Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Howlin
actually an affadaivat of license IS a legal, though temporary license in most states. According to the issuing state, it can be used while the new license is being mailed out. (usually with a new picture).

if that is the kind of affadaivat she had... the state trooper will lose on this.

also, although I think folks SHOULD wear safety belts... and I always have, wihtout exception. I always thought that making it mandatory was a bunch of nany state bs.. just like the helmet laws.

perhaps her state does NOT restrict such activity while driving.
I think the "if you drive here, you must know all our laws" might be a bit of a stretch in such cases. Some states DO allow you to NOT wear a belt for some circumstances. Common sense would dictate that whatever the law is in your state, is probably similar to laws in other states.

and the cop... should have let her off with a warning... IF her state has a common sense law that ohio has not yet enacted. NOw if she were talking on the cell phone... THEN I would say lock her up and throw away the key!
22 posted on 06/19/2003 7:52:00 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2 (What price treason?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


Throw the book at her. If she thinks that interstate highways' rules are Michigan rules, fine. We can handle that.

257.626c Operation of vehicle on highway or public place; conduct as felony; penalty.
Sec. 626c.

A person who operates a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, carelessly and heedlessly in willful and wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property resulting in a serious impairment of a body function of a person, but does not cause death, is guilty of felonious driving punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

257.677 Interference with view or control of driver or operation; violation as civil infraction.
Sec. 677.

(1) A person shall not drive a vehicle when it is loaded, or when there are in the front seat a number of persons, as to obstruct the view of the driver to the front or sides of the vehicle or as to interfere with the driver's control over the driving mechanism of the vehicle.

(2) A passenger in a vehicle or streetcar shall not ride in a position as to interfere with the driver's or operator's view ahead or to the sides, or to interfere with the driver's or operator's control over the driving mechanism of the vehicle or streetcar.

(3) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.

257.710e Safety belt required; driver or passenger to which section inapplicable; transporting child 4 years of age but less than 16 years of age; enforcement of section; violation as evidence of negligence; reduction of recovery for damages; violation as civil infraction; reports of police harassment; effect of primary enforcement; study; media to promote compliance; report of findings; intent; assessment of points prohibited.
Sec. 710e.

(1) This section does not apply to a driver or passenger of any of the following:

(a) A motor vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1965.

(b) A bus.

(c) A motorcycle.

(d) A moped.

(e) A motor vehicle if the driver or passenger possesses a written verification from a physician that the driver or passenger is unable to wear a safety belt for physical or medical reasons.

(f) A motor vehicle that is not required to be equipped with safety belts under federal law.

(g) A commercial or United States postal service vehicle that makes frequent stops for the purpose of pickup or delivery of goods or services.

(h) A motor vehicle operated by a rural carrier of the United States postal service while serving his or her rural postal route.

(2) This section does not apply to a passenger of a school bus.

(3) Each driver and front seat passenger of a motor vehicle operated on a street or highway in this state shall wear a properly adjusted and fastened safety belt, except that a child less than 4 years of age shall be protected as required in section 710d. If there are more passengers than safety belts available for use, and all safety belts in the motor vehicle are being utilized in compliance with this section, the driver of the motor vehicle is in compliance with this section.

(4) Each driver of a motor vehicle transporting a child 4 years of age or more but less than 16 years of age in a motor vehicle shall secure the child in a properly adjusted and fastened safety belt. If the motor vehicle is transporting more children than there are safety belts available for use, all safety belts available in the motor vehicle are being utilized in compliance with this section, and the driver and all front seat passengers comply with subsection (3), then the driver of a motor vehicle transporting a child 4 years of age or more but less than 16 years of age for which there is not an available safety belt is in compliance with this subsection, if that child is seated in other than the front seat of the motor vehicle. However, if that motor vehicle is a pickup truck without an extended cab or jump seats, and all safety belts in the front seat are being used, the driver may transport such a child in the front seat without a safety belt.

What she quotes as allowing her to do this, is the following. However, the exception for nursing only applies to Michigan's statutory requirement that children younger than 4 years old be secured in child car seat. This exception does not impact, in any way, her legal obligation, outlined above, to drive the car in a safe manner and maintain an interference-free control of the car.

257.710d Child restraint system required; exceptions; violation as civil infraction; points; abstract; exemption by rules; alternate means of protection.
Sec. 710d.

(1) Except as provided in this section, or as otherwise provided by law, a rule promulgated pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, or federal regulation, each driver transporting a child less than 4 years of age in a motor vehicle shall properly secure that child in a child restraint system that meets the standards prescribed in 49 C.F.R. 571.213.

(2) This section does not apply to any child being nursed.

(3) This section does not apply if the motor vehicle being driven is a bus, school bus, taxicab, moped, motorcycle, or other motor vehicle not required to be equipped with safety belts under federal law or regulations.

(4) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.

(5) Points shall not be assessed under section 320a for a violation of this section. An abstract required under section 732 shall not be submitted to the secretary of state regarding a violation of this section.

(6) The secretary of state may exempt by rules promulgated pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, a class of children from the requirements of this section, if the secretary of state determines that the use of the child restraint system required under subsection (1) is impractical because of physical unfitness, a medical problem, or body size. The secretary of state may specify alternate means of protection for children exempted under this subsection.


29 posted on 06/19/2003 8:22:07 PM PDT by Chemist_Geek ("Drill, R&D, and conserve" should be our watchwords! Energy independence for America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: Robert_Paulson2
if that is the kind of affadaivat she had... the state trooper will lose on this.
I could be wrong, but this story is starting to smell to me like she's one of those nutbags that uses affidavits because having a driver's license is the "mark of the beast." The fact that she and her husband did "extensive research on the law" about simply having a driver's license and claim that driving on an interstate means only the laws from their "home" state apply to them sends up a red flag to me.
39 posted on 06/19/2003 8:49:07 PM PDT by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: Robert_Paulson2
Not seat belt law, child restraint law...
44 posted on 06/20/2003 4:39:05 AM PDT by steve8714 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: Robert_Paulson2
also, although I think folks SHOULD wear safety belts... and I always have, wihtout exception. I always thought that making it mandatory was a bunch of nany state bs.. just like the helmet laws.

Wonder how much she would sue the auto manufacturer for if she had a collision during the act and the driver airbag then turned her infant into raspberry jam? Had she researched that too?
244 posted on 06/20/2003 1:34:17 PM PDT by Kozak (" No mans life liberty or property is safe when the legislature is in session." Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson