Do Seat-belt Laws Violate The Fourth Amendment?

[RhodyDave]

I'm a Rhode Islander (yes, it is a state!) and today our new governor Lincoln Chaffee signed into law the mandatory use of seat-belts.

You should know that here in RI it is perfectly LEGAL to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. That's right, no helmet, on a motorcycle. Yet, we now have a law that will punish you with a $75 fine for not wearing a seat-belt in your car or truck.

I want all riders on buses to be fined, as this law would call for. The law is absurd, and I feel it violates the 4th Amendment. Anyone have thoughts on this?

 

[jayh]

It's a classic case of intrusive government. While I firmly support using seatbelts, it's not the business of the government to make that choice.

 

[TragicMonkey]

As long as anybody injured in an auto accident who wasn't wearing a seatbelt is automatically and permanently denied all possible government assistance in medical services, I'm fine with letting people not use a seatbelt. If they think the state shouldn't be a nanny, then Nanny shouldn't waste her time caring for them.

 

[Dunstan]

I'm a Rhode Islander (yes, it is a state!) and today our new governor Lincoln Chaffee signed into law the mandatory use of seat-belts.

You should know that here in RI it is perfectly LEGAL to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. That's right, no helmet, on a motorcycle. Yet, we now have a law that will punish you with a $75 fine for not wearing a seat-belt in your car or truck.

I want all riders on buses to be fined, as this law would call for. The law is absurd, and I feel it violates the 4th Amendment. Anyone have thoughts on this?

Yes. You're wrong. The 4th Amendment has nothing to do with this.

 

[lionking]

As long as anybody injured in an auto accident who wasn't wearing a seatbelt is automatically and permanently denied all possible government assistance in medical services, I'm fine with letting people not use a seatbelt. If they think the state shouldn't be a nanny, then Nanny shouldn't waste her time caring for them.

End of argument.

 

[RhodyDave]

Yes. You're wrong. The 4th Amendment has nothing to do with this.

I would like you to back this up. According to the law, the police have the right to pull a driver over for simply not being buckled. To me, this constitutes unreasonable search. How do you see this differently?

 

[BowlOfRed]

I want all riders on buses to be fined, as this law would call for.

Are you sure that the law covers buses?

I don't know the particulars of RI regulations, but in California, the seat belt law covers "motor vehicles". If you wind through the definitions you discover that a "bus" is not a "motor vehicle". (same thing with infant/child restraints).

 

[Cavemonster]

I'm a Rhode Islander (yes, it is a state!) and today our new governor Lincoln Chaffee signed into law the mandatory use of seat-belts.

You should know that here in RI it is perfectly LEGAL to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. That's right, no helmet, on a motorcycle. Yet, we now have a law that will punish you with a $75 fine for not wearing a seat-belt in your car or truck.

I want all riders on buses to be fined, as this law would call for. The law is absurd, and I feel it violates the 4th Amendment. Anyone have thoughts on this?

How are seat-belts a search or seizure?

 

[ehcks]

I would like you to back this up. According to the law, the police have the right to pull a driver over for simply not being buckled. To me, this constitutes unreasonable search. How do you see this differently?

What are they searching? You're in public, flagrantly breaking the law in a way that's visible enough that they can simply see you doing it. There's no illegal search because there's no search. It's obvious and in plain sight.

 

[RhodyDave]

How are seat-belts a search or seizure?

The belts aren't the search. The search is when the police pull you over to ticket you. Under what "reasonable" issue are they doing so? I challenge anyone to be able to discern if a driver in another car is buckled as they drive by you. It's random, and will certainly result in a huge upswing of profiling stops.

 

[RhodyDave]

What are they searching? You're in public, flagrantly breaking the law in a way that's visible enough that they can simply see you doing it. There's no illegal search because there's no search. It's obvious and in plain sight.

Really? You can see every seat-belt? You can see inside tinted windows, up into big trucks, in the dark, from how far away? Really? It is in no way obvious and in plain sight.

 

[RhodyDave]

Are you sure that the law covers buses?

I don't know the particulars of RI regulations, but in California, the seat belt law covers "motor vehicles". If you wind through the definitions you discover that a "bus" is not a "motor vehicle". (same thing with infant/child restraints).

