Beating a Seat Belt Ticket

[irthelaw]

I would definitly go to trial for this. My defense would be to challenge the voracity of wether your vehicle is applicable to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. This standard is quite lengthy and requires a team of scientists just to make a dent into it.

DO NOT challenge the officers statement of wether you were wearing your seatbelt or not. You will lose that one hands down. Feel free to challenge any knowledge he has to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 though . The burden of proof as to wether your vehicle requires a seatbelt rests solely then on the prosecution. I highly doubt the prosecution has an expert witness to debunct your claim.

Research you state code for the exact wording on the seat belt law. If you find anything in it like ---

(b) Each occupant of the front seat of a passenger vehicle shall, while such passenger vehicle is being operated on a public road, street, or highway of this state, be restrained by a seat safety belt approved under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208.

(c) The requirement of subsection (b) of this Code section shall not apply to:

(1) A driver or passenger frequently stopping and leaving the vehicle or delivering property from the vehicle, if the speed of the vehicle between stops does not exceed 15 miles per hour;

(2) A driver or passenger possessing a written statement from a physician that such person is unable, for medical or physical reasons, to wear a seat safety belt;

(3) A driver or passenger possessing an official certificate or license endorsement issued by the appropriate agency in another state or country indicating that the driver is unable for medical, physical, or other valid reasons to wear a seat safety belt;

(4) A driver operating a passenger vehicle in reverse;

(5) A passenger vehicle with a model year prior to 1965;

(6) A passenger vehicle which is not required to be equipped with seat safety belts under federal law;

(7) A passenger vehicle operated by a rural letter carrier of the United States Postal Service while performing duties as a rural letter carrier;

(8) A passenger vehicle from which a person is delivering newspapers; or

(9) A passenger vehicle performing an emergency service.




I would utilize subsection C. line (6) --
(6) A passenger vehicle which is not required to be equipped with seat safety belts under federal law;


Let them Prove that your vehicle NEEDS a safety belt.

[irthelaw]

Ohh yeah, NEVER and I mean NEVER get sworn in. That way you don't have to answer any questions. Just direct you questions at the officer. I'd start with something like:

What vehicles require safety belt per Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208?

Does my vehicle require a a saftey belt per Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208?

He will NOT be able to answer these questions. There the state cannot prove its case.

If for some reason he says yes. You definitly caught him in a bold face lie. Obtain a copy of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 and submit it into evidence. Have him point to the section where your vehicle requires a safety belt. There is no possible way he will no where that is, cause frankly, he not an expert in the field of velocity dynamics and all that jazz.

Good luck though. I say stick it to the people who stick it to us. Seat belt laws are a sham.

[irthelaw]

I did a little research on your state laws;

RCW 46.61.688
Safety belts, use required — Penalties — Exemptions.

(1) For the purposes of this section, the term "motor vehicle" includes:

(a) "Buses," meaning motor vehicles with motive power, except trailers, designed to carry more than ten passengers;

(b) "Multipurpose passenger vehicles," meaning motor vehicles with motive power, except trailers, designed to carry ten persons or less that are constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation;

(c) "Neighborhood electric vehicle," meaning a self-propelled, electrically powered four-wheeled motor vehicle whose speed attainable in one mile is more than twenty miles per hour and not more than twenty-five miles per hour and conforms to federal regulations under 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.500;

(d) "Medium-speed electric vehicle" meaning a self-propelled, electrically powered four-wheeled motor vehicle, equipped with a roll cage or crush-proof body design, whose speed attainable in one mile is more than thirty miles per hour but not more than thirty-five miles per hour and otherwise meets or exceeds the federal regulations set forth in 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.500;

(e) "Passenger cars," meaning motor vehicles with motive power, except multipurpose passenger vehicles, motorcycles, or trailers, designed for carrying ten passengers or less; and

(f) "Trucks," meaning motor vehicles with motive power, except trailers, designed primarily for the transportation of property.

(2) This section only applies to motor vehicles that meet the manual seat belt safety standards as set forth in federal motor vehicle safety standard 208 and to neighborhood electric vehicles and medium-speed electric vehicles. This section does not apply to a vehicle occupant for whom no safety belt is available when all designated seating positions as required by federal motor vehicle safety standard 208 are occupied.

(3) Every person sixteen years of age or older operating or riding in a motor vehicle shall wear the safety belt assembly in a properly adjusted and securely fastened manner.

(4) No person may operate a motor vehicle unless all child passengers under the age of sixteen years are either: (a) Wearing a safety belt assembly or (b) are securely fastened into an approved child restraint device.

(5) A person violating this section shall be issued a notice of traffic infraction under chapter 46.63 RCW. A finding that a person has committed a traffic infraction under this section shall be contained in the driver's abstract but shall not be available to insurance companies or employers.

(6) Failure to comply with the requirements of this section does not constitute negligence, nor may failure to wear a safety belt assembly be admissible as evidence of negligence in any civil action.

(7) This section does not apply to an operator or passenger who possesses written verification from a licensed physician that the operator or passenger is unable to wear a safety belt for physical or medical reasons.

(8) The state patrol may adopt rules exempting operators or occupants of farm vehicles, construction equipment, and vehicles that are required to make frequent stops from the requirement of wearing safety belts.






