Seat Belt Violation in California

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: CA

I was pulled over by a CA Highway Patrolman and cited for not wearing a seat belt (27315(d)(1) cvc). This occurred at a 4-way stop near my home. I told him I don't wear it due to the pressure it places on my heart and my pacemaker. He asked if I had a doctor's note, and I said no.

I didn't bother telling him as he was obviously not interested, but I religiously wore my seat belt (and raised my kids to always wear theirs) until about a year ago. I suffered a massive heart attack 5 years ago, but miraculously survived. Since that day, the slightest pressure against my chest makes my heart beat as if I am about to go into atrial fibrillation (I have gone into a-fib, though not due to my seat belt -- something I don't want to repeat). I used to buckle it and hold the shoulder strap away from my chest while I dove, but that really got old and became very difficult after getting a new company car recently due to the configuration of the steering wheel.

Although I always buckle when driving on the freeway, I don't bother when driving around town because it's more difficult due to the increased movement required for signaling and turning. Holding the strap away from my chest when driving in town is more dangerous in my experience than driving without the belt.

I couldn't imagine why an officer would pull someone over just for that. What's next? Will we get pulled over for changing the station on the radio...picking our nose...scratching? Aren't there some actual criminals out there to be arrested? :wallbang:

I don't have any idea what the fine will be. If it's much of a fine, I intend to fight the ticket. Maybe he won't show-up in court, you never know. Any advice on how to fight it would be appreciated (in case he does show-up).

I was wondering, what about all the people who have tinted windows? Officers can't see whether they are wearing their belts, so that puts the rest of us at a disadvantage. Any merit in arguing this?

Thank you :)

Quote:

---

I don't have any idea what the fine will be. If it's much of a fine, I intend to fight the ticket.

---

Don't bother. Without a doctor's certification, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Quote:

---

(g) This section does not apply to a passenger or operator with a physically disabling condition or medical condition which would prevent appropriate restraint in a safety belt, if the condition is duly certified by a licensed physician and surgeon or by a licensed chiropractor who shall state the nature of the condition, as well as the reason the restraint is inappropriate. This section also does not apply to a public employee, when in an authorized emergency vehicle as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 165, or to any passenger in any seat behind the front seat of an authorized emergency vehicle as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 165 operated by the public employee, unless required by the agency employing the public employee.

---

Besides, the fine is only $20 the first time you're busted.

Quote:

---

Aren't there some actual criminals out there to be arrested?

---

The fact that someone else is breaking the law does not excuse you from abiding by it. This argument holds no water.

Quote:

---

I was wondering, what about all the people who have tinted windows? Officers can't see whether they are wearing their belts, so that puts the rest of us at a disadvantage. Any merit in arguing this?

---

No merit whatsoever, and it would only make the judge mad. See above about not being excused from abiding by the law just because someone else is playing fast and loose with it.

Best course of action? Pay your $20, and go to your doctor to be certified.

Thank you Missy for the good advice.

Quote:

---

The fact that someone else is breaking the law does not excuse you from abiding by it. This argument holds no water.

---

I agree - my only point here was that I couldn't understand why an officer would spend his valuable time on such a silly infraction when there are so many more serious events occurring out there. Where I live, I'm surrounded by illegals driving vehicles that aren't road-safe and without licenses or insurance, but he picks me to pull over because I'm not wearing a seatbelt. And all the gangbangers with tinted windows can drive without their seatbelts with impunity. It just seems stupid to me.

Hi, I didn't want to make a new thread since I'm kind of in the same situation as the OP. I was ticketed for no seat belt as a passenger. 27315(e). I've payed the fine online 2 days ago and the case status is on "Prior" and the disposition says "Bail Forfeiture" (no idea what they mean). I was wondering if this will affect my good driving record and whether it will affect my insurance. Also, I need to know if I need to go to traffic school for this to be removed or is it just a fine and I just pay for it and it's gone? Thanks!

Quote:

---

Quoting tkroper

---

I agree - my only point here was that I couldn't understand why an officer would spend his valuable time on such a silly infraction when there are so many more serious events occurring out there.

---

Here's a couple of reasons ... when you aren't wearing that seatbelt, that 25 MPH fender bender you might get in to becomes a serious injury collision instead of property damage only. Plus, where do you think we find most wanted people? On traffic stops. We don't find them with warrant sweeps or fugitive task forces, we find them on routine contacts - mostly traffic.

Remember Timothy McVeigh and how HE was caught?

Quote:

---

Where I live, I'm surrounded by illegals driving vehicles that aren't road-safe and without licenses or insurance, but he picks me to pull over because I'm not wearing a seatbelt.

---

The police are forbidden by law (federal and state) from pulling people over without cause solely to check their license and insurance status ... more so to check if they are legal residents.

Quote:

---

And all the gangbangers with tinted windows can drive without their seatbelts with impunity. It just seems stupid to me.

---

We also give tickets to people with tinted windows ... that's not allowed on the front windows.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting tkroper

---

Thank you Missy for the good advice.

I agree - my only point here was that I couldn't understand why an officer would spend his valuable time on such a silly infraction when there are so many more serious events occurring out there. Where I live, I'm surrounded by illegals driving vehicles that aren't road-safe and without licenses or insurance, but he picks me to pull over because I'm not wearing a seatbelt. And all the gangbangers with tinted windows can drive without their seatbelts with impunity. It just seems stupid to me.

---

Just because you consider it silly doesn't make it silly. It only makes it silly to you.

The use of seatbelts dramatically reduces injuries to persons involved in motor collisions. Injured people need medical care. Medical care is expensive and not everyone has medical insurance. By mitigating the injuries people suffer during collisions, we reduce the amount of money the taxpayers have to waste paying for their obstinancy.

To help coerce people into relieving the tax burden, we penalize those who choose not to wear seatbelts by fining them and assessing points against their licenses so that their insurance companies can also raise their individual rates. This also helps offset insurances rates of the law abiding motorists who carry motor vehicle insurance.

It is surely a compelling state interest to further the economy and reduce the amount of its tax collections wasted on poor decisions of others.

If you have a legitimate reason not to wear your seatbelt, your doctor can give you a note.

