SITCIOT - Stick It to Click It or Ticket

Is the news media waking up and joining reality? Are they starting to see through the BS with regards to compulsory seatbelt laws? Perhaps. This is the second favorable editorial on the subject that we have seen recently. Check this bad boy out. I think you’ll agree, its right on target. And this came out California, if you can believe that.

From Insurance Journal:

The final statewide total for the campaign includes 13,910 seat belt citations and 1,374 child passenger safety citations. State and local law enforcement officers issued the citations during more than 8,200 checkpoints and stepped-up patrols.

An excellent letter was featured in Maine’s newspapers yesterday. It appears to be written by one newspaper editor, complaing of the actions of another paper. Its always hard to tell, since many online newspapers do not clearly say what area they cover and make it awfully hard for one to find out. It seems that unless you live there or know the media outlets, you’ll be left guessing.

Anyhow, here is the piece in its entirety:

Passage of seat-belt law tyrannical, at best
Kennebec Journal, Morning Sentinal, 04/11/2008

I don’t know who censors opinion at the Morning Sentinel, but it’s clear that someone does; John Christie, no doubt.

This letter is addressed to him. The seat-belt law was passed in robotic-like unison by 49 of the 50 states. Democracy in action? They acted under threat and for pay, as you well know. A functionary at the U.S. Department of Transportation informed the states: “Do this or else.”

“If you do what I, as an unelected hireling, tell you to do, you will receive millions.”

Tell me, why is that not as tyrannical, as unconstitutional, as un-American as it gets? Given that, why do you not print letters that point that out? Think that kind of censorship of legitimate opinion has anything to do with the turn away from the media?

Now you may argue that fascist or not, the law is needed and saves lives. That last would not stand up in a 101 class in statistics. The validation of even one small statistic is a tedious, painstaking task. Ask the people who put together the SATs how much goes into the least of the questions. Each finding must be validated by closely monitored control groups.

Control groups must replicate every aspect of a crash before they can conclude that the failure to wear seatbelts can be blamed. Such control situations are obviously impossible to establish; therefore, conclusions worth their salt are not available, all shouts of anguish to the contrary.

Victor Lister
Athens

Maryland’s Senator Roy Dyson (D) who serves district 29, had a rather succinct piece of commentary in his newsletter on the use of speed cameras masquerading as safety devices when the primary intent is produce revenue for the government. Below, we provide you with some of the highlights from the piece, you can click the link above for the full commentary.

The speed camera bill does not require the use of cameras for any county that does not want them. I don’t consider myself a cynical person, but the odds are that after a few years, legislation to require all counties use speed cameras will be before the General Assembly. To me, that is a troubling aspect of the bill. Certainly, we have seen similar legislative encroachment before. Remember the law to require that seat belts be worn. When the law was first enacted, failure to wear a seat belt was a secondary offense. Violators could be cited for failure to wear a seat belt, only if they were stopped for another moving violation. Today, failure to wear a seat belt is a primary offense. The law has been changed. Yes indeed, drivers can be stopped and cited for failure to wear a seat belt.

Speed cameras are popular because they are revenue producers…and the hunger for more revenue is a governmental addiction. In some form or another, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Oregon, Utah, Washington and the District of Columbia use speed cameras. On the other hand, New Jersey, West Virginia and Wisconsin prohibit any type of photo-radar enforcement of traffic laws. Currently, Montgomery County, the only Maryland county that uses speed cameras, raked in $2.8 million in the first 6 months of their use. And that’s only one county in less than a year of camera use. It should be noted that Montgomery County law allows cameras only where the speed limit is 35 mph. Violators are fined $40, considerably less than the $75 fine under the proposed state legislation.

A United Kingdom Department of Transportation study showed that when conventional speed cameras were used in construction zones, there was a 55% increase in accidents. Then they were used in non-construction zones, there was a 31% accident increase. When speed-averaging cameras were used in construction zones, there was a 4.5% increase in accidents. When speed-averaging cameras were used in non-construction zones, there was a 6.7% in accidents. However, when police patrols were increased in construction zones, there was a 27% decrease in accidents. Increased police patrols in non-construction zones produced a 10% decrease in accidents. It should be noted that UK’s Transportation Department tried to suppress this information. It had to be obtained with a freedom of information request.

Fox News in Tulsa, OK is reporting that cops successfully issued 48 tickets and declared it a “victory”. The officers say they setup a checkpoint to catch seatbelt violators on South Lewis Street due to the occurrence of many wrecks. We’re not sure the police department has any reason to celebrate, because increased seatbelt use has been proven to NOT reduce the number of crashes. Unless they are celebrating the financial windfall - at $20 per ticket - $960 is not bad for an hours work.

