Carrying in Louisiana, and pulled over

[soberbyker]

How do you conclude that? Have you considered that the purpose of the law might be to get more people to wear seat belts? Once they choose to encourage that by passing a law, the law is useless if it isn't enforced.

Keep in mind that here in Pennsylvania the seat belt law is a secondary offense, in order to be charged with not wearing one you would have had to commit another violation, you can not be pulled over strictly for not wearing a belt.

Remember this ad campain ...



That's the reason it says "2 tickets 2 fines"

.
.

[zeroflat24]

[QUOTE=smithwessn;1739491]Seat belt laws exist because the Feds offer additional funding to states that have them. That's also the reason we have a state emissions testing program. The Feds try to control state laws by bribing them with funding. Don't worry though, they always know what's best for us.

just wondering, if PA gets federal funding for requiring emissions, wouldnt ALL counties be required to run emissions tests? Butler county and several other counties dont require a OBD1or OBD2 test? In my county it only requires a visual check, which is part of the state inspection also. state inspections are a great idea, you should see some of the cars from ohio that come into PA to get inspected. it is terrifying.

[F16vipers]

Keep in mind that here in Pennsylvania the seat belt law is a secondary offense, in order to be charged with not wearing one you would have had to commit another violation, you can not be pulled over strictly for not wearing a belt.

Remember this ad campain ...



That's the reason it says "2 tickets 2 fines"

.
.

Is it STILL a secondary offense in PA? I thought they changed that? I could be wrong I'll have to look it up later. I know some cops...especially troopers...will stop you for speeding and 'cut you a break' by issuing a seat belt ticket or something similar. I always buckle up but I've had friends who don't and have had the same experience. Don't know anyone that's actually been cited twice on one stop.

Of course if you're a dick to the cop he might feel more compelled to run up your fines

[pamedic]

Is it STILL a secondary offense in PA? I thought they changed that? I could be wrong I'll have to look it up later. I know some cops...especially troopers...will stop you for speeding and 'cut you a break' by issuing a seat belt ticket or something similar. I always buckle up but I've had friends who don't and have had the same experience. Don't know anyone that's actually been cited twice on one stop.

Of course if you're a dick to the cop he might feel more compelled to run up your fines

He's correct it is still a secondary offense. I believe it's a $10 fine the first time.

[smithwessn]

just wondering, if PA gets federal funding for requiring emissions, wouldnt ALL counties be required to run emissions tests? Butler county and several other counties dont require a OBD1or OBD2 test? In my county it only requires a visual check, which is part of the state inspection also. state inspections are a great idea, you should see some of the cars from ohio that come into PA to get inspected. it is terrifying.

Baby steps. They started with the most heavily populated areas and are slowly expanding. Some counties that had nothing now have just a visual inspection of emissions components. I'm pretty sure that you will see a state wide emissions inspection eventually. Maybe not the enhanced OBD II test, but something.


(sorry for the thread jack)

[soberbyker]

Is it STILL a secondary offense in PA? I thought they changed that? I could be wrong I'll have to look it up later. I know some cops...especially troopers...will stop you for speeding and 'cut you a break' by issuing a seat belt ticket or something similar. I always buckle up but I've had friends who don't and have had the same experience. Don't know anyone that's actually been cited twice on one stop.

Of course if you're a dick to the cop he might feel more compelled to run up your fines

They had to advertise "2 tickets" because of the need for another reason to pull you over. In reality they just want you to buckle up and can't threaten you with that offense alone. That said, if you're not speeding in the first place you won't get "cut a break" and they'll have no reason to cite you for lack of a belt.

.

.

[phillykev]

He's correct it is still a secondary offense. I believe it's a $10 fine the first time.

What a difference a day makes.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pe...130757493.html

The new law also will make driving without a seat belt a primary offense for teen drivers and their passengers - meaning police can pull over a vehicle for that violation without additional cause.

[soberbyker]

What a difference a day makes.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pe...130757493.html

The new law also will make driving without a seat belt a primary offense for teen drivers and their passengers - meaning police can pull over a vehicle for that violation without additional cause.

Everything on the page you linked is about TEEN drivers, everything I've read only mentions kids and teens.

.

[twency]

Everything on the page you linked is about TEEN drivers, everything I've read only mentions kids and teens.

.

This gives LEOs another excuse for a fishing-trip stop for anyone without gray hair (or who is wearing a hat, or whatever): "I thought they looked like a teenager, and I didn't see their seatbelt buckled."

The SCOTUS has held that officers may require drivers to exit vehicles once they've been stopped. If the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspician that a crime is being committed, he may perform a Terry patdown for weapons. Weapons can be very small, for instance razor blades, so almost anything in one's pockets can be "believed" to be a weapon.*

And of course the officer may look and shine a light into the car from the outside to try to discover anything which he deems suspicious which is in plain view, and that's not considered an unreasonable search for fourth amendment purposes.

This law may seem on the surface like a narrowly tailored and minimally intrusive statute to combat a serious problem (reckless teen drivers), but like so many laws it could have far-reaching intrusive consequences.

_
* See, e.g. http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs...ashcamhide.pdf:

Jennings proceeded to perform a pat-down search for weapons and felt an item in Martin’s “watch pocket” that he believed to be a razor blade. Jennings instructed Martin to empty that pocket, and Martin pulled out “a small plastic bag with crystals in it” that Jennings “recognized through experience and training to be meth, methamphetamine.”

The officer's claim that he thought a baggie of meth was actually a razor blade is absurd.

[soberbyker]

This gives LEOs another excuse for a fishing-trip stop for anyone without gray hair (or who is wearing a hat, or whatever): "I thought they looked like a teenager, and I didn't see their seatbelt buckled."

~snip~.

While I agree it's possible, it's not likely. For instance,

Pennsylvania Law requires that any person who operates or rides a motorcycle must wear protective headgear unless he or she is 21 years of age or older and has been licensed to operate a motorcycle for not less than two full calendar years OR has completed a motorcycle safety course approved by PennDOT or the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. All individuals operating a motorcycle on a learner’s permit must wear a helmet regardless of age.

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/fact_sheets/fs-pub7206.pdf

Now the wording of that law would certainly leave the door wide open for cops to pull over helmetless motorcycle riders to "check if they've been licensed for two years" or are old enough, you know just to go fishing, yet it just hasn't happened.

.