Mother defends breastfeeding baby while driving (followup on idiot)

WKYC-TV/DT Cleveland ^ | 6.17.03 | Vic Gideon

[RgnadKzin]

R: Why should we go to the expense of fighting this in court in another state when all the trooper had to do was to look at the law?

M: The officer's job is to enforce the law. The loophole to which you refer is not a usual one that the officer comes across. It is not his place to interpret the limitations of the law, which it appears you have done. That responsibility belongs to the judicial branch. So, in that regard, the officer was correct. You would have to take that up in court.

I disagree. The law says what it says. It is not subject to interpretation. We asked them to look at the law before they cited her. They refused. They did not even look at it. An Ohio state trooper should know that non-residents are entitled to their home law. From the plate that was on her car, they could see that she was non-resident to Ohio.

The plain language of the statute says that what she was doing was within the law.

B: More than that, he has a DUTY to know the law, and he was derelict in THAT duty.

M: He has a duty to know the law. Not a duty to know every interpretation of the law. In that light, he was correct in his actions.

If ignorance of the law is no excuse for me, then why does it excuse him?

[RgnadKzin]

It is undisputable that she was nursing a child. They will offer no evidence or testimony to the contrary.

It is undisputable that she is has a Michigan residence. The plate says Michigan, they themselves say she is from Michigan. They will offer no evidence to the contrary.

The burden of "preponderance of the evidence" was evident the day she was stopped.

[nhbob1]

Yes she is a ditz. Wonder if that explains her resemblance to Jeanene Garafalo.

[Poohbah]

BTW, what was the nature of the affadavit she presented in lieu of a license? Who issued the affadavit?

[cincinnati65]

The weakness of the wording of the "breast feeding" exception is that, unfortunately, it assumes basic common sense (i.e. You DON'T breastfeed while driving on the interstate at 70 mph).

This insane act serves as proof that there no longer exists any such thing as "common" sense. All that remains is individual levels of density.

[RgnadKzin]

I did not intend to misspeak. In the context of the statutes involved, you will have to agree that in Michigan, she cannot be charged with 257.710d because of (2), and because of ORC 4511.81(F), ORC 4511.81(A) and (B) are trumped by that Michigan statute.

Also, Ohio 4511.202 is trumped by 4511.81(D), already posted. They cannot charge her with ANY OTHER CRIME than the child restraint violation. And that is a "minor misdemeanor" in Ohio, and for that she cannot be arrested, only issued a citation.

Your contention of the other Michigan statutes is irrelevant in this context. In order for her to be charged for anything other than the child restraint law in Michigan, there would have to be mens rea - evidence of actual harm or erratic driving.

[mhking]

It is not subject to interpretation. We asked them to look at the law before they cited her. They refused. They did not even look at it.

To a measure, it is not subject to interpretation, however, when you ask them to look up the case law, you are asking them to make an interpretation. Not only that, it is not incumbent on law enforcement officers to look up case law or statute law on demand on the spot. (I can see it now. "No, officer, you can't exercise that search warrant. You have to look up the law before you come in here," all while drugs are being flushed down the toilet and the dealer heads out the back with the guns in hand)

If ignorance of the law is no excuse for me, then why does it excuse him?

I did not say anything of "ignorance" of the law. I said that he did not have to understand each interpretation of the law. Otherwise, each and every lawyer that cops stop can get out of each and every violation of the law, simply by knowing how to word their demand for the officer to "follow the letter" as they see it.

The letter of the law in Ohio says that they should follow the Michigan statute. And to follow that to it's ultimate end, OHIO police officers will not have MICHIGAN case or statute law in front of them to read, let alone interpret.

What should they do at that point, take the word of the person who they've stopped? No! At that point, they would have to rely upon what they know. That's where the judge gets involved. And again, going back to your initial argument, you stepped out on that fringe, you have to defend your decisions to act in that fashion, especially when they skirt the laws of one state versus another.

[mhking]

Also, Ohio 4511.202 is trumped by 4511.81(D), already posted.

So the one state law trumps the other? I think not. In any event, it is completely unreasonable to demand that a police officer review all of the statute laws in question in a traffic stop situation.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I didn't say while driving. However, unsafe actions while driving are very subjective. My wife can nurse our child without using her hands once she's in her lap (smart babies know what to look for). That being said, she'd never do it while driving a car. But she probably could, and she would probably be driving better than the folks with cell phones and maps and cups of coffee in hand.

[Howlin]

Ah, I missed some of this thread; are people actually claiming that, as you travel, your HOME STATE law applies in all states you travel through?

