Do Seat-belt Laws Violate The Fourth Amendment?

[I Am The Scum]

I know I'm going to an extreme here but my point is valid.

No, it's not.

 

[Earthborn]

If we start with seat-belts, how long before it's a crime to drink a coffee while driving?

If you do that regularly, I suggest you should check whether it is not already illegal (and for good reason). Most cars can't be operated with one hand if you hold a cup in the other.

Or to change the radio station?

I am pretty sure that the police can pull you over if they notice that your attention is more focused on the knobs of your car stereo than on the road.

Or to pull up to a drive-thru and get a sandwich to eat while commuting to work?

I would be highly surprised if you can legally eat sandwiches while driving.

I'm not in favor of bad choices, but I am fiercely in favor of the freedom to choose.

You have the freedom to choose, but the responsibility to commit to that choice. If you choose to operate hundreds of kilos of motorised steel, you should commit to that choice and not try to do other things at the same time.

 

[Rasmus]

I know I'm going to an extreme here but my point is valid.

Then I am sure you will be able to point to no less than three states where what you describe has actually happened, right?

I mean, there are many, many states and nations that require drivers to wear seatbelts - surely at least a few of them would have abused such legislation in a way similar to what you suggest, right?

Oh, and the decision to wear a seatbelt or not does influence other drivers: If you are flying through your windhield or bouncing around in your car you have the car under much less control than you otherwise would and are thus more likely to negatively influence other people.

(Which, btw, is plenty of justification for making it illegal to switch your radio station. While I disagree with regulations like that (I know of no such laws, but the use of cellphones is often illegal or restricted) they do make a certain amount of sense - and I admit I'd rather not get killed just because someone else wanted to listen to a different song.)

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I think the introduction of seat-belt laws is an example of a change in the law really changing a culture. When I was a kid, my parents (who I like to think are responsible people) would think nothing of cramming us 5 kids in the back of the car and with an estate, sometimes some in the boot. Nobody thought anything of it in those days. Now, with the seatbelt laws in place, nobody would ever think of doing anything so dangerous - and not because they are worried about getting caught. I don't know of anyone who has actually been stopped by the police for not wearing their belt. The change in the law led to a change in the way people thought about the risks involved.

 

[BStrong]

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.

Read the cases I linked to earlier in the thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7332761&postcount=59

Seatbelt laws and helmet laws have been upheld in every case, the slippery slope hasn't revealed itself, and the Republic still stands.

 

[Slimething]

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.

That's different. Is it legal? Yes. Do you like it? No.
Public safety has always trumped your "god-given rights" and it always will. If death-toll rises well above where technology would easily limit, legislatrures will make the us of that technology mandatory. You see this time and time again, especially if you're a manufacturer. No news here.

This to me seems more about raising revenue through fines than about increasing safety or preventing crime.

Maybe. You seem to have a very high threshold. You've put up with a heck of a lot of regulation that is almost solely aimed at raising revenue before getting to the easy and logical mandate to tie yourself into a moving vehicle. That's why you sound so plaintive.

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?

I'm all for a law against using slippery-slope arguments. One can dream.

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.

You don't have a right to not wear a seat-belt. You also don't have a right to wear a seat belt. A legal right is different than a stupid/wise choice. You can still make stupid choices. The OP is one of them.

 

[Slimething]

And just to add fuel:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=8228833

 

[Dave Rogers]

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 case #3 involves the police officer acting in a way that is neither mandated nor permitted by the law, and therefore is still in violation of the 4th amendment. Therefore, the existence of the law has no bearing on whether the 4th amendment applies. And I didn't say that "the 4th Amendment is groundless"; I pointed out that it still applies.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Incidentally, RhodyDave, can you please explain why the Fouth Amendment contains the word "unreasonable"? It seems to me a classic case of the exception that proves the rule: that, by specifying certain types of search and seizure as unreasonable, it recognises that other types of search and seizure are reasonable. And, having determined that, how have you determined that it is unreasonable that a police officer should, on occasions, ask you briefly to pause in your journey so that he can look in through your car window?

Dave

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

Technically, this is quite true. A cop in Australia can pull over a car if they can see that the driver, or any passenger, is not wearing a seatbelt. In practice, this occasionally happens in conditions of clear visibility. More often a car is pulled over for some other reason - hazardous driving, or speeding, or having a headlight out or something - and if the driver or any passenger isn't wearing a seatbelt it's an extra fine and demerit.

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.

In places where the cops are corrupt and untrustworthy, sure. In places where the police are transparent and accountable, and where there is a reasonable appeals process, it doesn't seem to be much of a problem. In general, the cops are pretty good where I am. I don't know about your area.

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?

Hang on. Are you trying to claim that a visual observation of a vehicle constitutes an illegal search?

