead of missing work, but he instead fought it leaving me able to post this topic.
The officer testified that he was sitting along side the road and noticed him not wearing a seat belt. He said he could view this by observing no contrasting color between the driver’s shit and a seat belt. He also stated that he could observe a seat belt near the door frame and the body of the driver IF the driver was wearing a seat belt and would not observe it if the driver was not wearing a belt.
The defendant candidly testified that he was wearing his seat belt, however he was wearing the belt underneath his shoulder, through his armpit. The officer testified that if that was true, he would still be in violation of the law. (I wanted to object myself as a police officer cannot testify to what a law means). The judge, at the end of the hearing, ruled that he credited the defendant’s word that he did wear his seat belt under his armpit, but he was guilty as he was not wearing it properly.
Here is the law:
(a) A person may not operate a passenger vehicle on a public street or highway of this state unless the person, any passenger in the back seat under eighteen years of age, and any passenger in the front seat of the passenger vehicle is restrained by a safety belt meeting applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. For the purposes of this section, the term “passenger vehicle” means a motor vehicle which is designed for transporting ten passengers or less, including the driver, except that the term does not include a motorcycle, a trailer, or any motor vehicle which is not required on the date of the enactment of this section under a federal motor vehicle safety standard to be equipped with a belt system. The provisions of this section apply to all passenger vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1967, and being 1968 models and newer.
The defendant argued that he was indeed restrained by a seat belt, and therefore had complied with the law. The prosecutor argued, rather poorly, I thought, that the law stated that he had to wear it according to “applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards.” I think that part of the law refers only to the seat belts themselves and not how a person wears them.
At the end of the case, I was convinced that the judge was right. Yes, the law says “restrained” but I think it is only reasonable to read that as restrained in the ordinary and customary way that seat belts restrain people. You do have to wear them correctly. Otherwise you could wrap it around your right wrist and claim that you were restrained. On the other hand, the defendant had a good argument. The legislature could have easily put that language in there, but did not. He was “restrained” by a seat belt, and was therefore in compliance. But I think the State has the better of this one.
One thing I noticed was that the State put on no evidence of the type of vehicle he was driving. They didn’t establish that the vehicle was a 1967 or newer model. I told the prosecutor this and he said that in his opinion, one could assume that the vehicle was newer than 53 years old. I disagreed. I think it was an element of the offense that the State had a burden to establish. But the prosecutor did make a good point. Let’s say that the law is the same another 50 years from now. When does the burden fall from the State to keep proving that a car is not ancient? What about 500 years?
Also, after court, I was waiting in the Wal-Mart parking lot to pick up my grocery order. I watched cars going by on a similar road to where the officer testified he pulled the defendant over. There is No Fucking Way, he could observe anything about seat belt use. All cars have tinted windows and there is simply no way he saw anything of the sort. Did he perjure himself or have better eye sight than me? Maybe, but I was astounded by that. On my way home I tried to determine if people were wearing seat belts. I could not.
So this was a nice little exercise in statutory construction for me, and while I would have found the guy guilty on his own argument, I would have held the State responsible for proving that the vehicle was a 67 model or newer. What say ye dopers? Am I too strict or too lenient? How would you have ruled? Would you be upset with the officer’s testimony if you viewed the same thing I did? Try it for yourself.