I'd definitly go with a defense of exemption from Standard 208. Of course I'd also object to everything until the judge gave me a change of venue and a trial by jury. Kangaroo traffic courts are a sham and a money making machine. Decriminalizing traffic infractions is bull. If you can be penalized more than 20 bucks your constitutional rights guarentee a trial by a jury of your peers.

[sniper]

Ohh yeah, NEVER and I mean NEVER get sworn in. That way you don't have to answer any questions. Just direct you questions at the officer. I'd start with something like:

What vehicles require safety belt per Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208?

Does my vehicle require a a saftey belt per Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208?

He will NOT be able to answer these questions. There the state cannot prove its case.

If for some reason he says yes. You definitly caught him in a bold face lie. Obtain a copy of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 and submit it into evidence. Have him point to the section where your vehicle requires a safety belt. There is no possible way he will no where that is, cause frankly, he not an expert in the field of velocity dynamics and all that jazz.

1st off, how do you know the officer will not know what vehicle are required by federal law to have seatbelts installed? That would be a great way for every person to get out of a seatbelt. All you have to say is, "Federal Motor blah, blah, blah, it’s something I read on the internet and I have no idea what it really means either."

Standard No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection This standard originally specified the type of occupant restraints (i.e., seat belts) required. It was amended to specify performance requirements for anthropomorphic test dummies seated in the front outboard seats of passenger cars and of certain multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, including the active and passive restraint systems identified below. The purpose of the standard is to reduce the number of fatalities and the number and severity of injuries to occupants involved in frontal crashes. Generally, the requirements are as follows:

Passenger Cars (Effective 1-1-68)
Lap or lap and shoulder seat belt assemblies for each designated seating position. Except in convertibles, lap and shoulder seat belt assemblies are required in each front outboard seating position.


Generally, if the car is post 1968, it requires lap or shoulder belts, depending on the seating position. Requirements for trucks post 1972 etc. There is no federal seatbelt law; however, nearly all states have such laws. Most officers in the State of California remember this from their academy classes. Most even have cheater references when it comes to what vehicles are required to be equipped with seatbelts.

Officers are not required to be the "expert" when it comes to specifics. For the most part, they need to be able to recognize a violation which is a violation of the state/federal law. Certain aspects of enforcement require additional training, like radar and DUI. When it comes to DUI physiology and technical questions, which is when an expert is called to testify (DOJ lab experts, etc.)

If an officer recognizes someone’s headlamp is out, it is not a requirement for the officer to be an electrical or filament manufacturer to test the non-functioning headlamp to ensure it is truly, "Burnt out". They are just like you and other drivers out there, "That car only has one working headlight. That is a violation. I'm going to stop the car."

The same goes to someone who is not wearing a seatbelt. Officer observes someone not wearing a seatbelt on the road. That person is not exempted under state law (such as taxi drivers with fare paying customers while on city streets, newspaper delivery driver's, garbage truck driver's etc.) then they have a high probability of being issued a traffic citation for not wearing their seatbelt.

It is absurd to think that simply spewing "Federal blah blah 208" out of your mouth (when you aren't even sworn in) is going to be the magic bullet for the officer’s case.


RCW 46.61.688
Safety belts, use required — Penalties — Exemptions
.........
(7) This section does not apply to an operator or passenger who possesses written verification from a licensed physician that the operator or passenger is unable to wear a safety belt for physical or medical reasons.

Now, to assist the OP with his question.

Yes, most states treat not wearing a seatbelt like grade school. If you have a medical condition, obtain a doctors note (on their letterhead) stating the type of injury and the doctor is recommending not wearing your seatbelt because it will aggravate your medical condition. You should have one in your car if you don't want to receive a ticket. Keep one in your wallet so when you ride in someone else’s car then you don’t' get a ticket. Take the note to court showing that at the time of the stop, you had a pre-existing condition, but you did not know it required a grade school doctor’s note. That is a much better avenue of approach then the last poster.

Good luck with your case.

[blewis]

All the standards and laws come down to this: If your vehicle has 'em, wear 'em -- and wear 'em properly. If you cannot, you'd better have a doctor's excuse.

Barry

[Karstedt]

I took a look at FMVSS 208, and it seems to me that since it specifies vehicles based on certain crash test results, that in order to prove that your vehicle is bound by those regulation that they would need to introduce the crash test results of your vehicle in discovery. Without the crash test results to show that the vehicle meets the requirements there should be no proof that the vehicle requires a seat belt (and therefore requires you to wear one). That is all based on the idea that court plays be the rules though, and I'm not convinced that they do in traffic court... especially with regards to seat belt tickets.

Am I correct on the assumption that the crash test documentation (or some equivalent certificate of FMVSS regulation for the make and model, I'm sure they exist) showing that the vehicle requires seat belts under FMVSS 208 would in fact need to be presented as evidence to constitute proof? Because to say in a nutshell that FMVSS 209 requires "all cars that have seat belts require you to use them" would just be hearsay right?

[blewis]

You're looking at it backwards. Standard 208 DOES NOT specify which vehicles require seat belts and shoulder harnesses based on crash test results. It specifies -- by year -- which crash tests those seat belts must meet!

Furthermore, Standard 208 applies to manufacturers. Cars made in or after certain years MUST come with certain levels of occupant restraints.

The STATE law basically says that YOU must properly wear whatever restraints that meet the requirements of Standard 208 for whatever year car you have. I.e., if your car was manufactured PRIOR to 1967, seatbelts are NOT required at all (although my '65 Mustang sure had them).

Barry