Question for LEO’s

[Dirtebiker]

Let’s say you pull a driver over and the driver or passenger doesn’t have his seatbelt on. When you mention it, the person shows you a letter from his doctor stating that wearing a seatbelt is painful for his patient and he recommends that the person not use one.
Do you ticket the driver?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Unless there's been a change within the last year, no, there's an exemption in code.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So, two people have no seat belt on. One has a doctor's note, but you don't say which. Is the driver the one with the note?

The answer for me regardless is "no". I can count on one hand how many seat belt tickets I wrote, and they were all instead of a more serious moving violation that I actually stopped them for.

 

[KokomoDave]

It's totally officer discretion unless state funds for Operation Pullover is being used and a verbal warning will usually suffice or it is written in the S.O.P. s that you WILL cite them. The prosecutors office can dismiss charges if they deem fit but a note from a doctor doesn't necessarily trump I.C. codes.

 

[jsharmon7]

9-19-10-1(1) covers this. A doctor's note makes the person exempt.

 

[T.Lex]

Warning shot. Totally.

 

[Dirtebiker]

So, two people have no seat belt on. One has a doctor's note, but you don't say which. Is the driver the one with the note?

The answer for me regardless is "no". I can count on one hand how many seat belt tickets I wrote, and they were all instead of a more serious moving violation that I actually stopped them for.

I didn’t word the question correctly. One person without seatbelt, the one with the letter.

 

[Dirtebiker]

It's totally officer discretion unless state funds for Operation Pullover is being used and a verbal warning will usually suffice or it is written in the S.O.P. s that you WILL cite them. The prosecutors office can dismiss charges if they deem fit but a note from a doctor doesn't necessarily trump I.C. codes.

Exactly what I’m thinking. I’m guessing most officers would use their discretion and not ticket unless the person is a total jerk.

 

[Dirtebiker]

9-19-10-1(1) covers this. A doctor's note makes the person exempt.

Good catch js!
thanks!

 

[Dirtebiker]

Warning shot. Totally.

From the officer or the driver/passenger or both(just to be safe!)?

 

[MarkC]

From the officer or the driver/passenger or both(just to be safe!)?

I'd fire the warning shots at both of them, just to be on the safe side!

Actually, seatbelt tickets go to the unbelted person, not the driver, with an exception.

IC 9-19-10-2: Each occupant of a motor vehicle equipped with a safety belt . . .shall have a safety belt properly fastened about the occupant's body at all times when the vehicle is in forward motion.

The exception is for probationary (young) drivers, who are committing a violation if they operate the vehicle without all of their passengers properly belted.

Edited to add: This is often confused with the child restraint law, where it is the driver of the vehicle with unrestrained children who is cited. Think of the difficulty of actually ticketing a toddler!

 

[OurDee]

Warning shot is a little harsh. Just taze them.

 

[Buck#1]

yes taze

 

[snorko]

For the life of me I never could understand how someone, except as stated in the OP, won't wear a seat belt.

 

[Libertarian01]

For the life of me I never could understand how someone, except as stated in the OP, won't wear a seat belt.

I believe not wearing a seatbelt is dumb, but I am 100% against the state forcing us to do so!

Doug

 

[CampingJosh]

I believe not wearing a seatbelt is dumb, but I am 100% against the state forcing us to do so!

Doug

Agreed.

There are many who would say that intentionally exposing oneself to lead is stupid, but I still frequently choose to do so.

Lots of actions are dangerous to the person performing the action. Most are still not punishable.

 

[bwframe]

I believe not wearing a seatbelt is dumb, but I am 100% against the state forcing us to do so!

Doug

Yep. On top of the way the law was created, for the insurance companies.

Similarly, why are our tax dollars paying for “click it or ticket?”

 

[Kutnupe14]

I believe not wearing a seatbelt is dumb, but I am 100% against the state forcing us to do so!

Doug

I find it amazing that in a state that doesn't require helmets on motorcycles seatbelts are required.

 

[freekforge]

person with the note isnt getting a ticket from me because as stated above they are exempt. I have been on both sides of this, after my surgery i had a note from a dr. saying I didn't have to but i did anyway. I have also been on a stop recently where the woman had open heart and had complications so she was not to wear one for a while. My grandma was also given a note after her open heart ordeal.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I find it amazing that in a state that doesn't require helmets on motorcycles seatbelts are required.

The state never wanted the law to begin with. The Feds tie millions in highway funding to having a primary seat belt infraction law*. That's why the fine is so low and the law is so restrictive on what a LEO can do on a seatbelt stop vs any other traffic stop.

Examples: Cash-strapped states mull seat belt laws - US news - Crime & courts | NBC News

U.S. Presses States for Strict Seat Belt Laws - The New York Times


Etc. Note the dates.

*For those who don't know, a primary infraction is something you can be pulled over for. A secondary is something that you can't be pulled over for, but if you are stopped for something else and it can be a "rider" ticket to the original one. Open container laws, for example, used to be a secondary in a lot of states.