Do Seat-belt Laws Violate The Fourth Amendment?
- Thread starter RhodyDave
- Start date
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
You ain't seen nothing yet. One of these days they'll actually set up road blocks in your state where everyone passing will have to slow to crawling speed. As they pass through the check point, the police will look in from both sides to make sure everyone in the car is wearing a seat belt.
TsarBomba
One Damn Dirty Ape
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 808
To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, your assertion is not even wrong. The State of Rhode Island, through the exercise of its general police powers, has the authority to enact laws and regulations relating to the operation of motor vehicles within the state. These laws and regulations often have to do with safety, for instance requiring that a car have operating headlights, or taillights, or brakes, or that it is not defective, etc etc etc. Once the state has enacted a traffic law or regulation, the state, through the exercise of its police power, has the legal authority to enforce its enactments. Thus, a police officer possessing probable cause (or reasonable suspicion, depending on the circumstances) is not in violation of the 4th Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. The only way that there would be a constitutional issue with the Rhode Island seat belt law would be if the law itself were constitutionally infirm, and barring some kind of legislative defect in the drafting or enactment of the legislation, the very proposition is laughable.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
If I recall correctly, people actually drive more safely when they're wearing seatbelts than when they are not.
Since seatbelt use also correlates positively with death and injury reduction, and since many people lack health insurance (or are insured by the public), seatbelts reduce the total cost of car accidents for the people of your state.
Also, since the law requires you to be neither searched nor seized, I have no idea how it could violate the Fourth Amendment. Maybe you mean the 5th Amendment. But I think you're wrong in asserting that you have a liberty interest in not wearing a seatbelt. You don't even have a liberty interest in being allowed to drive; how could you have one in whether you're secured with a seatbelt?
Last edited:
eeyore1954
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,811
I agree but first we should also follow that argument to alcohol and cigarettes. They cause a lot more deaths and medical expenses. Maybe even Haagen Daz ice cream. Or we should make everyone who gets lung cancer or heart disease from smoking pay for their own medical expenses and anyone who becomes an alcoholic and loses their job should get no help.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
but it is money saved: dying is the cheap option - it's those ones that don't do the job properly that are the problem.
Seat belt laws do work. After the seat belt laws were introduced in Australia years ago, the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney closed down one of its spinal units as there was such a significant reduction in spinal injuries.
and so far, no road blocks to check seat belts. Perhaps the NWO is having an off day or two...
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
Crazy talk! You want people to take responsibility for their own actions? How dare they ignore the laws prohibiting those actions... oh wait....
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
It would be interesting to see the connection tested in court in such a scenario.
Second hand smoke, too...
Last edited:
You're wrong. Sorry.
Rarely if ever have I thought the "let people do whatever they want and suffer the consequences" made any sense, esp when used to argue against a no-brainer law like seat-belt laws.
That said, trying to apply it to cigs, booze and anything that might possibly cause harm is a pretty obviously silly broad brushstroke.
The gov't exists in no small part to protect people from themselves. And let's face it, human beings have plenty of stupid to go around. We can debate where to draw the lines, but such protection is needed.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
You can see from outside the car that a seatbelt is on or off.
That law passed in Indiana (where I'm originally from) many years ago. I didn't really mind it, to be honest. But you're right, because it being against the law to not use your seatbelt is like the government trying to be your mommy. No one needs to be told that they should wear their seatbelt. It's common sense to do so. I always wear mine, so I've never had a personal problem with such laws, but I can see how it could be a problem for those who don't like to wear theirs.
At the very least though, I do think it should be against the law to not make sure a minor is buckled up. After all, little kids wouldn't know what could potentially happen to them if they don't wear their seatbelt.
At the very least though, I do think it should be against the law to not make sure a minor is buckled up. After all, little kids wouldn't know what could potentially happen to them if they don't wear their seatbelt.
Yes, obviously many do.
Yep. And I think that should carry much more severe penalties too.
billw
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 503
Helmets are not analogous to seat belts, IMO. Consider:
Story #1 - You are driving down the road, wearing your seat belt. You strike an object you didn't see, causing your vehicle to go violently out of control, and fishtail across the double-yellow line into the opposing lane. After several tense seconds of steering wheel and brake pedal manipulation, you are able to get your vehicle under control again, and return to your proper lane and direction of travel.
Story #2 - You are driving down the road, not wearing your seat belt. You strike an object you didn't see, causing your vehicle to go violently out of control, and fishtail across the double-yellow line into the opposing lane. Unfortunately, you can't use your steering wheel and brake pedal to get your vehicle back under control, since you are now bouncing around the passenger compartment like a ping-pong ball. You're still bouncing when the 18-wheeler coming the other way hits you head-on.
Last edited:
KSskeptic
Scholar
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 87
I think this has been discussed before. Buses use compartmentalization to protect occupants during a crash rather than set belts so I'm sure this law does not apply to buses.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
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.
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.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
How is that a violation of the fourth amendment?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Is it your private road or a public road, is your car to old to have a shoulder belt?
That is not unreasonable search.
What search is involved, seaching your trunk? Or just looking and seeing that you have no shoulder belt?
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
You are not wearing a visible seat belt with a shoulder restraint. You are breaking the law, how is that unreasonable. Laws are laws, not based upon reason.