Do Seat-belt Laws Violate The Fourth Amendment?

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

I agree. I think the state's interest is in saving life and limb, not saving money.

_______

I don't see how seatbelt laws could possibly violate the 4th Amendment. What is the legal theory that it does?

The OP's point that no motorcycle helmet laws but seatbelt laws is absurd doesn't invoke the 4th Amendment at all. (I don't think there's anything in the Constitution anywhere prohibiting states from passing absurd legislation, or even legislation some people consider to be absurd.)

And there's certainly no burden on lawmakers to refrain from passing a reasonable law just because they are unable to pass another reasonable law.

 

[Dancing David]

So in your view, laws aren't based on reason, they're simply arbitrary concepts thrown together to harass people with no benefit or consequence?

Nice strawman, was there a sale?

And to answer your earlier question; yes, what about older cars that were produced before shoulder belts were installed? I believe prior to the mid 1960's no cars had shoulder restraints, merely lap belts, if any at all. What about people that drive classic cars? Are they subject to being pulled over just for the "crime" of driving a classic car?

More exaggeration and speculation.

So the basis of the laws is societal mores, and they are often divorced from reason. Law is a thing in and of itself, it is often not reasonable or rational. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

We can look at different laws and see how reasonable they are if you wish.

Then you can explain the basis of a fourth amendment violation, which you haven’t established.

Psst: I will give you a hint, maybe you should look at the way the word ‘reasonable’ is defined.

In many states, no an officer can not pull you over to check your belt status, in some you can. It has something to do with this thing called ‘legislation’.

 

[Loss Leader]

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

You're right. Death has its own costs. For one, that person is permanently out of the labor pool. So, the male wage-earner with a wife and a six-month old at home has transferred the cost of keeping his family alive to the state for at least some period of years. And, since employees are always underpaid for their labor (the rest being the profit made by the owners), that dead guy has stopped contributing to his employers as well.

While we're talking about the fact that the dead guy's productivity has decreased to zero, we may as well mention his relatives. His parents, siblings, other family and friends just aren't going to work as hard during their grief. Ten people working only 75% as hard for, say, twelve weeks - that's 1,200 man-hours of work lost.

Then there's the cost of the police, paramedics, road crews, investigators and others that must respond to a fatal road accident. There's the cost to the justice system for the civil and maybe criminal trials.

I guess we could kind of hope that all our traffic fatalities happen to lifetime smokers and meth addicts, but that seems like a longshot.

 

[sadhatter]

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

If that doesn't effect you, that's cool, but far from the normal reaction. I know 2 people who killed others in car accidents that were not their fault, and the guilt is still there. Kudos to you for your ability to not care i guess, but most of us would, so someone else not wearing a seatbelt does effect others just not all others.

 

[sadhatter]

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

But it gets balanced out by the fact that people with tremendous injuries require much medical care. And said injuries could be lessened with a safety belt.

 

[RhodyDave]

To clarify a few points that have gotten confused in all this;
A) I wear seat-belts.
B) I think all passengers in any vehicle should wear seat-belts.
C) My issue with the 4th Amendment was regarding the 'search' of your vehicle without probable cause, and what constitutes probable cause.

I'm not making any argument in favor of NOT wearing seat-belts. That's all.

 

[Steve001]

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?

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?

You've changed the argument from seat belt fines to unreasonable search and seizure. So which is it ? The unlawfulness of seat belt or unreasonable search and seizure.
the 4tjh amendment is clearly explained here http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm

 

[arthwollipot]

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

No, of course not. What a ridiculous thing to say. My point was that given the 40-year old culture of seat belt wearing, it never occurred to either me or my children to question the necessity of wearing a seatbelt. It's a completely automatic reaction - get in the car, put the seatbelt on. I'd no more consider not putting a seatbelt on than I would consider exiting a building by a 4th floor window. And because seatbelts are mandatory by law neither would anyone else.

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

Well, I don't know about that. They became mandatory either before I was born or shortly thereafter - I don't know the exact date - so I've lived all my life with mandatory seatbelt laws.

I'm not making any argument in favor of NOT wearing seat-belts. That's all.

Point taken, but I have to say that you're doing a very good imitation of it.

 

[tesscaline]

To clarify a few points that have gotten confused in all this;
A) I wear seat-belts.
B) I think all passengers in any vehicle should wear seat-belts.
C) My issue with the 4th Amendment was regarding the 'search' of your vehicle without probable cause, and what constitutes probable cause.