[Poohbah]

It does apply in extremely limited ways.

As for Michigan...This woman had better hope that no one in Michigan got popped for driving while nursing, because that completely destroys their argument.

[mhking]

The weakness of the wording of the "breast feeding" exception is that, unfortunately, it assumes basic common sense (i.e. You DON'T breastfeed while driving on the interstate at 70 mph).

DING-DING-DING-DING-DING!!! We have a winner! You hit the nail on the head: it assumes basic common sense.

And that's why I've been referring to it as a loophole. And it's one that this couple have driven straight through. If they get off, it will be due to the poorly worded law in place here.

[mhking]

However, unsafe actions while driving are very subjective.

Absolutely. That is part of my point here. It leaves the definition of "unsafe" in the hands of the citing officer. The officer here made what appears to be the appropriate decision.

[Howlin]

Since you apparently know her and obviosly arrived here at FR today to defend her, exactly how did she get the baby out of the carseat while she was flying down the interestate?

Carseats for infants are required BY LAW to be in the back seat of the car.

So how did she remove a baby from a five point belt in a carseat REQUIRED BY LAW from the backseat into the front seat while she was flying down the interstate?

[Howlin]

Something smells about this story.

Notice how the husband said that they had RESEARCHED the laws.......for what? In anticipation of getting into this type of situation, or because it's happened to them before?

There is so much parsing going on here, I'm surprised their last name isn't Clinton.

It's endangerment, plain and simple, not to mention moronic.

[Howlin]

I agree with you 100 percent.

Lots of parsing going on here by this new arrival; and I have to ask why.

[Howlin]

YOOHOO>.........SHE has a duty to know the laws of the states she travels throughand OBEY them.

[Howlin]

Well, evidently the "new guy" thinks that unless she kills somebody you can't prove "risk" or "endangerment."

Stupid woman not admitting what she did was wrong.

As I said above, SOMETHING SMELLS about this story.

[RgnadKzin]

OK, I'm going to take a big chance here and try to explain this. All I ask is that you first look at the law, and then comment. If you cannot find the law, then please contact me privately and I would be pleased to show you how.

Pennsylvania law (where I lived before she married me) says that one has to have a social security number in order to make application. I have none, neither does she. We have a religious objection to the inventorying of human flesh. Please don't flame me for my beliefs. I am entitled to them, Sherbert v Verner, and Wisconsin v Yoder. See also the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, codified in Title 42 United States Code.

So we cannot get a driver's license or even photo ID here in Pennsylvania. I use a photo ID issued by my church and we also have identification that we made, essentially an Affidavit of Positive Identification, that is signed by us and two witnesses before a notary and sealed, then laminated. I have no problems using this for banking or air travel.

I could address this matter in more detail, but instead, first see 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i)(I) to see that only ALIENS applying for permanent residency are required to get a number in order to work in the United States, it does not say citizens. See also Railroad Retirement Bd v Alton RR Co to see that Congress has no authority to compel citizens to participate in National Socialism.

Also, reference US v Butler (overturned on other grounds) that the taxes people pay to participate in a benefits program must be put into the general fund, and cannot be set aside in some other kind of trust fund, but that is specific to Socialist Insecurity.

So how do I work? Look at 26 USC 6041(a) and (c) and show me a requirement for an SSAN. Now look at 26 CFR 301.6109-1(c) and look at the "foreign persons" in (b) that are referenced.

The motions that I generally file contend that it is this "resident alien" that is being regulated, not me and people like me. There is a an incredible difference in the law between citizens and resident aliens, see Vattel's Law of Nations. Also, look at Fong Tue Ying v United States, which upheld the Chinese Exclusion Acts. Recall that in the West of the last century, the railroads were built primarily by Chinese immigrants. When their work was done, Congress passed legislation requiring resident aliens working in the United States to be registered. When they lost their jobs, they were deported without any modicum of due process of law - no hearing, just a summary deportation. Look at the dissenting opinions by Field and Fuller in this case to see how egregious they thought this was.

And so it began, over 110 years ago.

I guess that without an SSAN, she and I cannot be the "resident" aliens provided for in the laws. The next question is: Since only "resident" aliens have to get a d/l, and "resident" aliens have to have an SSAN, and I do not have an SSAN, then I cannot be a "resident" alien for the purposes of this statute.

Please remember that your failure to be informed of this does not make me a wacko.

[RgnadKzin]

I have already addressed this matter in prior posts. Please be so kind as to familiarize yourself with the entire thread.

Thanx