 

[dtugg]

Incidentally, RhodyDave, can you please explain why the Fouth Amendment contains the word "unreasonable"? It seems to me a classic case of the exception that proves the rule: that, by specifying certain types of search and seizure as unreasonable, it recognises that other types of search and seizure are reasonable. And, having determined that, how have you determined that it is unreasonable that a police officer should, on occasions, ask you briefly to pause in your journey so that he can look in through your car window?

Dave

I am pretty sure that cops randomly pulling people over to check if they're wearing seatbelts would be unconstitutional. Cops need to have reasonable suspicion that a violation has occurred in order to pull you over. Now, if they can see through the window that you're not wearing your seatbelt, and then pull you over that is constitutional (although not allowed in some states).

 

[arthwollipot]

You don't have random breath checks?

 

[dtugg]

You don't have random breath checks?

There are DUI checkpoints but no, the police most certainly cannot randomly pull people over and make them take breath tests. They can't even make you take the breath test if they pull you over for suspected DUI. You will still be arrested if they have probable cause and then if you still refuse, you will lose your license and they can probably get a warrant anyway.

 

[Information Analyst]

Really? So those riders that are standing are compartmentalized exactly how? Seriously, when you start to break down these laws you see how pointless many of them are.

Not really. Buses generally don't travel at very high speed, and if in impact with another vehicle - unless it's of similar mass - it's not going to come to a sudden and violent stop. In the UK, local buses do not have seatbelts, but inter-city coaches that travel on motorways (freeways) do, and using them is compulsory for passengers.

On the other hand, a few years back my mother was on a bus, the driver of which had to break suddenly when a taxi cut him up. My mother suffered a crushed larynx when she hit cross-bar in front of her seat. At the local teaching hospital she was subject of much interest from the medical students, because it's an injury that used to be incredibly common before seatbelts were made compulsory (what with drivers hitting the steering wheel in an impact), but which is now very rare.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Heh, here they can randomly stop anyone and breath-test them, they also breath test anyone they stop for any other reason, not the blow in the bag, unless you fail the sniffer tester. Funny thing, the country hasn't turned into a police state with the police stopping everyone they see and they are still able to catch about 34,000 idiots a year. I'd note that about 100 people a year kill themselves from drunk driving here (about a 2/5 of our road toll) and they kill another 80+ people (passengers and others combined.)

It seems however that some people are dumb enough to get more and more fines added to the "tab" than actually using what is left of their brain and driving sober and sensibility when in charge of a several tonnes of metal travelling at 100km/h.

 

[Information Analyst]

I think the introduction of seat-belt laws is an example of a change in the law really changing a culture. When I was a kid, my parents (who I like to think are responsible people) would think nothing of cramming us 5 kids in the back of the car and with an estate, sometimes some in the boot.

Hah! Sometimes we'd end up in the boot even before we got an estate - the latter was actually an "improvement"!

 

[arthwollipot]

There are DUI checkpoints but no, the police most certainly cannot randomly pull people over and make them take breath tests. They can't even make you take the breath test if they pull you over for suspected DUI. You will still be arrested if they have probable cause and then if you still refuse, you will lose your license and they can probably get a warrant anyway.

Yeah. What PhantomWolf said. I was breath tested when I rolled my car (a single-vehicle accident caused by tyre failure). Personally, I'd prefer the police to be able to breath-test anyone they feel like. It makes me feel safer on the roads.

Anyway, beside the point. Mandatory seatbelt (and helmet) legislation saves lives. End of story.

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

No way. If you are not wearing your seatbelt you are not in control of your vehicle. If you are not in control of your vehicle, take the tickket and correct yourself or get the hell out of my area of operation.

I have too many other things to worry about without having to worry about some dead moron ejected through his windshield into mine.

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.

Last I looked, most buses have the driver belted to the seat and a cage to prevent passengers' flying into him so the control part does not enter into it. There may be some further engineering problems about belting the passengers.

 

[Ladewig]

I think the introduction of seat-belt laws is an example of a change in the law really changing a culture. When I was a kid, my parents (who I like to think are responsible people) would think nothing of cramming us 5 kids in the back of the car and with an estate, sometimes some in the boot. Nobody thought anything of it in those days. Now, with the seatbelt laws in place, nobody would ever think of doing anything so dangerous - and not because they are worried about getting caught. I don't know of anyone who has actually been stopped by the police for not wearing their belt. The change in the law led to a change in the way people thought about the risks involved.

Yes. Gone are the days when a four-year old would be standing on the passenger seat while the five-year old was sitting in the driver's lap "helping" to steer the car.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

It is not considered a "search" of your vehicle, if it is in plain view. If you're driving down the street smoking a joint, a police officer can pull you over and arrest you. It would not violate your 4th ammendment right, because you did it right in front of him, in plain view.

You really 'aught to study up on your rights.