I'm not making any argument in favor of NOT wearing seat-belts. That's all.

You need to provide evidence that there would even be a "search" of your vehicle without probable cause. You haven't done that. You can't, because it isn't. There is no "searching" required. Since there is no "search" required, there is no probable cause required.

You seem to think that a seatbelt law would have cops just randomly pulling cars over left and right to check to see if all their passengers are wearing seatbelts. Do you have evidence that this is the way the law is enforced? No, you don't, because it isn't.

You're tilting at windmills and everyone is telling you that but you're not listening.

 

[dtugg]

I wear a seat-belt because I am not an idiot, not because the state tells me to. I first started driving in Arizona, and while I believe the law requires drivers to wear seat belts, it is only a $10 fine and cops couldn't pull people over for seat-belt violations, so it would have basically been no deterrent at all to me if I was an idiot who didn't want to wear a seat-belt.

 

[Loss Leader]

C) My issue with the 4th Amendment was regarding the 'search' of your vehicle without probable cause, and what constitutes probable cause.

Yes, but it's been explained to you by everybody else in this thread including two lawyers that a police officer looking in your window and seeing that you're not wearing a seatbelt is not a "search" as defined by law.

First of all, anything that is in plain sight is not being searched. That includes things that are in plain sight even though they're on private property. If you're in your living room in front of your big plate glass window clearly visible from the street strangling a puppy, the police can arrest you. They haven't searched anything when they saw you break the law. (I think they might have to wait for you to leave the house.)

Second of all, the right to be free from searches diminishes as your expectation of privacy decreases. A roommate can consent to a search of an apartment's common areas when police are looking for evidence against the other roommate. A person talking in a public elevator with his lawyer can have the contents of that discussion used against him.

I'll ask you this: Would you masturbate while driving down a city street in your car? Hopefully, you would not. Why? Because people can see in your window. If you won't masturbate in your car while looking for a parking spot at the mall, you already agree with me that you don't have an expectation of privacy for things that are clearly visible from outside your Hyundai Elantra. Thus, no 4th Amendment issue.

 

[ria_rokz]

You're right. Death has its own costs. For one, that person is permanently out of the labor pool. So, the male wage-earner with a wife and a six-month old at home has transferred the cost of keeping his family alive to the state for at least some period of years. And, since employees are always underpaid for their labor (the rest being the profit made by the owners), that dead guy has stopped contributing to his employers as well.

While we're talking about the fact that the dead guy's productivity has decreased to zero, we may as well mention his relatives. His parents, siblings, other family and friends just aren't going to work as hard during their grief. Ten people working only 75% as hard for, say, twelve weeks - that's 1,200 man-hours of work lost.

Then there's the cost of the police, paramedics, road crews, investigators and others that must respond to a fatal road accident. There's the cost to the justice system for the civil and maybe criminal trials.

I guess we could kind of hope that all our traffic fatalities happen to lifetime smokers and meth addicts, but that seems like a longshot.

Wow, good points. I'm going to use this the next time someone uses the "oh well, they're dead" sentiment.

 

[billw]

Would you masturbate while driving down a city street in your car?

Have to open the sunroof first.








What?

 

[Slimething]

To clarify a few points that have gotten confused in all this;
A) I wear seat-belts.
B) I think all passengers in any vehicle should wear seat-belts.
C) My issue with the 4th Amendment was regarding the 'search' of your vehicle without probable cause, and what constitutes probable cause.

I'm not making any argument in favor of NOT wearing seat-belts. That's all.

You are just being provocative for no reason? You feel the need to waste others' time? You need to read this.

 

[GeeMack]

To clarify a few points that have gotten confused in all this;
A) I wear seat-belts.
B) I think all passengers in any vehicle should wear seat-belts.
C) My issue with the 4th Amendment was regarding the 'search' of your vehicle without probable cause, and what constitutes probable cause.

I still think you should wait until they start setting up road blocks and stopping every vehicle that passes in order to do seat belt inspections, suspicion, probable cause, or otherwise. Whether right or wrong, whether an issue with the Constitution or not, at least your indignation will be more credible.

 

[RhodyDave]

You need to provide evidence that there would even be a "search" of your vehicle without probable cause. You haven't done that. You can't, because it isn't. There is no "searching" required. Since there is no "search" required, there is no probable cause required.

You seem to think that a seatbelt law would have cops just randomly pulling cars over left and right to check to see if all their passengers are wearing seatbelts. Do you have evidence that this is the way the law is enforced? No, you don't, because it isn't.