Yes, there are real criminals out there breaking more important laws. We also prosecute them as often as possible. Just because there are murderers out there doesn't mean somehow that every law inferior to the murder statutes becomes less important.

Arguing that a police officer can't stop every seatbelt renegade doesn't negate the fact that he caught you.

Carl, you should come be a cop in Washington. During daytime hours, any state trooper in a plainly marked patrol car can stop people just to check their license and insurance. :D

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

Carl, you should come be a cop in Washington. During daytime hours, any state trooper in a plainly marked patrol car can stop people just to check their license and insurance.

---

Care to cite the law on that? It sounds plainly unconstitutional to me.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Care to cite the law on that? It sounds plainly unconstitutional to me.

- Carl

---

I hadn't planned on it though I figured you'd ask. :eek:

So, here you go we can do eet all day long!

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

I hadn't planned on it though I figured you'd ask. :eek:

So, here you go we can do eet all day long!

---

The link didn't work ... what search terms did you use?

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

The link didn't work ... what search terms did you use?

- Carl

---

Strange. It's timing out for me when I click on it now. :(

Anyway, you can search for it using the language from my original post: marked state patrol vehicle.

But the statute is RCW 46.64.070, which reads as follows:

RCW 46.64.070
Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test -- Authorized -- Powers additional.
To carry out the purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070, officers of the Washington state patrol are hereby empowered during daylight hours and while using plainly marked state patrol vehicles to require the driver of any motor vehicle being operated on any highway of this state to stop and display his or her driver's license and/or to submit the motor vehicle being driven by such person to an inspection and test to ascertain whether such vehicle complies with the minimum equipment requirements prescribed by chapter 46.37 RCW, as now or hereafter amended. No criminal citation shall be issued for a period of ten days after giving a warning ticket pointing out the defect.

The reason it's not constiutionally invalid is because it's not for enforcement. It's for public safety which is why there's the proviso that no summons may issue without first there being a warning for whatever defect is found.

Wow! I was not aware that any state would permit that! Heck, under those circumstances, Washington state troopers do not need reasonable suspicion to effect a detention ... wow!

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Wow! I was not aware that any state would permit that! Heck, under those circumstances, Washington state troopers do not need reasonable suspicion to effect a detention ... wow!

- Carl

---

Try not to be jealous. ;)

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

Try not to be jealous.

---

Jealous? Hardly. 'Dumbfounded', would be more appropriate.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

Strange. It's timing out for me when I click on it now. :(

Anyway, you can search for it using the language from my original post: marked state patrol vehicle.

But the statute is RCW 46.64.070, which reads as follows:

RCW 46.64.070
Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test -- Authorized -- Powers additional.

---

I've a mind to look the annotations up to that section at the law library. Some laws are still "on the books" but not constitutional.

The hmmph to this section seems to be it also includes "safety inspection".

It would seem to be in line with truckers at a weigh station, the law mandates they pull in, and this of course will produce thier DL and logs, etc.

As Carl said it is UNconstitutional to pull over a motorist without cause to simply check his DL status, see Delaware V. Prouse.

BOR, unfortunately, I don't think Delaware v. Prouse would hold in this circumstance as Delaware did not (apparently) have a statute governing this practice, and thus - presumably - drivers had not agreed to this provision when they obtained their license.

I think it stretches the "privilege" concept of driver's licenses to the very edge, but it seems to be common in local ordinances in Washington state as I found on a casual Google search.

I still say, 'Wow!'

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

I've a mind to look the annotations up to that section at the law library. Some laws are still "on the books" but not constitutional.

The hmmph to this section seems to be it also includes "safety inspection".

It would seem to be in line with truckers at a weigh station, the law mandates they pull in, and this of course will produce thier DL and logs, etc.

As Carl said it is UNconstitutional to pull over a motorist without cause to simply check his DL status, see Delaware V. Prouse.

---

I think the facts of that case and what's allowed by this law materially different. He stopped them at night. These are only allowed in the daytime.

He arrested them. The State Patrol cannot as the statute is worded. But I have found no case law directly in Washington holding it inviolate, nor have I found any saying that it's unconstitutional.

I would be most interested, though, if you did look up the annotations and let us know what you find. In fact, I'll repost this in debate the issues so as to not hijack a post.

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

I think the facts of that case and what's allowed by this law materially different. He stopped them at night. These are only allowed in the daytime.

He arrested them. The State Patrol cannot as the statute is worded. But I have found no case law directly in Washington holding it inviolate, nor have I found any saying that it's unconstitutional.

I would be most interested, though, if you did look up the annotations and let us know what you find. In fact, I'll repost this in debate the issues so as to not hijack a post.

---

RCW 46.64.070
Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test -- Authorized -- Powers additional.

The "catchphrase" of a law means nothing. The gravaman is whether the BODY of the law is constitutional.

I have read laws where the catchphase has absolutely nothing to do with the body of the law.

You can look them up just as easy. Go to any library that has the WA code, it does not have to be a law library, maybe the main branch of the public library, after the section # above there will be case law annotations.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

RCW 46.64.070
Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test -- Authorized -- Powers additional.

The "catchphrase" of a law means nothing. The gravaman is whether the BODY of the law is constitutional.

I have read laws where the catchphase has absolutely nothing to do with the body of the law.

You can look them up just as easy. Go to any library that has the WA code, it does not have to be a law library, maybe the main branch of the public library, after the section # above there will be case law annotations.

---

I know that, but you said you were thinking of looking it up. So, I was hoping you would. :)

I was speaking specifically to the body of the law, not its title. The title is merely a clue as to what the rest of its about. But it isn't the law itself.

This discussion is actually in the debate the issues section now.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Here's a couple of reasons ... when you aren't wearing that seatbelt, that 25 MPH fender bender you might get in to becomes a serious injury collision instead of property damage only. Plus, where do you think we find most wanted people? On traffic stops. We don't find them with warrant sweeps or fugitive task forces, we find them on routine contacts - mostly traffic.

Remember Timothy McVeigh and how HE was caught?


The police are forbidden by law (federal and state) from pulling people over without cause solely to check their license and insurance status ... more so to check if they are legal residents.


We also give tickets to people with tinted windows ... that's not allowed on the front windows.

