Do Seat-belt Laws Violate The Fourth Amendment?

[Dancing David]

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.

The absurdity is we all end up paying for people who don't wear heir seat belts when they get injured.

If you don't like the laws do like the motorcycle riders did and change it, you vote don't you?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

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?

Plenty of other "unsafe" things we can start denying medical payment for: smoking, drinking, unprotected sex, staying with an abusive other. All legal. All potentially requiring treatment or medical care.


But the principle seemed to be that we might start denying medical treatment to people who make dumb decisions. Is that wide open?

 

[fuelair]

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.

If you wish to believe that, cool. But, no state has had to stop the law from functioning because of any court case so far, so good luck with that. Also, AFAIK all states with such laws automatically exempt busses from the law. Mostly because they can't afford to retrofit all busses with same, but the reason does not really matter - unless you figure you can get a court to overturn that in the other direction. My bet is not.

Oh, I have not heard of any complaints in other states of random stops for no seatbelt so far.

 

[fuelair]

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.

Generally the more important of the two!!!

 

[bigred]

Plenty of other "unsafe" things we can start denying medical payment for: smoking, drinking, unprotected sex, staying with an abusive other. All legal. All potentially requiring treatment or medical care.

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

 

[Rasmus]

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.

What's to argue?

"This car won't move until you're either out or buckled up. I am going to wait x seconds for you to be buckled up, after which you'll be out."

If you do insist on the argument, this one always works for me: "I am the driver. I wear a seatbelt. For a reason." Most people get it instantly.

@ Rhode Island: Welcome in the civilized world. Make yourself at home. Have a cookie.

 

[RhodyDave]

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

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.

 

[BStrong]

Seatbelt laws have been upheld in every case I'm aware of.

Mandatory helmet use laws as well.

Personally, I always gear up to ride, and wear the belt while driving.

I've never had a serious auto accident, but have high-sided on the racetrack at over 90 mph exiting a corner, and walked away with my only injury being a small scratch on my nose from my glasses shifting, and injured dignity.

You have a real point about your right to self determination being violated, but the intended result is one of the few government interventions that do have your best interest as the end result.

 

[RhodyDave]

You can see from outside the car that a seatbelt is on or off.

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).

 

[Damien Evans]

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?

If this law violates your 4th amendment, then your 4th amendment needs to be scrapped. Also, that no helmet on a motorcycle law is immensely retarded.

 

[RhodyDave]

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.

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.

 

[bigred]

Yeah it's pointless to save lives w/this law. After all, there are so many compelling reasons to not buckle up.



If you're not a troll, this is a good imitation.

 

[wafonso]

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 agree with your point, and still think it has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment.

Also, I may be wrong, but I believe the police can stop any driver for any (or no) reason - is that not the case?

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

Again, agreed.

 

[RhodyDave]

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.

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? 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?

 

[Dave Rogers]

The law is absurd, and I feel it violates the 4th Amendment. Anyone have thoughts on this?

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

 

[RhodyDave]

Yeah it's pointless to save lives w/this law. After all, there are so many compelling reasons to not buckle up.



If you're not a troll, this is a good imitation.

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.

 

[RhodyDave]

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

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?

 

[Babbylonian]

What's to argue?

"This car won't move until you're either out or buckled up. I am going to wait x seconds for you to be buckled up, after which you'll be out."

If you do insist on the argument, this one always works for me: "I am the driver. I wear a seatbelt. For a reason." Most people get it instantly.

Admittedly, it was only really an issue when I was a teenager and driving other teenagers (in my '75 Impala with a rebuilt V8; I was the envy of my 80s 3-4 cylinder friends). Teenagers are of course the dumbest form of life. I was no exception and was a pretty crappy driver; aware of the fact, I did exactly as you mention and didn't drive anywhere until seat belts were fastened.

 

[BStrong]

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pp/hartog.htm

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jun/1/130716.html

http://usff.com/hldl/hlstatutes/kohrig.html

 

[Ranb]

If a person takes the view that driving on a public road is a privilege, then it does come with certain conditions. Just as some business owners agree to submit to inspections, drivers submit to certain conditions when they drive on public roads.

I think a person is going to have a much better chance of changing the law instead of getting it struck down by the courts on a 4th amendment issue.

Ranb