You're tilting at windmills and everyone is telling you that but you're not listening.

I'm listening. But tell me, how is it not search if, as the law is written, the police DON'T need any other reason to pull you over; all they have to do is suspect that you aren't wearing a seat-belt. I'd really like to know how they determine this at night, or from a distance over say 50 feet.

It seems (maybe I'm wrong) that this is a very arbitrary decision left to the whims of the police officer to stop any car they choose. Which as I've said already, will surely be an issue regarding profiling.

So please tell me how a law which can be enforced under only certain conditions (daylight, close proximity) and enforced ONLY be a search (visual) of the vehicle, be reasonable?

 

[RhodyDave]

You are just being provocative for no reason? You feel the need to waste others' time? You need to read this.

I'm not being provocative for nothing. I don't feel that the police should have the power to pull a car over for a driver making a choice to not wear a seat-belt. This to me seems more about raising revenue through fines than about increasing safety or preventing crime.

If we start with seat-belts, how long before it's a crime to drink a coffee while driving? Or to change the radio station? Or to pull up to a drive-thru and get a sandwich to eat while commuting to work? We are constitutionally guaranteed the right to certain freedoms, including the freedom to make bad choices. I'm not in favor of bad choices, but I am fiercely in favor of the freedom to choose.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You still have the freedom to choose..

 

[RhodyDave]

Yes, but it's been explained to you by everybody else in this thread including two lawyers that a police officer looking in your window and seeing that you're not wearing a seatbelt is not a "search" as defined by law.

First of all, anything that is in plain sight is not being searched. That includes things that are in plain sight even though they're on private property. If you're in your living room in front of your big plate glass window clearly visible from the street strangling a puppy, the police can arrest you. They haven't searched anything when they saw you break the law. (I think they might have to wait for you to leave the house.)

Second of all, the right to be free from searches diminishes as your expectation of privacy decreases. A roommate can consent to a search of an apartment's common areas when police are looking for evidence against the other roommate. A person talking in a public elevator with his lawyer can have the contents of that discussion used against him.

I'll ask you this: Would you masturbate while driving down a city street in your car? Hopefully, you would not. Why? Because people can see in your window. If you won't masturbate in your car while looking for a parking spot at the mall, you already agree with me that you don't have an expectation of privacy for things that are clearly visible from outside your Hyundai Elantra. Thus, no 4th Amendment issue.

I appreciate these comments. Fine, maybe it's not illegal search. But it does seem a bit too authoritarian for the police to be able to pull you over based on a personal choice about seat-belt use. Where does it end? Will coffee drinking while driving be the next thing to be criminalized? Will we all have to drive American cars? Will they all have to be red, white, and blue? I know I'm going to an extreme here but my point is valid.

 

[LashL]

And to answer your earlier question; yes, what about older cars that were produced before shoulder belts were installed? I believe prior to the mid 1960's no cars had shoulder restraints, merely lap belts, if any at all. What about people that drive classic cars? Are they subject to being pulled over just for the "crime" of driving a classic car?

I live in Ontario, Canada where we've had seat belt laws for 35 years now (since January 1, 1976), and there are exemptions for cars built without seatbelts (e.g., classic cars, buses, etc.) as well as exemptions for police cars, other emergency vehicles, and for prisoners being transported in the back of police cars, etc. The law here does not require one to retrofit a vehicle to add a seatbelt where one never existed; rather it requires one not to remove or render inoperable seatbelts that are in existence, and requires drivers and passengers to wear the available seatbelts (with some exceptions as noted above).

To clarify a few points that have gotten confused in all this;
A) I wear seat-belts.
B) I think all passengers in any vehicle should wear seat-belts.
C) My issue with the 4th Amendment was regarding the 'search' of your vehicle without probable cause, and what constitutes probable cause.

I'm not making any argument in favor of NOT wearing seat-belts. That's all.

I would not classify it as an illegal search because of the "plain sight" doctrine.

ETA: I see that the plain sight doctrine has already been addressed above; apologies for the duplication.

I'd also add, just as a matter of interest, that there is solid evidence of steadily declining injuries and deaths from motor vehicle accidents here in Ontario since the introduction of the seatbelt laws, and a recent study showed that 92.8% of Ontarians wear seatbelts now, compared to a mere 17.2% before the law came into effect, and at least 8,000 lives have been saved by seatbelt use.