Opinion Editorial
March 14, 2000

By William J. Holdorf

Some state legislators want to make Colorados seat belt law more restrictive, by allowing police officers to stop a car simply because someone in the car isnt wearing a seat best. Under current law, not wearing a seat belt is subject only to secondary enforcementmeaning that if youre stopped for some other reason, you can get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, but you cant be stopped just because of the seat best. Supporters of restrictive seat belt laws in Colorado have been trying for over a decade to pass primary enforcement and have failed each time. Undaunted, the nannies keep coming back during each legislative session to force upon the motoring public something not wanted, nor even needed.
 
Colorados current seat belt law dates from 1986, when the legislature passed the bill despite heavy public opposition. The laws sponsor, then-Senator Ralph Cole could only get the seat belt law through the legislature by making it secondary enforcement.  However, once the nannies get their foot in the legislative door, they promptly began to fight to undo the compromise, and begin pushing for even more control over motorists.
 
Under secondary enforcement, a police officer must see another traffic violation before stopping a motorist for not using a seat belt.  Under primary enforcement, everything changes and the police to stop any motorist at will, merely under suspicion a seat belt is not being used.  Primary enforcement opens the door for police harassment of the motoring public with impunity, especially certain ages and gender, as well as, certain ethnic groups.  Also, once a motorist is stopped, even if the police officer was mistaken about not using a seat belt, the police officer becomes both judge and jury, and any objection or resistance by the motorist can be subject to further severe suppressive reaction by the police.
 
Such stops can take place at night on an isolated road, and always without benefit to have a lawyer present for proper legal council during the forced detainment, interrogation, testing, and visual observation by the police as to the contents of the inside of the vehicle.  That means, primary enforcement allows the police to freely go on a fishing expedition to find sometime wrong under the pretense of not using a seat belt.
 
Primary enforcement resuscitates the once dreaded general warrants of King George III of colonial America against motorists.  In colonial American, the kings soldiers were constantly harassing colonial citizens using a general warrant issued by the king which allowed the soldiers to stop any one at will, warning, or enter any home, unannounced, at any hour of the day or night, and conduct a search looking for something wrong, which is not much different than what power primary enforcement gives the police against motorists.
 
To stop such tyranny by the king being repeated by the newly formed federal government, our Founding Fathers passed Ten Amendments to the Constitution in which the Fourth clearly states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
The Founding Fathers and the citizens of the former colonies all recognized that there is a certain sanctity to ones person, house, papers, and effects, that shall not be violated even by the government, without probable cause.  However, once a vehicle is stopped under a primary enforcement law, occupants are at the mercy of the police, no different that those who were at the mercy of the kings soldiers over 200 years ago.
 
Supporters of primary enforcement claim such a law is needed to save lives.  That is hogwash!  The fact is, Colorados highway fatalities were on a decline years prior to the passage of the Colorado seat belt law, during which time seat belt use was voluntary.  According to statistics from the National Safety Council, Colorado had 754 highway fatalities in 1981, and five years later in 1986, the year before passage of the seat belt law, there were 602.  That is a net decline of 152 less highway fatalities, which represents a decline of 20 percent all during the time of only voluntary seat belt use.
 
As of 1991, five years after passage of the Colorado seat belt law, highway fatalities totaled 542.  That means, after five years of the law, during which time there was a dramatic increase in forced seat belt use; after thousands of motorists were punished with citation fines for not using a seat belt, the net results is 60 less fatalities than the year before passage of the law.  That represents a decline of about 10 percent, which is far less than the percentage of decline for the five years prior to passage of the law when seat belt use was voluntary.
 
Also, as of 1997, the last year such figures are available from the NSC and 11 years after passage of the Colorado seat belt law, there were 516 highway fatalities, which is 86 less than the year before passage of the law.  That represents a decline of only 14 percent, which is still far short of the net results of five years prior to passage of the law.  The fact is, if the Colorado seat belt law did anything, it truncated the rate of decline in highway fatalities that was already in process years before passage of the seat belt law.
 
Indeed, a new report by the Independence Institutes Linda Gorman (available at independenceinstitute.org) suggests that mandatory seat belt laws actually cost lives. Safety-conscious drivers buckle up even without the government ordering them to. Risky drivers may buckle up more often as a result of seat belt lawsbut the data show that these drivers compensate for their increased safety by driving more aggressively. These buckled but aggressive drivers are even more of a threat to other drivers and pedestrians than before.
 
One reason why some politicians support primary enforcement is because of their greed to enhance state revenue, since the federal government generously gives grants (bribes) to states that pass primary enforcement to pay the police to enforce the states seat belt law.  Such funds are used by the police for overtime pay to enforce the seat belt law, thus, putting extra easy dollars in their pockets, which is why the police support primary enforcement.  Also, with such overtime dollars in their pockets, that helps relieve any pressure for a pay raise for the police.  Further, after passage of primary enforcement, there is always a dramatic increase in seat belt law citation fines, which brings in easy dollars into the state.
Also, contrary to what seat belt law supporters want the public to know, there is a negative side to forced seat belt use.  The fact is, there is ample evidence that in certain kinds of traffic accidents, some people have been more seriously injured and even killed only because of forced seat belt use.  And in other kinds of accidents, some people have been saved from death only because a seat belt was not usedinjured, perhaps, but not dead.  It should be noted in such a case, that person, by Colorados seat belt law, is subject to a fine for not dying in the accident using a so-called safety device arbitrarily chosen by politicians.
 
The government has no legitimate authority to willingly and knowingly main and kill some people by forced seat belt use, just because the government hopes others will be saved merely by chance.  The government has no right to take chances with a persons body, the ultimate private property, unless due process is first initiated.  In a free society, it must be the fully informed judgment of each person whose life or death is at stake, to use or not use a seat belt.  The government has no right to play Russian roulette with a persons life.  All seat belt laws, therefore, are unconstitutional, and primary enforcement amplifies that wrong.
 
There certainly is nothing wrong with voluntary seat belt use, as it is with will other kinds of individual personal health care suggestions and recommendations in life; however, there is a great deal wrong with all state seat belt laws, and primary enforcement only amplifies that wrong.
 
William J. Holdorf wrote this article for the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank in Golden, www.IndependenceInstitute.net.
 
This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.
 
Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., Suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email)webmngr@i2i.org.

This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.


Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email)webmngr@i2i.org

 
Copyright 2000