Seat Belt Laws: At Any Cost

Not a bad idea actually.

Maybe not a singing telegram, but a letter.

But the way I see it is... The court does not HAVE to mail anything, it's to the individual to follow up on a ticket (all the documentation the court needs to provide)

I'm caught in the middle of this one.
Click to expand...

I would hope they sent a letter.

Thinking about more, though, one thing they could have done better is suspending driving and registration privilages within 30 days of failure to pay. It would be more immediate than simply blocking renewal and more likely to cause somebody to say, "Geez... I gotta get this taken care of now, rather than waiting a couple years until I have to renew my license."
 
ATW525,

Now you're seeing it! That's the whole point. There are options other than issuing a writ that obliges armed police officers to arrest a person over seat-belt fines.

I saw this quote earlier:
Mr. Vera chose not only to disregard the law, but he chose to disregard the consequences... in this case, the fine, and whatever other steps might have been attempted after his initial failure to pay and before the warrant was issued for his arrest.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that, as Rich pointed out, you can apply it to anything. Why couldn't we justify arresting people for not mowing lawns by this logic?

Not paying a fine is a bad thing. But when it's a fine to cover some minor offense, it's just plain not worth sending police to lock a guy up over. Shackling people is and should always be treated as serious business, not the norm for any infraction.
 
I think you misunderstand...

The problem with this is that, as Rich pointed out, you can apply it to anything. Why couldn't we justify arresting people for not mowing lawns by this logic?
Click to expand...

I'm afraid what you're not seeing is that the arrestable offense isn't not wearing your seatbelt or not mowing your lawn, it's failing to appear in court or pay your fines. Though I fully support a range of other options to get somebody to pay or appear, there will always be that person who's too stubborn to be phazed by anything less than being dragged into court and made to pay. Clearly this was one of those instances... Mr. Vera had two years(!!!) to take of this issue and refused. Texas has provisions for other penalties which apparantly didn't bother Mr. Vera enough to convince him to pay.

Of course sending out police looking for everybody who refuses to pay a $50 fine is a waste of time and money, however I see nothing wrong with flagging those people in the system so that officers who encounter them on a street are aware that these people have failed to appear in court or failed to pay their fines. That's all that happened in the Vera case... a couple officers just stumbled on a guy who they discovered had refused to pay his fines and they attempted to bring him in. Would he have gone to prison? Of course not. Most likely he would have been made to pay his back fines and penalties and sent on his way.
 
Yeah, locking people up for bullpoop stuff like nonsupport and illegal dumping. Those are pretty victimless, right? Too bad if it is draining onto your property, or its your kids who need back to school shoes. That's not a lawn, it's a naturalized meadow! Everybody wants to live next to that, or an unregulated tire dump.

Havent y'all heard of bail or bond? It is what a person charged with a minor offense posts instead of going to jail. I dont know of ANY misdemeanor for which there is not a collateral bond. It avoids just the "problem" you are all mewling about. Just ask Rich, he's an expert.

Of course, if somebody forfeits..............we'll just forget about it.
 