- Carl

---

Carl, anyone who quotes C.S. Lewis can't be all bad. But please reconsider your line of thinking. By following your justification, we should simply outlaw speeds in excess of 25 mph if we really want to prevent serious injuries (or, perhaps, ban driving altogether). And, if I remember correctly, McVeigh was pulled over 2 or 3 times prior to finally being arrested.

Quote:

---

Long time Oklahoma Patrol officer Trooper Charlie Hanger had been dispatched to Oklahoma City. Like many law enforcement officers, he'd been summoned to provide whatever assistance he could.

Soon after, however, he received another order to remain in his usual patrol area Noble County. He turned around and headed north on I-35. He was about 75 miles from the disaster area when he noticed a beat-up 1977 Mercury Grand Marquis. What caught his attention was the yellow car's lack of a license plate.

He pulled the driver over and got out of his patrol car. Timothy McVeigh got out of the yellow junker and went to meet him.

McVeigh was wearing a T-shirt at that time with a picture of Abraham Lincoln and the motto: sic semper tyrannis, the state motto of Virginia, and also the words shouted by John Wilkes Booth after he shot Lincoln. The translation: Thus, always, to tyrants. On the back, it had a tree with a picture of three blood droplets and the Thomas Jefferson quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."Three days later, while still in jail, McVeigh was identified as the subject of the nationwide manhunt.

Hanger wanted to know why McVeigh had no license plate. McVeigh explained he'd just bought the car. When Hanger asked if he had insurance, registration, or a bill of sale McVeigh explained everything was being mailed to his address. Then he handed over his driver's license.

It was then Hanger noticed a bulge under McVeigh's jacket. "What's that?" the cop asked. When McVeigh said it was a gun, the trooper held his own weapon to McVeigh's head. Then Hanger confiscated the 9-mm Glock that McVeigh was packing, as well as an ammo clip and a knife.

McVeigh pointed out he had a legal right to carry a gun. Hanger cuffed McVeigh, put him in the police car and phoned his base. He asked his dispatcher to run a computer check on McVeigh's Michigan driver's license and the Glock.

After confirming McVeigh had no record, he explained that McVeigh's New York concealed-weapon permit was not legal in Oklahoma. With McVeigh's permission, he searched the Mercury and found nothing but a baseball cap, some tools and a plain white envelope. The prisoner was told to leave everything in the car, which the trooper locked before taking McVeigh to the Noble County Jail in Perry, Oklahoma.

---

I, too, had no plates but the officer never commented about that. Perhaps that's because he could see that I was driving a brand new Honda Accord, and I was dressed in business casual with no anarchist messages printed anywhere (throughout my life, people have told me I look like a cop). To the most casual observer, I am obviously not a criminal. Quite a stark contrast from McVeigh.

But maybe, just in case, we should have daily routine traffic stops for everyone in order to help the police catch criminals and, while they're at it, they can cite all contributing members of society who aren't wearing our seat belts at that time. Illegals can rest easy, though, since police are prohibited from harassing them. For our own good, you should be able to pull us over for eating Big Macs and cite us for elevated cholesterol.

Lastly, here in SoCal, probably 1 out of every 3 or 4 cars is completely tinted except for the windshield. Efforts (if any) to cite them are a complete failure.

I just received notice in the mail this weekend - the fine is $102.20. This is a crock. When did hard working policemen turn from crime fighters to behavior monitors?

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

Just because you consider it silly doesn't make it silly. It only makes it silly to you.

---

Oh, please.

Quote:

---

The use of seatbelts dramatically reduces injuries to persons involved in motor collisions. Injured people need medical care. Medical care is expensive and not everyone has medical insurance. By mitigating the injuries people suffer during collisions, we reduce the amount of money the taxpayers have to waste paying for their obstinancy.

To help coerce people into relieving the tax burden, we penalize those who choose not to wear seatbelts by fining them and assessing points against their licenses so that their insurance companies can also raise their individual rates. This also helps offset insurances rates of the law abiding motorists who carry motor vehicle insurance.

It is surely a compelling state interest to further the economy and reduce the amount of its tax collections wasted on poor decisions of others.

---

Do you mean poor decisions like taking out $500,000 mortgages with no down payment or steady job history or credit rating? The state coerced lenders to provide loans to unqualified borrowers -- see where that's gotten us? Now the state expects me to shell out $102.20 for not wearing my seat belt. They'll use that to help bail out my illegal neighbors from losing their homes.

A substantial number of those who don't wear seat belts and get in accidents have their medical expenses paid for by the state, and I doubt they even get cited for not having worn their seat belt.

I think you've lost all perspective on this issue. There are more compelling issues the state could spend time and energy coercing society to comply with. If we swallow this one, what's the next scheme the state will force upon us? A far greater threat to our well-being and economy than being a "seatbelt renegade" is the threat of heart disease due to poor exercise and dietary habits. Shall we accept government nannyism in these areas of our lives too? McDonald's raids could be a huge source of revenue for the state.

Quote:

---

If you have a legitimate reason not to wear your seatbelt, your doctor can give you a note.

---

There goes your compelling state interest argument.

Quote:

---

Yes, there are real criminals out there breaking more important laws. We also prosecute them as often as possible. Just because there are murderers out there doesn't mean somehow that every law inferior to the murder statutes becomes less important.

---

Did you actually read what you wrote here? First you agree that there are more important laws, then you say "inferior" laws are not less important. :confused:

Quote:

---

Arguing that a police officer can't stop every seatbelt renegade doesn't negate the fact that he caught you.

---

So, because I exercised the mind God gave me to weigh the benefits of wearing a seat belt versus the risk it causes me makes me a "seatbelt renegade"? I was hoping more of us were still clinging to the idea that we lived in a free society.

Quote:

---

Carl, you should come be a cop in Washington. During daytime hours, any state trooper in a plainly marked patrol car can stop people just to check their license and insurance. :D

---

I'll bet that helps WA police avoid stopping contributing members of society for obstinately not wearing a seat belt, because they have a legitimate reason for stopping those who actually look suspicious of having committed a crime against society.