I'm not 100% sure, but from what I've read of the law there's no distinction made or exemption regarding types of vehicles. My argument is that this is an absurd law in a state where motorcycles are not only ridden but can be done so without helmets. If a motorcyclist has the right to CHOOSE whether or not to wear a helmet, it would stand to reason that drivers of cars and trucks should have the right to CHOOSE if they want to wear a restraint.

The absurdity is compounded by not requiring seat-belt use on school buses and other public transportation. It's a device to raise money for the state, nothing more. Yet it is one more freedom that is taken away, and how ironically that it's Independence Day Weekend.

 

[Ladewig]

Over 15 states have had seat belt laws for over 25 years. Another 15 have had these laws for over ten years. I am to lazy to check if anyone in these states have tried to challenge the law on Constitutional issues.

............................................

As long as anybody injured in an auto accident who wasn't wearing a seatbelt is automatically and permanently denied all possible government assistance in medical services, I'm fine with letting people not use a seatbelt. If they think the state shouldn't be a nanny, then Nanny shouldn't waste her time caring for them.

this

 

[NoZed Avenger]

As long as anybody injured in an auto accident who wasn't wearing a seatbelt is automatically and permanently denied all possible government assistance in medical services, I'm fine with letting people not use a seatbelt. If they think the state shouldn't be a nanny, then Nanny shouldn't waste her time caring for them.

Can we deny treatment to drug users because they violate the law, too?

Jaywalkers who get hit by a car?

Anyone hurt because they are speeding?

Trespassers?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Can we deny treatment to drug users because they violate the law, too?

Jaywalkers who get hit by a car?

Anyone hurt because they are speeding?

Trespassers?

Only if they insist on these things being legal?

 

[Dunstan]

I would like you to back this up.

You're the one making the claim, so the burden's on you.

According to the law, the police have the right to pull a driver over for simply not being buckled. To me, this constitutes unreasonable search. How do you see this differently?

Because you are confusing "a search to find violations of what I think is an unreasonable law" with "unreasonable search." As far as I know, there is no precedent that interprets the 4th Amendment in this way.

The reasonableness of a search has to do with whether there is sufficient evidence of a crime or other sufficient grounds to justify the imposition of a search, not the general "reasonableness" of the law.

If a police officer has probable cause (or even just reasonable suspicion) to believe that you have violated the law, then it's a reasonable search and seizure. (They may not even need that -- the Supreme Court has upheld the use of roadblocks as DUI checkpoints. I don't recall offhand if seatbelt checks are covered by that or similar precedent.)

A lot of people think that the drug laws are unreasonable. But as long as they're still in existence, they can be enforced, and searches can be made to collect evidence.

 

[triforcharity]

I would like you to back this up. According to the law, the police have the right to pull a driver over for simply not being buckled. To me, this constitutes unreasonable search. How do you see this differently?

Because they don't have to open a door to see that you're not wearing a seatbelt. They can see through the windows.

 

[Earthborn]

I challenge anyone to be able to discern if a driver in another car is buckled as they drive by you.

If they are standard three point seat belts, it really isn't hard.

You can see inside tinted windows, up into big trucks, in the dark, from how far away?

There may be situations where it isn't obvious and in plain sight, but in most cases it is.

My argument is that this is an absurd law in a state where motorcycles are not only ridden but can be done so without helmets.

Yes, indeed. It is absurd that it is legal to ride motorcycles without helmets.

It's a device to raise money for the state, nothing more.

Yes, it is a voluntary tax; you can choose whether or not you want to pay it. Wear a seatbelt, live and you don't have to pay the tax. Don't wear it, risk dying horribly, and you do have to pay the tax. Act in your own self-interest, get an exemption... if only other forms of taxations worked that way.

Yet it is one more freedom that is taken away,

Yes, in a way a freedom is taken away. Ralph Nader, when he was still cool, succinctly called it "The Freedom To Fly Through The Windshield."

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Really? You can see every seat-belt? You can see inside tinted windows, up into big trucks, in the dark, from how far away? Really? It is in no way obvious and in plain sight.

You can see the ones you can see..

The ones you can't ?

No, you can't see those.

 

[Babbylonian]

The best thing about mandatory seat belt laws to me is that [when I was driving] I didn't have to have an argument about seat belts with idiots riding in my car. For reasons beyond my understanding, "put your seat belt on for safety" wasn't as effective as "put your seat belt on because I don't want to get pulled over for a ticket."

I suppose it's also nice that these laws increase seat belt usage and probably end up saving lives, but I'm always more concerned with not being annoyed.