I think a couple of clarifications are in order. This can vary from state to state, and even from court to court, but a failure to appear (bench) warrant is not the same as a warrant for failure to pay fines. These failure to pay warrants usually never see a judge's hand. They are generated automatically by the clerk of courts and rubber stamped with the judges name. Notifications are usually sent out by certified mail with return receipt, but a number of them are returned stamped "moved-no forwarding address", or something similar. As I said, MOST Joe Citizens take care of the problem once confronted (without arrest). It's also true that some don't. If you've worked a sector any time at all, even in a big city, you get to know who the losers are. These people usually have both traffic and criminal histories, and even if you don't know them personally, when you run them on your MDT and see a long and continuing pattern of disregard for the laws, the light dawns and arrest is probably the only recourse. But when you run across someone that's made a few (stress: few) mistakes over the years, but is otherwise your normal, hard working citizen, it doesn't hurt to give that person the benefit of the doubt, and a chance to make things right. If you gave him a break, and he still doesn't show up, it's not the end of the world. If you take things like that personally, you're guilty of Righteous Indignation, and that's been the downfall of many an officer. Odds are, you'll run into him down the road sometime, and THEN you can do what has to be done. In the mean time, the person you gave a break to just might be YOUR break down the road. He knows you now as a "good guy", and when you're investigating a real crime, he might just be the guy that comes up to you and gives you that piece of info you really need. Better yet (and I have had this happen folks, gives you a nice warm fuzzy feeling), you find yourself in a no-win confrontation with a gorilla (or more than one) and these folks come out of the shadows to stand at your back. If you alienate people, they'll stand by while you get the crap beat out of you. Your very best investigators operate in this fashion. It's the time tested and honored "I'll do for you and you do for me" philosophy that's been successful clear back to the time of Sir Robert Peel. I understand that some depts. won't let you operate like that. They usually have a lower crimes-solved rate and a higher number of Internal Affairs complaints. Back when I was a patrolman, I had a captain like that. Lived by the letter of the law. I sent him home each day with a new ulcer :D , and today I have his job. Must be doing something right. ;) Bottom line folks: Communities need police officers, but we also need the community.
 
ATW,

I understand perfectly well that failure to appear was why the warrant was issued. What I'm disputing is the necessity of issuing warrants for failure to appear on minor traffic violations. Again, I am not faulting the officers for arresting the guy, which the warrant authorizes them to do. What I am saying is that there's no need for warrants to go out on a guy who doesn't pay his seat-belt fine. Arresting people is serious business, and not wanting to pay a stupid fine in my mind doesn't justify the activity.

You have listed alternative remedies, ie, suspension of license to be reversed on paying the fine. My question to you is now: which do you find more approrpriate as an answer to the problem?

If you still think issuing warrants over nonpayment of fines is justified, I'd like to see why or why you wouldn't support arresting people for noncompliance with city code violations like not-mowing the lawn, leaving kids' toys in the yard, etc.
 
".......laws that demand that LEO's arrest and detain for the most absurd infractions......."

And which laws would those be, Rich? I'm flippin through my books, you know, my teacher books, and darned if I can find a law in which a custodial arrest is required by law. Its prefered for DV and no copper will let an OMVI slide, but darn it, just cant find any. Help me see the light, just which are these minor offenses that we are demanded to arrest for. Darn, I may have missed a bunch of arrests!!!!!!!
 
I'm afraid what you're not seeing is that the arrestable offense isn't not wearing your seatbelt or not mowing your lawn, it's failing to appear in court or pay your fines.
Click to expand...

If one invariably leads to the other, then they are, for all intents and purposes, interchangeable. If I don't buckle my seatbelt or mow my lawn, and I get ticketed, and fail to pay the ticket, then sooner or later men with badges and guns will come and arrest me. If I resist, they will use force, and legally kill me if I resist effectively enough. You may say that nobody's ever gotten shot over a simple seatbelt ticket, but that distinction is entirely semantic, because any outcome other than my death is solely dependent on my yielding to lethal force.

That's why every time someone says, "There ought to be a law", they are saying, "There ought to be a punishment". The offense in question must warrant the use of force, up to and including lethal force, so any proponents of seatbelt laws must ask themselves, "Is it right and moral to hold a gun to this person's head if he does not wear a seatbelt...and to pull the trigger if he still refuses?" Because that's what any law boils down to, as much as you want to assert that this is not so.

Our difference is not about whether there are occasions where holding a gun to someone's head to modify their behavior are right and proper; we both think there are. Our difference lies in the nature of offenses we deem worthy of such force. You're essentially saying that if you're not allowed to use that gun to someone's head for seatbelt refusal, then we might as well rescind all laws. That is specious reasoning.
 
No, they arent, because 99.99999% of the people follow the law, a minute fraction doesnt, but follows due process and gets their day in court and a tiny fraction does none of the above. They are the ones who get arrested.

Laws without teeth are pointless.
 
Arresting people is serious business, and not wanting to pay a stupid fine in my mind doesn't justify the activity
Click to expand...

If you don't want to pay the fine, don't do the crime. At the very least fight it the proper way through legal channels... that's why we have a court system.

