-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Seat Belt Enforcement Zone!
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
A. If you are pulled over for another offense and I see pot on your seat, you'll be busted for that too.
B. The situation as it was described in this thread was that there were spotters watching for people not wearing seatbelts, and those who weren't were later pulled over. Those who were wearing them were never touched. While I do not necessarily agree with the legality of random roadblocks in some situations, having been present at several DUI roadblocks, seeing the number of drunks (drunk drunks) that were removed from the roadway is enough for me to support them 100%. Having said this, I don't necessarily feel the same way about random roadblocks for seatbelt use, as it is not necessarily a situation in which not wearing your seatbelt poses a serious threat to others on the roadway as with DUI.
State Safetly Belt Laws
Note footnote #5:
5Police are prohibited in South Carolina from enforcing safety belt laws at checkpoints designed for that purpose. However, safety belt violations may be issued at license and registration checkpoints.
BTW, KY is now on the list of states where failure to wear a seat belt is a primary offense.
Note footnote #5:
5Police are prohibited in South Carolina from enforcing safety belt laws at checkpoints designed for that purpose. However, safety belt violations may be issued at license and registration checkpoints.
BTW, KY is now on the list of states where failure to wear a seat belt is a primary offense.
Vic
Elite Member
Bullsh!t. You're arguing that just because you leave your house you are not longer protected by the 4th Amendment. Rest assured that not one lawyer will bring that argument before the Supreme Court because it would be promptly shut down.
You're also confusing a public facility like a county courthouse with the public roads. They are not the same in the eyes of the courts.
The 4th Amendment is extremely clear and straight-forward verbage. Try reading it before voicing an opinion on something you know nothing about:
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.
Here is but one case where items in plain sight are admissible as evidence and cause for arrest
Reading further into that article you see where the officer opened a drawer and saw other items, realized he'd need a search warrant for those and put them back and then got the search warrant. At issue was whether those items should be suppressed as evidence as the officer did not have the right to open a drawer to inspect the contents. However, items in plain sight were admissible as evidence. Much as would a bag of pot on your dashboard or a handgun on a seat in your car.
Vic
Elite Member
Great!
Microchip devices implanted in every person to track their whereabouts at all times are in the interest of public safety. Also cameras in every bedroom (much less every street corner). We must take all steps to make sure that no one make harm others or themselves. Safety at all costs! Forget that the highest laws of the land make such actions illegal, those old dudes were stupid and old-fashioned in their foolish love of liberty!
Begone, you foolish troll. :|
When you are in your car, you are in private property on public property. While law enforcement cannot enter your property or actively search inside without probably cause, you are still subject to traffic laws set forth. Your car is private property, and if you are 21 you have the right to drink, but you cannot drink while you are driving. That's the kind of stuff that would supposedly violate our rights if you look at it from one view, but we all know that it is needed. This is the principal behind many traffic laws.
Vic
Elite Member
You're comparing apples and oranges and engaging in logical fallacy to cloud the issue.
The officer in that case had a warrant, thus lawful entry. He discovered the contraband during that lawful entry and procured another legal warrant to include said contraband. All perfectly legal and with lengthy precedent. <edit> jeez, they had express consent of defendent prior to the fact even, which meant the 2nd warrant was merely a technicality and a smart move on the officer's part, but not even entirely necessary... {/edit>
And I have already make it more than clear that we are NOT discussing incidents in which an officer sees a person driving down the road without their seatbelt and decides to pull them over. That is "in plain sight" -- an obvious case even. We are discussing roadblocks, or the detention of all drivers passing through a particular area or stretch of road in order to search them for seatbelt compliance, all without warrant, probable cause, or anything "in plain sight" (as the vehicle must be stopped and its occupants briefing detained in order for the officer to observe the compliance or lack thereof).
Do you understand this issue yet or is it above you?
Jeff7181
Lifer
Originally posted by: Vic
Great!
Microchip devices implanted in every person to track their whereabouts at all times are in the interest of public safety. Also cameras in every bedroom (much less every street corner). We must take all steps to make sure that no one make harm others or themselves. Safety at all costs! Forget that the highest laws of the land make such actions illegal, those old dudes were stupid and old-fashioned in their foolish love of liberty!
Begone, you foolish troll. :|
You're the one being foolish... cameras everywhere? Come on. You're welcome to your opinion, and you're welcome to do anything you want, just don't be surprised when you violate someone else's rights and you're forced to pay the consequences.
Jeff7181
Lifer
The officer can confiscate illegal items he finds while searching for something else, but the person with the illegal items cannot be prosecuted for anything not listed in the warrant. Police do it all the time to get drugs off the streets... they search a known drug house for illegal weapons, and confiscate any illegal drugs that they find and prosecute the owner of the house for the illegal weapons, not the drugs.
Vic
Elite Member
You said:
"I would argue that it is reasonable because it's in the interest of public safety."
So I would argue that microchips and cameras would be reasonable by your own argument because they would be in the interest of public safety.
What's the problem? Can't defend your own argument?
edit: and how, pray tell, does a person by not wearing their own seatbelt violate someone else's rights?
You are mixing the ideas abounding in this thread. Roadblocks are not the tenet of this thread. The OP mentioned that a spotter was involved and observing people with no seat belts. That is NOT a roadblock.
As far as roadblocks are concerned, though, I did post a message with a link to a case before the U.S. Supreme Court questioning the legality of certain roadblocks.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
