Do Seat-belt Laws Violate The Fourth Amendment?

[NoZed Avenger]

All unworkable. You might as well start denying it for eating ice cream as suggested earlier.

As unworkable as denying treatment for the failure to wear seat belts?

The principle sure seems the same.

 

[Slimething]

You just argued in favor of my point, with your case #3. You just said the case was dismissed because the 4th Amendment was violated. How can you then say that the 4th Amendment is groundless in this circumstance?

Brilliant. A hypothetical taken as hard evidence of the correctness of a claim.

OK. So now it's settled, OK? Don't wear your seatbelt. If you live until you are caught and fined, take a copy of Dave Rogers' hypothetical with you to court and demand that the charge be dismissed. [If there be gods, how I would love to see the expression Hizzoner's face! ]

Better still, don't drive. (BTW, driving itself is not a right. Not even under your one-size-fits-all Fourth Amendment.)

 

[ria_rokz]

'round these parts, front tinted windows are illegal too...

 

[triforcharity]

You just argued in favor of my point, with your case #3. You just said the case was dismissed because the 4th Amendment was violated. How can you then say that the 4th Amendment is groundless in this circumstance?

No probable cause to pull the driver over.

 

[Dunstan]

I disagree - you answered a question I posed. You said definitively, NO. I'm not making a claim, only stating an opinion. You answered my question, so the burden lies with you.

I note that you ignored the rest of my post, where I explain how the Fourth Amendment doesn't work the way you seem to think it does.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Case 3. A driver is not wearing a seat belt. A policeman is unable to see whether he is wearing one or not, but decides to stop the car and look inside. He charges the driver, but the case is dismissed because the policeman is judged to have violated the 4th Amendment.

No, this would not be declared a 4th Amendment violation for any reason cited. Pulling a vehicle over is not search and seizure. Looking though a window in plain view on a public road is not search and seizure.

 

[Travis]

In California having a car in a condition where the cop couldn't see whether you have seatbelt on or not is a violation itself. And I've been ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt (in my case it was because the dang thing was broken) and they did not search my car.

 

[MontagK505]

Australia has had mandatory seat belt (and motorcycle and bicycle helmet) laws for a good forty years now, and clearly our society is coming apart at the seams.

I believe that it is perfectly reasonable for the State to step in and protect people from their own stupidity. This is because I'm not a lunatic Libertarian who believes that society can cope with my every whim. When left to their own devices, people will in general not act to benefit society. Show me one successful Libertarian utopia, and I'll show you twenty failed states where the rule of law has broken down and people are dying in the streets.

There is a continuum between libertarianism and authoritarianism. It isn't black or white - freedom or Fascism. Mandatory seat belt laws - like all other laws - fall on this continuum.

On a personal note, were it not for the Australian culture of seat-belt-wearing brought about by forty years of law, my two children would probably be dead today, and so might I.

Do I understand you actually needed the state to tell you to take common sense steps for your and your children's safety?

Personally, I always used seat belts and motorcycle helmets long before they became mandatory.

 

[Loss Leader]

The point I'm interested in discussing is if mandating a seat-belt is constitutional, and further if it's even reasonable in a state where one can legally ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

Yes and yes. The fact that the state may have a legitimate interest in putting helmets on cyclists is irrelevant to whether the state has a legitimate interest in people wearing seatbelts.

The fact that there is possibly another good thing the state can do has no bearing on whether the state is currently doing a good thing.

Are seatbelt laws constitutional in a state where it's legal to buy large fireworks? Yes, they are.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

We've had this law since the early 90's ( possibly earlier) where i live, and as i look around i don't see a police state. What i do see is me being in 7 car accidents ranging from mediocre to severe and getting out with nothing more than a 2 week messed up back.

So your fears are unfounded, you don't have to worry about them and a few people at least are going to be saved a horrid death in car accidents. Who exactly is getting ****** over here?

 

[sadhatter]

I don't think it is unconstitutional but I do think it is dumb. If people want to be dumbasses and increase their chances of dying in a car crash, no skin off my back.

What if you get into an accident and that person would have survived if they were wearing a seat belt? Not your fault, but surely that should have some effect on you.