Quote:

---

Quoting tkroper

---

Carl, anyone who quotes C.S. Lewis can't be all bad. But please reconsider your line of thinking. By following your justification, we should simply outlaw speeds in excess of 25 mph if we really want to prevent serious injuries (or, perhaps, ban driving altogether).

---

It already IS against the law to drive 25 over the speed limit. banning driving is just silly. My "line of thinking" is that not wearing your seatbelt is an infraction under the law. There are ample safety reasons to justify why you are required to wear it. And, many crimes and most warrant arrests occur as a result of traffic stops. These contacts are also why it is among the highest risk activities law enforcement undertakes. Two officers from my former agency were killed on traffic stops - both killed after I left there, and one was a friend of mine. So, trust me, we do not take traffic stops lightly.

Quote:

---

But maybe, just in case, we should have daily routine traffic stops for everyone in order to help the police catch criminals and, while they're at it, they can cite all contributing members of society who aren't wearing our seat belts at that time.

---

Apparently in washington state they can do just that.

Quote:

---

Illegals can rest easy, though, since police are prohibited from harassing them.

---

Ah, but they tend not to have driver's licenses and they usually have cars in bad shape, so they, too, will suffer the consequences.

Quote:

---

For our own good, you should be able to pull us over for eating Big Macs and cite us for elevated cholesterol.

---

No law against that.

Quote:

---

Lastly, here in SoCal, probably 1 out of every 3 or 4 cars is completely tinted except for the windshield. Efforts (if any) to cite them are a complete failure.

---

Seven out of ten people in SoCal also speed on a daily basis - guess we should forget about that enforcement , too ... and shoplifting hasn't been resolved by arrests, so why not give up and that as well?

All because enforcement has not resulted in complete compliance does not mean we should just stop doing it. Perhaps an argument can be made that enforcement in these areas needs to be stepped up?

- Carl

You know this is about money. They can try and pretend it's about safety but traffic tickets are a 7.5 to 15 billion per year business. One practice really proves the point, red light cameras. Cities make the yellow light so fast that it causes numerous accidents but increases ticket revenue, until they get caught. This is a widespread problem. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/23/2300.asp

Understanding the need for all businesses to expand we can surmise the state will continue adding laws and enforcement till Jesus returns. It's like a backwards lotto, when you get popped just pay your money.

Quote:

---

Quoting kist

---

You know this is about money. They can try and pretend it's about safety but traffic tickets are a 7.5 to 15 billion per year business.

---

Okay ... I'll explain this slowly ... and i speak only for California as I do not know where the money goes in every other state ... we - the police, people who DO the enforcement - do not profit by the citations and neither do our agencies nor our cities ... thus, there is no profit motive for us to write moving violations. None. Zero.

When enforcement has been performed adequately, behaviors change. If you have a lot of collisions based on speed, speed enforcement lowers those collisions. And so it goes ...

Someone may make some money somewhere, but it goes to other sources that might otherwise be paid for by an increase in taxes to all the rest of us. Citations pay for a lot of services that the rest of us might have to pay for if it were not for the offenders.

But, the bottom line is that in my state, the guy who writes the ticket has no profit motive to write them. His bosses have no profit motive to write them, and the city has no profit motive to write them. In fact, if it were all about the money, we'd drive golf carts and use chalk sticks on parking violations. A city with a $20 parking violation will make 4 times as much from that violation then the will from a standard speeding citation. Plus, there is no cap on how much a city can receive for fines paid via parking and municipal code violations - there is a cap on movers.

Quote:

---

One practice really proves the point, red light cameras. Cities make the yellow light so fast that it causes numerous accidents but increases ticket revenue, until they get caught. This is a widespread problem.

---

Which is why many of these have been tossed out. And why cities have had to take over these programs, make certain that the timing is regularly maintained, and that the company that manages the cameras is not paid per violation.

These cameras are the exception to the usual financial formula as there is a very low cost associated with their operation, and a high volume return. But, again, the math applies ... the city has a cap on the fines it gets reimbursed and most major metropolitan areas reach that cap three or four months before the end of the fiscal year anyway.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

It already IS against the law to drive 25 over the speed limit. banning driving is just silly. My "line of thinking" is that not wearing your seatbelt is an infraction under the law. There are ample safety reasons to justify why you are required to wear it. And, many crimes and most warrant arrests occur as a result of traffic stops. These contacts are also why it is among the highest risk activities law enforcement undertakes. Two officers from my former agency were killed on traffic stops - both killed after I left there, and one was a friend of mine. So, trust me, we do not take traffic stops lightly.

---

Not that I subscribe to OP's line of reasoning, Carl, but I think you misunderstood him. I think his bit about outlawing speeds in excess of 25 MPH is an absolute statement, not a relative one as your reply indicates you took it. That is to say, I think he's saying that any speed in excess of 25 MPH should be outlawed. I don't think he's saying anything about a speed 25 MPH over the posted limit - he's speaking about the limit itself. At least that's how I read it.

Quote:

---

Seven out of ten people in SoCal also speed on a daily basis - guess we should forget about that enforcement , too ... and shoplifting hasn't been resolved by arrests, so why not give up and that as well?

---

I think your statistic is rather low. It's my experience that Ca drivers in Washington have a 100% over the limit issue going on. /smackdown! JK!

Quote:

---

All because enforcement has not resulted in complete compliance does not mean we should just stop doing it. Perhaps an argument can be made that enforcement in these areas needs to be stepped up?

---

Indeed. In that vein, it's worth noting that laws aren't designed to prevent crimes from being committed; they're meant to inform the public of the punishment that can result should one be caught committing a crime. OP clearly has an understanding that the law is written and the consequences for it. So, he should just consider his ticket a driving without seatbelt tax. ^_^

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

That is to say, I think he's saying that any speed in excess of 25 MPH should be outlawed. I don't think he's saying anything about a speed 25 MPH over the posted limit - he's speaking about the limit itself. At least that's how I read it.

---

You may be right. Though the idea would be ... ludicrous.