You have listed alternative remedies, ie, suspension of license to be reversed on paying the fine. My question to you is now: which do you find more approrpriate as an answer to the problem?
Click to expand...

They're all appropriate depending on the situation. Most people will simply pay the fine, many more people will be persuaded by the suspension of their license and choose to make things right, but there will always be those people who simply don't care. If you suspend their license they will just drive without one. That's why there should be (and likely is in most states) a multi-tiered level of response. People are arrested after the other options have been exhausted.

If you still think issuing warrants over nonpayment of fines is justified, I'd like to see why or why you wouldn't support arresting people for noncompliance with city code violations like not-mowing the lawn, leaving kids' toys in the yard, etc.
Click to expand...

I've never advocated arresting people for city code violations. I don't see the relevence.
 
If one invariably leads to the other, then they are, for all intents and purposes, interchangeable.
Click to expand...

They are not interchangable and one does not invariably lead to the other. Not everybody who doesn't wear their seatbelt refuses to pay their fine.
 
Laws without teeth are pointless.
Click to expand...

That is undisputed. My point is that if an act merits the threat of law enforcement teeth, it better be for acts that involve the use of force or fraud against another person, not for solely self-harming activities.

They are not interchangable and one does not invariably lead to the other. Not everybody who doesn't wear their seatbelt refuses to pay their fine.
Click to expand...

You didn't get my point. One does lead to the other if I do not yield to the threat of lethal force. Those who pay their fine pay it because they don't want to be arrested or killed over $20. They yield to the threat of force represented by the deputies that will come and haul them off if they don't pay.

Do you get the point? A seatbelt law is the state saying, "If you don't buckle up, we will make you pay money. If you don't pay that money, we will come and arrest you. If you resist, we will use force. If you defend yourself, you will be killed." It is a chain of gradually increased use of force to gain compliance, for an infraction where the use of force is not appropriate.

If you say that the use of force is always appropriate when it comes to law and code enforcement, then there is absolutely no limit to the state using force as a tool in your opinion. Then there is no difference between a murderer and a seatblet violator, since they can both be shot dead if they don't cease their activities.
 
But there are very, very few things that are completely self harming without impacting others - You let your grass grow, it gets weedy and snake/rodent infested, neighbors complain, you get a ticket, then what?

I swear, from a LE perspective, we spend more time and energy on these "quality of life" complaints......Is a barking dog a victimless crime, not if you are the one trying to sleep.
 
And thats why in every criminal code there is a penalty section for each violation, enacted by the legislature, whom you voted for, that spells out exactly the punishment for each crime.

I read'em in my teacher books
 
"If you say that the use of force is always appropriate when it comes to law and code enforcement, then there is absolutely no limit to the state using force as a tool in your opinion. Then there is no difference between a murderer and a seatblet violator, since they can both be shot dead if they don't cease their activities."

Huh? Nobody's getting shot from not buckling up - that's the apple. They are getting shot if they freak during the stop and come out of the car wiith a knife and threaten to stab me because I gave'em a ticket - that's an orange
 
I'd love to continue this debate, but I simply don't know how to phrase my point in terms that are more simple than the ones I've used already.
 
I'd love to continue this debate, but I simply don't know how to phrase my point in terms that are more simple than the ones I've used already.
Click to expand...


Mine weren't quite as clear, but count me out too. I'm getting an itchy feeling having to argue over whether or not a guy dying over a seatbelt-fine arrest is an acceptable situation.
 
And thats why in every criminal code there is a penalty section for each violation, enacted by the legislature, whom you voted for, that spells out exactly the punishment for each crime.
Click to expand...
sendec-
Am I now to understand that, in your opinion, there is no such thing as "bad law"? That you vocally support any law "your" legislators choose to enact? (Thus far you have). That you feel it is somehow "cop bashing" for anyone to criticize a law?

Your positions on these issues are all the more egregious because you ARE a teacher. The fact that you run a program for prospective Park Service Rangers is really a bit frightening, given your stated attitudes toward American Citizens, Use of Force and Officer Discretion. What's next? Litter Control SWAT Teams at Yellowstone?
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top