Posted on 05/22/2003 1:25:58 AM PDT by A44MAGNUT
Skagit County judge refuses to enforce seat belt law
MOUNT VERNON -- A Skagit County Superior Court judge has refused to enforce the state's seat belt law, finding it too vague. That decision also led the judge to dismiss drug and weapons charges filed in the same case.
Judge Susan Cook ruled that the seat belt law is unconstitutionally vague because it refers to federal safety standards regarding which vehicles must be equipped with seat belts.
"This statute fails to inform the average citizen of the location or legal citation of the federal standard it adopts," she wrote in a letter outlining her decision to suppress evidence gathered as the result of a traffic stop in the case against a 31-year-old Everett man. "It is likewise unclear how a citizen of common intelligence should discover that location."
Similar rulings in 1995 forced the state to change its regulations identifying approved helmets for motorcycle riders under the state's mandatory helmet law.
It was unclear what effect Cook's recent decision would have on other cases in Skagit County.
Public defense attorneys told The Skagit Valley Herald they got the idea for challenging the seat belt law from an earlier case in Pacific County. They said they would seek dismissal of all seat belt cases in Skagit County on June 9. Prosecutors said they planned to appeal the ruling.
"We respect Judge Cook's opinion," Washington State Patrol Capt. Glenn Cramer said Wednesday. "We consider this a public safety issue. We will continue to enforce the seat belt statute."
The case began in February, when a State Patrol trooper stopped a pickup truck carrying three people on Washington 20. The trooper said he had noticed the passenger nearest the door was not wearing a seat belt. A change in state law last year made not wearing a seat belt a primary offense that law enforcement could use to make a traffic stop.
During the stop, the trooper reported smelling marijuana and alcohol and seeing a bottle of whiskey with some of the liquor gone.
The trooper discovered two outstanding warrants against the passenger nearest the door and arrested him.
A search also uncovered a small tin containing marijuana, a Cobray M-11 9mm handgun and ammunition. The Everett man, who had been sitting between the driver and the passenger who had drawn the trooper's notice, admitted the drugs and weapon were his, according to State Patrol reports. As a convicted felon, the man was barred from legally possessing a gun.
In her May 15 ruling, Cook suppressed that evidence, since it flowed from enforcement of a law she found unconstitutional, and dismissed the drug and weapons charges based on that evidence.
It could be because the seatbelt law is Intrusive and Unconstitutional to begin with ?
A laws is supposed to have enough precision that the person who reads it will know whether it applies to him, or to the facts of his case.
In this case, the Washington State law didn't say "vehicles equipped with seat belts," but referred instead to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
A far cry from enforcing your sentiment (mine too, BTW) that seatbelt laws are too intrusive.
State legislators who insist on enforcing them do so at their own elective peril.
BUMP
I consider it a reduction of liberty issue because you're not really free unless you're free enough to make a dumb decision.
Interestingly, here in Florida the mandatory motorcycle helmet law has been repealed. So, it's legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. However, a helmet is still required to ride a bicycle.
Anyway, I had always worn a seat belt when I got behind the wheel at age 16, LONG before the seat belt law came along. Driver safety class convinced me that if you're involved in a collision, your odds of surviving were greater. Well, I've never had a collision in a car other than a few little fender benders, but I still believe in the safety stats.
we now return to our regularly scheduled program. :O)
What peril? Who knows who wrote the bill, much less who voted for it?
It is just for dollars from the NTSC.
IMHO, this is the truly frightening thing. I've seen bad legislation passed just for the federal monies it would bring, or continue to bring. (In at least one or two cases, several years back, I recall demonstrating how the law could very easily cost the state a lot more than the federal money on the table they'd give up by not passing -- but because the costs are hidden the laws pass.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.