 

[sadhatter]

You can see this at night? From how far away? What about through tinted windows? Fogged windows? A rainy day? My point is that the law itself is an absurd attempt to legislate common sense. I wear a seat-belt, but I am completely opposed to any law mandating its use. If someone is dumb enough to not use one, that should be their choice.

It's no different than someone choosing to smoke, or riding a motorcycle without a helmet (which is legal here in Rhode Island).

1. Find me a person that has spontaniously died from smoking cigarettes, in one sitting. Not someone with a medical condition, but an average joe that just up and died in the middle of a pack because of the cigarettes for some reason.

2. A helmet on a motorcycle is good, but does not nearly have the protective value of a seat belt, in a serious accident. Once the two become similar ( or more than likely the safety vests get more useful and practical.) i could see this argument making sense. But at this point it is like saying why can't i carry a broadsword around in public, but i can carry nail clippers.

 

[sadhatter]

Right, let's see how this law violates the Fourth Amendment.

Case 1. A driver is not wearing a seat belt. A policeman looks in through the windscreen and notices that the driver is not wearing a seat belt. He flags down the car and charges the driver with an offense.

No violation. The 4th amendment doesn't protect people from being looked at by a police officer while they happen to be breaking the law.

Case 2. A driver is not wearing a seat belt. A policeman looks towards the car but is unable to tell whether the driver is wearing a seat belt or not. Having no reason to suspect a crime is being committed, he takes no action.

No violation. Obviously.

Case 3. A driver is not wearing a seat belt. A policeman is unable to see whether he is wearing one or not, but decides to stop the car and look inside. He charges the driver, but the case is dismissed because the policeman is judged to have violated the 4th Amendment.

A violation has occurred, but is handled correctly by the law.

I would conclude that the law itself doesn't violate the 4th Amendment in any way whatsoever, because the law itself does not mandate or permit any particular means of enforcement. Whether you agree with it, or whether it's a good law, is a different question; but the claim, specifically, that it violates the 4th Amendment is groundless.

Dave

As we have had this law forever , if a cop pulls you over and you have a convincing enough story about why he didn't see your belt, he is going to let you off. But he is going to keep track, and once you start wracking up silly stories of why he didn't see it, your luck runs out.

Again, this is done all over the world, with no ill effects. No real reason for complaining.

 

[Wildy]

Do I understand you actually needed the state to tell you to take common sense steps for your and your children's safety?

Because people always follow common sense steps don't they?

 

[TjW]

You just argued in favor of my point, with your case #3. You just said the case was dismissed because the 4th Amendment was violated. How can you then say that the 4th Amendment is groundless in this circumstance?

Because the fourth Amendment has to do with the behavior of law enforcement, not the behavior of drivers.

 

[TragicMonkey]

As we have had this law forever , if a cop pulls you over and you have a convincing enough story about why he didn't see your belt, he is going to let you off.

Tee hee hee, officer, I did have my seatbelt on, but as you can see my bosom is simply so lushly abundant that you can't even see the belt! Even when I lift and separate, like this, see? Giggle giggle, bat eyelashes.

This will probably work better when women do it.

 

[sadhatter]

Tee hee hee, officer, I did have my seatbelt on, but as you can see my bosom is simply so lushly abundant that you can't even see the belt! Even when I lift and separate, like this, see? Giggle giggle, bat eyelashes.

This will probably work better when women do it.

The "black coat" trick works a lot from what i have seen, except for the knob that doesn't realize his seatbelt is grey.

 

[bigred]

Thanks - I ask a legitimate question and you accuse me of being a troll. Well done. The point isn't whether seat-belt use is a good idea or not; it unquestionably is. The point I'm interested in discussing is if mandating a seat-belt is constitutional, and further if it's even reasonable in a state where one can legally ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

Pardon if I'm wrong, but saying "when you start to break down these laws you see how pointless many of them are," I have to wonder as a seatbelt law is far from pointless.

As has been thoroughly explained, it is not unconstitutional, and yes it's reasonable regardless of helmet laws, although I agree not having a helmet law is stupid.

 

[dtugg]

What if you get into an accident and that person would have survived if they were wearing a seat belt? Not your fault, but surely that should have some effect on you.

Then the person was a dumbass and should have wore his seatbelt. I hardly see how that is the state's business though.

 

[dtugg]

Re: seat-belts saving the state money in medical bills. Not necessarily true. Dead people don't require medical care.