Do Seat-belt Laws Violate The Fourth Amendment?

[chillzero]

People are missing the point of seatbelts, and why other people should be interested in whether people are wearing them or not.

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.

Seatbelts and helmets are not analogous, because of the potential range of injury. If someone has an accident without a helmet, they will injure themself. If someone has an accident with no seatbelt, they can potentially kill other people - even people not in the car.

When the law changed in the UK they had some very graphic adverts about back seat passengers crushing those in the front, or going from the back seat through the front window, damaging everyone on the way - including people in front of the car originally protected from the accident by railings, bollards, etc.

 

[arthwollipot]

They probably would have had here, too. If it weren't the seventies!

 

[BenBurch]

If they DO violate the 4th Amendment, then we need to amend the Constitution one more time to specifically require them. And motorcycle helmets too.

 

[Dunstan]

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.

Many states make it a separate crime to refuse to provide a breath sample when asked, usually one with identical penalties to actually being over the legal limit.

 

[dtugg]

Many states make it a separate crime to refuse to provide a breath sample when asked, usually one with identical penalties to actually being over the legal limit.

Maybe. They would still have to have a reason to ask you, ie you were arrested for DUI. And I believe the norm is that your license would be suspended but you would receive no criminal penalties.

 

[Uncle Otto]

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

Yes-----------they can stop you just to see if you have a valid driver's license.

 

[Loss Leader]

Many states make it a separate crime to refuse to provide a breath sample when asked, usually one with identical penalties to actually being over the legal limit.

In my state, refusal to take a breath test means automatic suspension of your license even if you later prove yourself to have been sober.

 

[dtugg]

Yes-----------they can stop you just to see if you have a valid driver's license.

Not in the USA.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

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?

These are the same issue that are with just about every other traffic safety law. You are confusing the law with the execution of said law. The law itself does not break the 4th Amendment, as it does not in any way require an unreasonable search and seizure. Now, does that mean some police officers won't engage in unreasonable search and seizure while enforcing said law? Of course not. But that's no different than any other law.

 

[patchbunny]

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.

Oh, I dunno. When the officer is slumped over the guardrail hurling his breakfast, you're probably allowed to leave.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Seatbelts and helmets should be mandated. It's for safety. And if you get in an accident and you're not wearing one, you shouldn't get any assistance from the state.

Those who argue that people should decide for themselves - do you also think that we should abolish the FDA and the USDA, because people who purchase meat, drugs and foods should decide for themselves if they purchase harmful products? These agencies are there to prevent other people from hurting you. Seatbelt and helmet laws are also there to prevent other people from hurting you, with a side benefit of preventing you from hurting yourself. What's the problem?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Seatbelts and helmets should be mandated. It's for safety. And if you get in an accident and you're not wearing one, you shouldn't get any assistance from the state.

Those who argue that people should decide for themselves - do you also think that we should abolish the FDA and the USDA, because people who purchase meat, drugs and foods should decide for themselves if they purchase harmful products? These agencies are there to prevent other people from hurting you. Seatbelt and helmet laws are also there to prevent other people from hurting you, with a side benefit of preventing you from hurting yourself. What's the problem?

I haven't heard anyone calling for the abolishing of safety belts or the NHTSA. The equivalent of the FDA and USDA requiring safe food and nutrition information is requiring vehicles to have seatbelts and undergo safety tests -- which we do. It's about allowing people to make informed choices; my ability to make my own dietary decisions is not restricted by the USDA's regulations.

The equivalent to forcing people to wear safety belts would be banning unhealthy foods or requiring people to eat certain foods -- which, as we know from experience, is something people are far more opposed to than mandatory safety belts. There's a difference between allowing consumers to make informed choices, and forcing them to "choose" correctly.

 

[triforcharity]

Yes-----------they can stop you just to see if you have a valid driver's license.

I don't think that is legal. No probable cause or reasonable suspicion at all.

 

[Emet]

I don't think that is legal. No probable cause or reasonable suspicion at all.

It's unconstitutional in the US:

In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the police stopping vehicles for no reason other than to check the drivers' licenses and registrations was unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_stop#Controversy_in_the_United_States

 

[caniswalensis]

I haven't heard anyone calling for the abolishing of safety belts or the NHTSA. The equivalent of the FDA and USDA requiring safe food and nutrition information is requiring vehicles to have seatbelts and undergo safety tests -- which we do. It's about allowing people to make informed choices; my ability to make my own dietary decisions is not restricted by the USDA's regulations.

The equivalent to forcing people to wear safety belts would be banning unhealthy foods or requiring people to eat certain foods -- which, as we know from experience, is something people are far more opposed to than mandatory safety belts. There's a difference between allowing consumers to make informed choices, and forcing them to "choose" correctly.

You have a valid point here. It is making me think, because I am generally in favor of seatbelt laws on the grounds that if someone is in an accident, we all end up paying more for there medical care. I have similar views on smoking. Food & obesity seem more intrusive to me for some reson, and it may be a completely emotional reaction. I always wear my seatbelts, and I do not smoke, but I love the occaisonal unhealthy meal. i am going to have to think hard on this one.

One part of seatbelt laws that I think might be looked at seperately is sealtbelts & restraints for minor children. I strongly feel that these should be required in every state, and that children should be protected from the poor judgement of a parent in this case.

 

[Modified]

It's unconstitutional in the US:

Then how do they get away with doing it?

 

[caniswalensis]

Then how do they get away with doing it?

Are they actually doing it?

 

[triforcharity]

Then how do they get away with doing it?

I'm sure you'll be providing proof of such, right?

 

[Modified]

I'm sure you'll be providing proof of such, right?

I've been through several checkpoints long after 1979. The last time was in the late 90s. All they do is ask for your license and registration, or license, registration, and insurance. They don't give the impression that it is optional or that they are looking for something else.

http://www.roadblock.org/roadblocks/Alabama/page/3/

Of course, when I was in Alabama 1/3 of drivers were uninsured and 1/10 were unlicensed, so maybe just driving a vehicle there is enough probable cause for a stop.

 

[leftysergeant]

The equivalent to forcing people to wear safety belts would be banning unhealthy foods or requiring people to eat certain foods -- which, as we know from experience, is something people are far more opposed to than mandatory safety belts. There's a difference between allowing consumers to make informed choices, and forcing them to "choose" correctly.

Bull flops. Seat belt laws prohibit your doing something stupid that endangers the lives of everyone within a hundred feet of you.

There is no equivalency to prohibiting your eating junk food. More like prohibiting your throwing the garbage out in the alley to attract rats.

If you and your passengers are not secured to your seats, you are not in control of your vehicle and have a far greater chance of losing control in an otherwise managable accident, thus of harming somebody with a more-than-room-temp IQ.
Although it may be better for the species to let the kind of people who do not wear seat belts to eliminate themselves from the gene pool, it is not a good idea to allow them to take out more geneticly fit people along with them. That's why we have traffic laws in the first place.