Quote:

---

Indeed. In that vein, it's worth noting that laws aren't designed to prevent crimes from being committed; they're meant to inform the public of the punishment that can result should one be caught committing a crime. OP clearly has an understanding that the law is written and the consequences for it. So, he should just consider his ticket a driving without seatbelt tax. ^_^

---

If the officer believes the behavior will be altered by a warning, then a warning is often given. In my town, there is probably a 7 to 1 warning to citation ratio (I actually have the actual figure at the office as I am the one responsible to compile such records). This is because unless the driver is unrepentant, a repeat offender, or otherwise a miscreant, he or she will tend to get a warning. But then, I live and work in a small community these days. When I was in the big city, the ratio was probably about even.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

You may be right. Though the idea would be ... ludicrous.

---

Indeed. Fortunately, passing such a law would pretty much get the present legislature unemployed. En masse.

Quote:

---

Okay ... I'll explain this slowly ... and i speak only for California as I do not know where the money goes in every other state ... we - the police, people who DO the enforcement -
not profit by the citations

---

You can speak at normal speed but maybe you should read slower. I never suggested the ticketing officer profited. However, they do in the form of overtime to attend court.

Quote:

---

and neither do our agencies nor our cities

---

Come on man don't insult what little intelligence I have. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/feb...me-tickets10do

Quote:

---

Quoting kist

---

You can speak at normal speed but maybe you should read slower. I never suggested the ticketing officer profited. However, they do in the form of overtime to attend court.

---

Only on those that DO go to court. And most officers find them to be more annoying than profitable. Given that most officers in major metropolitan areas live far from their jurisdiction, they tend to have to drive a coupel of hours to get to and from court effectively wasting that time - plus the time IN court - for what may be 2 to 3 hours at time and a half (depending on their contract).

Quote:

---

Come on man don't insult what little intelligence I have. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/feb...me-tickets10do

---

The link did not work.

Perhaps you can paraphrase what it said. And if it provided numbers, please do share. But, as a percentage of budget, these reimbursements from the state amount to such a small percentage of the total revenue as to rarely be considered in budget discussions. Parking enforcement - always considered as they are HUGE profit making ventures ... moving violations, never. Red light cameras? Higher profit because less overhead coupled with more violations - a patrolling officer cannot hope to write as many citations and do so as inexpensively.

The state reimburses some $22 to $26 per base $100 fine. Since most fines are levied significantly less than this $100, an agency may make much less than that. A speeding ticket for CVC 22350, for instance, has a base fine of $35. Assuming the highest reimbursement of $26, we find that the city might get back about $9 ... subtract from that the officer's salary (an average of 10 minutes on the street and not counting paper processing or any notes later) and we get a cost of about $4.80 (more or less depending on jurisdiction), and you find the agency MAY earn a whopping $4.20 from each speeding citation. When you add in administration and processing, it takes away a few more pennies, and if you talk about court it would take almost 30 of these to make up one traffic court.

So, you see, it's a losing game in most every instance. Since I am part of the budget process for my city, I can tell you first hand where the money comes from, and this pot of money is NOT significant enough to allow for consideration of more tickets to generate revenue. As I said, if it were about revenue, we'd all have chalk sticks and golf carts ... that $27 parking citation makes the city four times as much as the $146 speeding violation because the city can collect so much more of the total.


- Carl

Quote:

---

As I said, if it were about revenue, we'd all have chalk sticks . . .
Carl

---

Just don't holster it next to the asp. . . could prove quite embarrassing. :o

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

Just don't holster it next to the asp. . . could prove quite embarrassing. :o

---

Actually, I'm sure they can make a chalk holder attachment for the ASP. More convenient to have an extendable tire marker. Takes up less room in our new Cushman Interceptors. Space will be a priority.

Quote:

---

Quoting sniper

---

Actually, I'm sure they can make a chalk holder attachment for the ASP. More convenient to have an extendable tire marker. Takes up less room in our new Cushman Interceptors. Space will be a priority.

---

lol

You just know they'll drop in one of those powered down metro interceptor engines. Pretty soon, that 2 cycle engine won't be worth squat!

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Quote:

---

:Quoting ashman165

That is to say, I think he's saying that any speed in excess of 25 MPH should be outlawed. I don't think he's saying anything about a speed 25 MPH over the posted limit - he's speaking about the limit itself. At least that's how I read it.

---

You may be right. Though the idea would be ... ludicrous.


If the officer believes the behavior will be altered by a warning, then a warning is often given. In my town, there is probably a 7 to 1 warning to citation ratio (I actually have the actual figure at the office as I am the one responsible to compile such records). This is because unless the driver is unrepentant, a repeat offender, or otherwise a miscreant, he or she will tend to get a warning. But then, I live and work in a small community these days. When I was in the big city, the ratio was probably about even.

- Carl

---

(Thanks to ashman165) Maybe now you're begining to understand my point, Carl: the idea of outlawing speeds in excess of 25 mph is ludicrous...just like the idea of citing drivers soley for not wearing their seat belt. I'm not arguing that the law is -- I'm arguing that the law is wrong. Your rationale in support of the law was, in part, that it protects us in the event of an accident even at speeds of 25 mph.

Also, I wasn't saying we shoud give up on any law enforcement efforts due to their lack of impact. I am saying that an officer's time is a resource that shouldn't be wasted on citing people soley for not wearing their seat belts. Not citing people soley for not wearing their seat belt would free officers to devote their time and efforts to serious matters such as those you listed. Not wearing your seat belt, in and of itself, should not warrant being pulled over and cited. Just because there is a law does not mean the law is right. The rationale you offered in support of this law could just as easily be used to justify outlawing speeds in excess of 25 mph; eating Big Macs; etc. We might hurt ourselves in the event of a fender bender at 25mph; we might clog our arteries if we eat Big Macs; therefore, we should outlaw these activities in order to coerce behaviors desired by the state.

Unless the officer is on a personal crusade or has a quota to make, I don't understand the motivation to pull over an otherwise unsuspicious law abiding driver simply because he's not wearing a seat belt.

As for your insinuation that I deserved the ticket because of my behavior: the ticket records my speed at 10mph in a 45mph zone; I was approaching a 4-way stop at the corner of a middle school on a sunny & clear Friday at 8:55am. The extent of our conversation was: he said he was pulling me over for not wearing my seat belt; I calmly responded the that the seat belt applies pressure on my pacemaker and my heart; he asked if I had a doctor's note; I said no; then he proceeded to write me up. Perhaps if I was a pretty blond with cleavage, the officer would have issued me a warning.

Quote:

---

Quoting tkroper

---

(Thanks to ashman165) Maybe now you're begining to understand my point, Carl: the idea of outlawing speeds in excess of 25 mph is ludicrous...just like the idea of citing drivers soley for not wearing their seat belt. I'm not arguing that the law is -- I'm arguing that the law is wrong. Your rationale in support of the law was, in part, that it protects us in the event of an accident even at speeds of 25 mph.

Also, I wasn't saying we shoud give up on any law enforcement efforts due to their lack of impact. I am saying that an officer's time is a resource that shouldn't be wasted on citing people soley for not wearing their seat belts. Not citing people soley for not wearing their seat belt would free officers to devote their time and efforts to serious matters such as those you listed. Not wearing your seat belt, in and of itself, should not warrant being pulled over and cited. Just because there is a law does not mean the law is right. The rationale you offered in support of this law could just as easily be used to justify outlawing speeds in excess of 25 mph; eating Big Macs; etc. We might hurt ourselves in the event of a fender bender at 25mph; we might clog our arteries if we eat Big Macs; therefore, we should outlaw these activities in order to coerce behaviors desired by the state.

Unless the officer is on a personal crusade or has a quota to make, I don't understand the motivation to pull over an otherwise unsuspicious law abiding driver simply because he's not wearing a seat belt.

As for your insinuation that I deserved the ticket because of my behavior: the ticket records my speed at 10mph in a 45mph zone; I was approaching a 4-way stop at the corner of a middle school on a sunny & clear Friday at 8:55am. The extent of our conversation was: he said he was pulling me over for not wearing my seat belt; I calmly responded the that the seat belt applies pressure on my pacemaker and my heart; he asked if I had a doctor's note; I said no; then he proceeded to write me up. Perhaps if I was a pretty blond with cleavage, the officer would have issued me a warning.

---

You're mixing apples and doilies here. Big Macs are food. Food is necessary to live. McDonald's is a company. Companies (at least in theory) are in the business of business. That's called commerce. Commerce is regulated differently than motor vehicle laws.

Your issue is also a policy decision made by your elected representatives. You need to petition them, not the police, for redress of your issue with seat belts. Incidentally, one big mac won't harm you (unless you choke on it) whereas not wearing your seat belt even once can actually kill you. Or leave you in the produce department.

Please don't purport that my post is in anyway suggesting that I agree with your "view". I was merely pointing out a logical necessity derived from your grammatical construction. This isn't to say I understand your point at all.

Oh, incidentally, people choosing not to wear the seat belts is one of the leading factors for higher insurance premiums. You're familiar with those, right?

I understand what you're saying; though, I do not understand how a rational mind can believe this.

Your point is essentially this: an otherwise law abiding citizen, which should be read as, "except for all the laws this citizen is currently breaking, he's not breaking a law" shouldn't be stopped by the police. While it's true that if you neglect all of the laws someone is breaking they aren't breaking any other laws it doesn't follow that neglecting the breaking of law(s) leaves the law unbroken. It isn't the job of the police to have to ignore certain laws so as to make someone a non-law-breaker. It's the job of you to not break the laws (at least near the cops) to be an otherwise law-abiding citizen.

But here's the rub: if you're not breaking a law, you're actually a law-abiding citizen. In this case, you weren't conforming to the legal requirements imposed upon you. Therefore, you deserved the ticket.

Perhaps if you were a pretty blonde (I presume you meant a female, right? That's what the e at the end of blond(e) does . . . changes the gender from male to female) you would still have received a summons. Your rank speculation is predicated on any number of several wild assumptions: all male cops are straight; all male cops are attracted to blond(e)s; being pretty is dispositive as to whether one receives a summons, or not. None of these is the case.

Most cops are far more concerned about being shot than how big some woman's bossom is. Almost every cop I know has usually decided whether to cite or not before contact is made. They're either using a stop to find something, or making a stop to cite you. It isn't like cops flip a coin back in the patrol car to cite or not. While it's possible to talk yourself into a ticket, the converse is almost never possible.

Quote:

---

Quoting tkroper

---

Unless the officer is on a personal crusade or has a quota to make, I don't understand the motivation to pull over an otherwise unsuspicious law abiding driver simply because he's not wearing a seat belt.

---

Because it's part of his job. Why should an officer pull anyone over for any infraction?

If you do not like seatbelt laws, then you can petition the state legislature to remove that law, or ask they make it a secondary violation (as it used to be about 15 years ago). Or, you can do what many others have done, write a proposition and submit it for recognition and seek signatures to get it on the ballot.

Quote:

---

The extent of our conversation was: he said he was pulling me over for not wearing my seat belt; I calmly responded the that the seat belt applies pressure on my pacemaker and my heart; he asked if I had a doctor's note; I said no; then he proceeded to write me up.

---

Because you did not have the legal exemption. If you have a real medical issue, obtaining this exemption should be no problem. We do not have to believe everyone who tells us a tale of woe ... I've heard some whoppers, by the way. But, maybe, a judge would have sympathy for you. And if you obtain that note before court, you might get the whole matter dropped.

Quote:

---

Perhaps if I was a pretty blond with cleavage, the officer would have issued me a warning.

---

Maybe. But, then, how would he have gotten you name, address, and maybe your phone number without issuing a cite? :D

- carl

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

You're mixing apples and doilies here. Big Macs are food. Food is necessary to live. McDonald's is a company. Companies (at least in theory) are in the business of business. That's called commerce. Commerce is regulated differently than motor vehicle laws.

Your issue is also a policy decision made by your elected representatives. You need to petition them, not the police, for redress of your issue with seat belts. Incidentally, one big mac won't harm you (unless you choke on it) whereas not wearing your seat belt even once can actually kill you. Or leave you in the produce department.

Please don't purport that my post is in anyway suggesting that I agree with your "view". I was merely pointing out a logical necessity derived from your grammatical construction. This isn't to say I understand your point at all.

Oh, incidentally, people choosing not to wear the seat belts is one of the leading factors for higher insurance premiums. You're familiar with those, right?

