The violation stated on the infraction notice is "46.61.688 NO SEAT BELT".
During the stationary contact, the officer first observed that I was not wearing my seatbelt and inferred that I did not have it on when the car was moving. The reason why I had taken it off? It's a little complicated - although the officer says that he stopped our car for speeding, my wife pulled over to the side only because my aunt's car traveling directly behind us was getting pulled over by the officer from behind (we were traveling in a remote area, and my wife naturally did not want our cars to get separated). I took off the belt once we were stopped so that I could turn around in my seat and see what was going on behind us (i.e. why had the officer stopped my aunt's car).
My preference is to get the officer's statement supressed on foundational grounds. However, if the officer's statement is read in court, I would argue that it has contradictions. The officer says that the traffic stop occured while he was going 55 mph and my wife was supposedly going 68 mph, and that at that point itself he observed that I (in the rear seat) was not wearing my seatbelt (which I would argue is far-fetched- at those speeds, and also he has chosen not to fill in "Distance from violator"). Then, in his remarks he says "Upon contact, defendent never had his seatbelt on" (implying that he determined this only upon contact - contradicting that he observed no seatbelt while we were driving 55/68 mph respectively ).

