Seatbelt Enforcement

[Mark K 2]

What a smart way to enforce the seat belt law.

Blake Elfstrom, 22, of Maplewood, was driving his girlfriend home late Sunday morning. He was the fourth car at a stop sign before turning onto westbound Minnesota 36 from northbound McKnight Road in North St. Paul.



That was when he spotted a shabbily dressed, middle-aged man wearing glasses that seemed too big for his face. The man, who turned out to be Maplewood cop Paul Bartz, was holding up a sign "Will work for food" as he approached and looked inside the line of waiting vehicles.



Elfstrom was pondering whether to roll down his window when he saw the cars moving ahead of him. He entered the on-ramp, only to be waved to the side of the road moments later by one of several uniformed cops standing near a line of patrol cars.



He asked the cop why he was being pulled over. The officer told him his girlfriend was in violation of a 9-month-old law that gives Minnesota law enforcement the authority to pull over drivers and occupants for not wearing seat belts.



"How in the world did you know?" Elfstrom asked the ticketing officer.



"That homeless guy back there? He's an officer," the cop replied.



"I saw about 10 other cars pulled over as he wrote out the (summons)," said Elfstrom, who recently

Advertisement

graduated from college. "Yes, I was quite surprised by it."



Elfstrom's girlfriend was tagged for $108 the state-mandated $25 fine for a first-time offender, plus the $75 the law allows as a petty-misdemeanor surcharge fee repeat after me: this is not a tax, it's a fee that goes into the state general fund. The remaining $8 repeat again: it's not a tax, it's a fee goes to fund law libraries.



Officers from Maplewood, North St. Paul, the Ramsey County sheriff's office and the State Patrol issued 122 citations during the 3 1/2-hour operation, according to Dave Kvam, Maplewood's deputy police chief.



The vast majority of tickets 103 were for not wearing seat belts. Two involved child-seat restraint violations. Three were for license revocation or suspension penalties. Six involved motorists with no proof of insurance and eight were for other traffic- or vehicle-related infractions.

 

[Kevin Lang]

The remaining $8 repeat again: it's not a tax, it's a fee goes to fund law libraries.

Surprised that the Grammar Police didn't pull this author over.



It IS a tax.



Repeat after me:

"The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others; his own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."

- John Stuart Mill 1806 - 1873

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Is there no assumed "right to privacy" when in a vehicle, or is it considered "public space?"



I ask, because it seems to me the undercover cop dressed as the bum could be invading people's privacy; essentially performing an illegal search (looking inside the vehicle without warrant or probable cause).



But, then again, I'm no lawyer, and certainly not a civil libertarian.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

If you gave the cop a handout or food, did you still get a ticket?

 

[Frank Marano]

How is this any different then a road check getting on the highway...

 

[A K]

I ask, because it seems to me the undercover cop dressed as the bum could be invading people's privacy; essentially performing an illegal search (looking inside the vehicle without warrant or probable cause).

Evidence of an infraction in plain view. Don't need a warrant to peek into windows of a parked car, etc. Do need one--generally--to go through the glove box or trunk, unless some other exception to the PC requirement exists.



Not wearing a seat belt can be seen by a pedestrian standing on the side of the road, or a homeless person asking for change. Driver and/or passenger busted.

 

[gary s]

guilty......



bottom line if the seatbelt was on, the passenger wouldn't be in this situation .

 

[Kevin Lang]

The question is not of the guilt of the people involved--they violated the law..a law that the state (according to the article) was paid $3.4 million in federal money to enact.



The question is about the purpose of this enforcement. The article repeats over and over that this is not a tax, however, it seems to be all about the cops harvesting the money, rather than promoting public safety. If public safety were the first concern, actual penance would be demanded of the violators, like a license revocation, or at least license points. Not a piddling 108 dollars.



The article also mentions that the cops flagrantly violated one of their own laws in this sting operation, that standing on a highway to solicit business, employment, or contributions from the occupant of any vehicle, is illegal.



The state is 87% seat-belt wearing. This crackdown is pointless, except for money. Again, it is a person's prerogative to wear a device for their own safety. To force someone to do something for their "own good" is morally wrong, and not the place of government.

 

[EddieS'04]

I have a problem with the method involved. In my town. The cops are in uniform at major intersections. 4 working at a time, sometimes. They take your DL and have you pull around the corner for write up. It sometimes holds up traffic. Sometimes one cop will hold traffic after the light changes. Depending on the lane the violator is in.



It is the law. I wear mine all the time. My X will drive all over town with the warning chime, dinging away.