I understand what you're saying; though, I do not understand how a rational mind can believe this.

Your point is essentially this: an otherwise law abiding citizen, which should be read as, "except for all the laws this citizen is currently breaking, he's not breaking a law" shouldn't be stopped by the police. While it's true that if you neglect all of the laws someone is breaking they aren't breaking any other laws it doesn't follow that neglecting the breaking of law(s) leaves the law unbroken. It isn't the job of the police to have to ignore certain laws so as to make someone a non-law-breaker. It's the job of you to not break the laws (at least near the cops) to be an otherwise law-abiding citizen.

But here's the rub: if you're not breaking a law, you're actually a law-abiding citizen. In this case, you weren't conforming to the legal requirements imposed upon you. Therefore, you deserved the ticket.

Perhaps if you were a pretty blonde (I presume you meant a female, right? That's what the e at the end of blond(e) does . . . changes the gender from male to female) you would still have received a summons. Your rank speculation is predicated on any number of several wild assumptions: all male cops are straight; all male cops are attracted to blond(e)s; being pretty is dispositive as to whether one receives a summons, or not. None of these is the case.

Most cops are far more concerned about being shot than how big some woman's bossom is. Almost every cop I know has usually decided whether to cite or not before contact is made. They're either using a stop to find something, or making a stop to cite you. It isn't like cops flip a coin back in the patrol car to cite or not. While it's possible to talk yourself into a ticket, the converse is almost never possible.

---

Wow, Jonathan - you'll make a great lawyer someday, unfortunately. If you'd set down your glass of Kool-Aid long enough, you might be able to follow my arguement and actually respond to it.

Citizens have the right, and the responsibility, to resist the law when it is unjust. By your line of reasoning, Rosa Parks should have been arrested for not going to the back of the bus like a good little girl: because Click It or Ticket is the law, we should all just comply.

Driving without a seat belt and eating a Big Mac are both behaviors that have potential negative results. Both are also liberties available to individuals in a free country. The former liberty has been removed by force of law. What's to stop the latter from being removed as well? "The point is whether government has a right to coerce us into taking care of ourselves. If eating what we wish is our business and not that of government, then why should we accept government's coercing us to wear seat belts?" (Walter Williams: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...03/ticket.html).

As a heart patient, my chances of dying from eating a Big Mac far exceed my chances of dying from not wearing a seat belt. Either way, it's my choice. The state has no authority to usurp my right to make such choices.

I hope you have low cholesterol. That way, maybe you can get a doctor's note giving you permission to eat a Big Mac after the nannys you've elected in Sacramento have their way with the constitution. If not, you can take comfort in Carl's advice and simply petition the legislature or write a proposition.

Sign a petition to repeal Click It or Ticket: http://www.petitiononline.com/nobelt49/petition.html

Quote:

---

Quoting tkroper

---

Wow, Jonathan - you'll make a great lawyer someday, unfortunately. If you'd set down your glass of Kool-Aid long enough, you might be able to follow my arguement and actually respond to it.

Citizens have the right, and the responsibility, to resist the law when it is unjust. By your line of reasoning, Rosa Parks should have been arrested for not going to the back of the bus like a good little girl: because Click It or Ticket is the law, we should all just comply.

Driving without a seat belt and eating a Big Mac are both behaviors that have potential negative results. Both are also liberties available to individuals in a free country. The former liberty has been removed by force of law. What's to stop the latter from being removed as well? "The point is whether government has a right to coerce us into taking care of ourselves. If eating what we wish is our business and not that of government, then why should we accept government's coercing us to wear seat belts?" (Walter Williams: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...03/ticket.html).

As a heart patient, my chances of dying from eating a Big Mac far exceed my chances of dying from not wearing a seat belt. Either way, it's my choice. The state has no authority to usurp my right to make such choices.

I hope you have low cholesterol. That way, maybe you can get a doctor's note giving you permission to eat a Big Mac after the nannys you've elected in Sacramento have their way with the constitution. If not, you can take comfort in Carl's advice and simply petition the legislature or write a proposition.

Sign a petition to repeal Click It or Ticket: http://www.petitiononline.com/nobelt49/petition.html

---

I'm sorry, did you really just attempt to draw a parallel between years of incidious racial discrimination of an entire class of humans with people who get seat belt tickets? Poor Rosa Parks . . . imagine having her laudable, just cause being dragged through the mud.

Incidentally, you could simply have gotten a note from your doctor. You chose not to. There is an exception in the law which renders you immune to its bite. Such as I'm aware, there was no such exclusive remedy from racism available to Rosa Parks.

Incidentally, my name Johnathan, not Jonathan.

You're confusing a privilege with a right. You are granted freedom to drive by the state's mercy; you aren't guaranteed this by any constitution in the land.

Yes, people have the right to redress their grievances. You may protest. You may campaign against those who currently hold office. You may do many things. You may not, however, break the law to bring about this change.

Heck, I'd be willing to support legislation that allows you to opt out of wearing your seatbelt or your motorcycle helmet if you can show that you are fully insured and can cover the costs of your own injury up to, say, $300,000. If your injury as a result of a collision will only hurt you, then I'll go for it.

Oh, and as a legal tool, online petitions are worthless .. but they make people feel good, I guess.

- Carl

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, did you really just attempt to draw a parallel between years of incidious [sic] racial discrimination of an entire class of humans with people who get seat belt tickets? Poor Rosa Parks . . . imagine having her laudable, just cause being dragged through the mud.

---

Johnathan, you're a bright guy. Did you really misunderstand me so terribly, or are you just one of those "win at all costs" sorts of people? Because it sure looks like you zipped right past my arguments to attack my intelligence and my character in order to feel victorious without having to get your hands dirty with actually addressing the issues I raised.

In case you simply didn't follow me...the parallel is not found in any level of victim status between those who suffered hideous injustices inflicted by slavery and bigotry and those cited for not wearing their seat belts. Rather, the parallel is in the state's penchant for imposing its capricious will, and our responsibility to oppose that will to preserve our liberty.

You may be perfectly content with having the state dictate to you how to live each facet of your life -- some people are like that, and maybe you're one of them. But whether you are or you aren't, you can't possibly agree that the state is right to exercise its power over the individual liberties of its citizens just because it decides it knows what's best for you. If you do, please satisfy that inner need by moving back home with mommy. I'm sure she'll be happy to accommodate.