Do you think Bill Cosby was right? He said seat belts were invented, because. EMt's were to lazy to look for the bodies.:bwahaha:

 

[Dan Long]

My first thought was about the laws regarding panhandling..... in my town its illegal for people to do it at intersections and exit ramps, etc. unless they get a permit for it, which is how the fireman get around it for the March of Dimes or whatever it is they collect for.



Maybe their town gives exemptions as well, but then again, its also illegal to speed and you see troopers flying along at 80+ MPH in the left lane all the time so they can get speeders from behind....

 

[EddieS'04]

Dan, I also see cops in my town. Maybe half the time, no seat belt. We run one cop to a car. Not sure when, but. After so much time they are given a car to take home. Most of them go for the Limo tint on their take home car. Which is illegal state and city. Some dont tint at all others keep it legal. 32% is max in Texas.

 

[Dan Long]

Yeah, they get away with a lot of that stuff. I know the reasoning behind some of it, as I used to work for the Sheriff's Office here, but it is still technically illegal and doesn't make it completely right.



I'm a very strong believer in seatbelts, as my grandmother died as a result of not wearing one and my wife and kids survived her Mazda getting totalled with barely a scratch because they were wearing them, but they can be a major pain in the a$$ to put on when you're wearing a loaded down duty belt.



Window tint is partially for comfort, especially in Texas and Florida, but also somewhat for covertness and safety. You tend to make a lot of enemies being in law enforcement, and you never know who you're going to pull up next to at a red light, or have walking by on the sidewalk that might have a grudge against you. If they can't see in the car to know its you, its probably a little less likely that they'll just randomly start shooting at a cop car. Might sound far fetched, but I know I sure hated being in uniform in a vehicle without tinted windows, especially if I was going to or from work and wasn't armed at the time. That's partly why my ST was pretty much blacked out. Doesn't make it 100% right, I know, but that's just how it was.

 

[Robert Thomas]

EMt's were to lazy to look for the bodies

Had that happen one night. We were looking for the driver of a sports car after a bad wreck. He fell out of a tree and landed right besides us. Still alive.:banana::banana:

 

[Robert Caffyn]

Here's another: witnessed an officer in my hometown driving w/o his belt on, talking on his cell phone and drinking from a McDonalds cup. A fine example to the citizens of Forked River. I've been told somewhere, that police officers are "exempt" from the seatbelt law, as they need to make rapid egress in an emergency. **still doesn't beat the guy driving while shaving his head with an electric razor. BC :banghead:

 

[EddieS'04]

Bob, I was in a 50mph zone one morning. Looked over the woman next to me was, driving with her knees and taking curlers, out of her hair.

 

[Mark K 2]

Minnesota troopers have stopped and ticketed drivers for operating their wipers without their headlights on. State law, you see.



In Wisconsin, troopers stop you for driving with your parking lights on in the rain or snow or at dusk and dawn. Statute calls for headlights at those times.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Minnesota troopers have stopped and ticketed drivers for operating their wipers without their headlights on. State law, you see.

Was it raining or precipitating? See, I wouldn't put it past the cops to fine a guy for using his wipers to remove something like bird crap on a fine clear sunny day, by misinterpretation of a law.



State troopers are the same every state it seems, the only time the Public sees them is when they're pulling over a motorist to extort a fine, the impression is easily made that they're just modern highway robbers.



At least County police and City police are frequently seen doing something besides manning the Almighty Speed Trap.



:soap:

 

[Mark K 2]

Was it raining or precipitating?

Yep.



They set up a sting operation in I-35W in Minneapolis.



They also set up stings to nail drivers for not pulling into the left lane on the freeway for a stopped police car. They make lots of money from that.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Well if it was raining, then that sounds legit to me. Gasp. I still can't think of a time I've seen the state police outside of a speed trap position...not including the times I've seen them drive recklessly through traffic on major freeways (limited access), presumably to get to their next speed trap

They also set up stings to nail drivers for not pulling into the left lane on the freeway for a stopped police car.

I've heard of switching to the lanes furthest from the stopped police car, eg if the cop is stopped on the right shoulder, move at least one lane left, but I'm confused on a law that wants you to pull into the left lane on the freeway regardless of where the fuzz is positioned?

 

[Richard L]

In many states that might be illegal.



I know of cases were speeding tickets were thrown out of court because the officer was clocking speeders and radioing ahead to a team of officers who were flagging the violators down and writing them tickets. The legal problem was that the officer writing the speeding tickets did not witness the actual violation and signing the ticket implied that he witness that person speeding, which of course he did not. That's why you don't see those kinds of speed traps around much anymore.



...Rich