Quote:

---

Incidentally, you could simply have gotten a note from your doctor. You chose not to. There is an exception in the law which renders you immune to its bite. Such as I'm aware, there was no such exclusive remedy from racism available to Rosa Parks.

---

Like most people, I don't sit around reading the civil code at night. Since you apparently do, perhaps you would be kind enough to inform me what other notes I should secure from my doctor, my employer, my neighbor, my mommy, etc. so I can choose to live the life of a law-abiding citizen like you.

Quote:

---

You're confusing a privilege with a right. You are granted freedom to drive by the state's mercy; you aren't guaranteed this by any constitution in the land.

---

Since when is being able to use my own judgment a privilege?

Quote:

---

Yes, people have the right to redress their grievances. You may protest. You may campaign against those who currently hold office. You may do many things. You may not, however, break the law to bring about this change.

---

I assume, then, that if you had been the owner of an apartment house in Louisiana back in, say, 1930 you would not have rented to blacks out of your fealty to the law.

I didn't break this law to affect change or to make a statement. Some zealot caught me exercising my liberty; now I'm exercising it again by fighting the ticket...with no help from ExpertLaw.

Quote:

---

Quoting tkroper

---

I didn't break this law to affect change or to make a statement. Some zealot caught me exercising my liberty; now I'm exercising it again by fighting the ticket...with no help from ExpertLaw.

---

Some "zealot"? Since when does it require a "zealot" to enforce the vehicle code? Some officer caught you violting an infraction contained in the Vehicle Code ... THAT is what happened.

In any event, what help were you hoping for? A slap on the back and a rousing cheer that seatbelt laws are the unconstitutional manifestation of the socialist nanny state? From what you wrote, there really is no serious defense without committing perjury, so what were you hoping to do?

Here are the realistic options:

(1) Show up in court, hope the officer does not make it.

(2) Obtain the exemption from your doctor so you can show the court you have corrected the problem.

(3) Tell the judge your opinion on seatbelt laws and hope he agrees with you. (Or, just say you're sorry and it won't happen again.)

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting tkroper

---

Johnathan, you're a bright guy. Did you really misunderstand me so terribly, or are you just one of those "win at all costs" sorts of people? Because it sure looks like you zipped right past my arguments to attack my intelligence and my character in order to feel victorious without having to get your hands dirty with actually addressing the issues I raised.

---

Thank you for spelling my name correctly. Gee, I don't know, sport. After reading your bit comparing racism to a seat belt law, I kind of stopped reading as, well, any argument based upon that is bound to fail.

Quote:

---

In case you simply didn't follow me...the parallel is not found in any level of victim status between those who suffered hideous injustices inflicted by slavery and bigotry and those cited for not wearing their seat belts. Rather, the parallel is in the state's penchant for imposing its capricious will, and our responsibility to oppose that will to preserve our liberty.

---

I'm sorry. Exactly what liberty is granted to you with respect to wearing your seat belt?

Quote:

---

You may be perfectly content with having the state dictate to you how to live each facet of your life -- some people are like that, and maybe you're one of them. But whether you are or you aren't, you can't possibly agree that the state is right to exercise its power over the individual liberties of its citizens just because it decides it knows what's best for you. If you do, please satisfy that inner need by moving back home with mommy. I'm sure she'll be happy to accommodate.

---

What I'm content to do or not isn't relevant as I'm not the one being charged with having violated any law. You see, when I disagree with the government, I exercise my rights to that end. Paying monies to the gov't by breaking the law doesn't seem to really be the wisest course of action in my mind. But if you have the money to spare, have at it.

Quote:

---

Like most people, I don't sit around reading the civil code at night. Since you apparently do, perhaps you would be kind enough to inform me what other notes I should secure from my doctor, my employer, my neighbor, my mommy, etc. so I can choose to live the life of a law-abiding citizen like you.

---

I only read it because of your post. I don't sit around reading California law for a really good reason: I don't live there. But I do know the laws of the state in which I do live, and I try my best to obey them all. Even the ones I think are stupid. But the curious thing about the ones I think are stupid: I wouldn't engage in that kind of activity anyway because I value my own life, or it can't apply to me because I'm not in a profession governed by it, or can't be subject to the law because I lack the proper biological equipment, interests, behavior pattern and so on.

Quote:

---

Since when is being able to use my own judgment a privilege?

---

You were free to use your judgment. In fact, you did use your judgment. You just chose poorly considering that there was a very minor step you could have taken to bring your activity into compliance with the law. You are surely free to make as many poor decisions as you'd like, as you apparently have at least once.

Quote:

---

I assume, then, that if you had been the owner of an apartment house in Louisiana back in, say, 1930 you would not have rented to blacks out of your fealty to the law.

---

You assume incorrectly then. Of course, we know what making an assumption does: it makes an a$$ out of you . . . and mption. There doesn't exist a set of conditions under which I would discriminate against anyone based on their sex, race, sexual orientation, handicap, or other things which are just attendant to their existence. There are many good things in the world for me to worry about and dislike people for. By the time I'd get far enough down on the list to care about their skin color, I'd be far too tired to make a serious go of it. Oh yeah, and then there's this pesky thing I was burdened with: a sense of morality.

Quote:

---

I didn't break this law to affect change or to make a statement. Some zealot caught me exercising my liberty; now I'm exercising it again by fighting the ticket...with no help from ExpertLaw.

---

Have you ever actually looked up zealot? It's an odd useage of the term here.

I'm profoundly sorry you haven't found the legal advice here helpful. But I suspect there's no remedy you'd find satisfactory save the ruling of the SC that this seat belt violates one's fundamental rights to break the law.

You have several times been informed of what legal remedies are available to you. Instead of using those, you just prattle on about, well, I guess how you like to be idignant. Bully for you, sir. I suppose my advice for you to get a note from your doctor wasn't an adequate solution despite it being dispositive in your own favor.

Good luck with telling the judge you were use your best judgment because the law is illegal. Do tell me as I'm curious: you aren't per chance a voter, are you?