After U.S. Consumer Reports complained that Billy Ray Cyrus and his daughter were depicted in the hit Disney series “Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour” in the back seat of a car without wearing seat belts, the star apologized, saying seatbelt safety was “very important”.

From Reuters:

Consumer Reports said Cyrus and his 15-year-old daughter were filmed riding in a Range Rover on the way to rehearsal for the concert tour and neither was wearing a seat belt. The magazine said in a blog posting that movie and TV shows did influence how children and adults acted in daily life. “Simply put, not wearing seat belts while riding in the rear seat of a vehicle is dangerous,” said the blog posting.

Apparently, Consumer Reports is getting desperate for things to write about but they don’t seem to have any trouble coping with all of the violence on television. Nor did they address the impact of how having more shopping channels than educational channels can turn children into mindless brain dead consumers who can only say “Buy, Buy, Buy!”.

Wyoming is attempting to pass a law to begin so-called “primary” enforcement of the state’s seatbelt law. The paper mentioned this proposed bill in a “five bills you should care about” article, which also lists other bills designed to infringe on one’s personal freedom, including a public smoking ban and a no cell phones while driving bill.

Every once in a great while, someone will ask me “Hey, what qualifies you to speak on traffic court matters?”. My answer is always the same: “My record of acquittals, dismissals and lack of convictions speaks for itself.” Like most attorneys, I have lost some cases - but I win most a majority of them. I write about my tickets on SITCIOT because I think it shows readers two things: 1). You can win traffic cases if you put some effort forward and 2). You know the track record in Court of the person your conversing with on this site.

In the instant case (State v. Kimmel, Cleveland County [Oklahoma] District Court, Case No. TR-2007-2026) - which I previously wrote about for SITCIOT - I was set for JT (Jury Trial) this morning at 8:30 AM. The docket had 27 parties on the rolls today, so it was going to be a busy day. Normally, a court calls the docket in alphabetical order (sorted by last name, first name) and when they called my case first, I knew something was up. Once I got up there, the prosecutor immediately moved for a continuance, stating that “the officer that wrote the ticket is a motorcycle cop, is not present because he was side-swiped by a semi and is currently in the hospital”. Now, my recollection of the incident was that the officer was in a regular cruiser, a fact which I have not confirmed (but will in the unlikely event that the case is re-filed) so that made me question the story to myself.

Of course, I did what any knowledgeable Pro Se Defendant does in a traffic case when the cop does not show up: I immediately moved for a dismissal for want (lack) of prosecution and/or failure of the state to produce the complaining witness. Without the complaining witness, there is no case because as a Defendant, I have the right confront and question my accuser in a Court of law and if he isn’t there, thats just not really possible. The court had little choice but to grant the motion (and did so, dismissing the case without costs) but did remind me that the case was being dismissed without prejudice against refiling the charges. Rarely does this happen, since the sheriff then needs to serve me with a new summons and complaint, an expense and hassle rarely undertaken. Thus the case went away and I left the court house - wallet unmolested.

This post does have a purpose (in addition to tooting my own horn) as well as a point: the state vehemently contested my right to a jury trial only to ultimately fail to prosecute the case. Then, they attempted a last ditch effort to save the case by attempting (and thankfully, failed) to convince a judge that a continuance should be granted. Had they won the right to continue the trial, I would have been forced to come - yet again - to the Court and make my case.

Of course, in other cases, this is not the first time that a cop has failed to show up. In fact, I win roughly half of my cases by simply showing up and the cop not showing up. Most who make a practice of taking EVERY case to court report about roughly the same experience, though some areas are better for no-show dismissals than others.

Today’s appearance was the second time I had appeared to address the issue. If the case were to be continued, I’d have to appear yet again at a date to be determined. Being self employed and the owner of my own business, that would have meant clearing another day on the calender of obligations so that I could go and defend my rights and prevent the state from molesting my wallet and in the process depriving me of $206.50, the fine for violations of O.S. §47-11.310. Is this fair to me to have to continuely do this because a cop pulls me over and gives me a ticket because he thinks I followed too closely? Moreover, is it fair for officers to pull over 100s or even 1000s of motorists every day across the country and throw these citations out there and hope enough stick to make it profitable? I submit that it is not.

Now granted - if the prosecution’s claim was legitimate - this one was beyond their control and the nice thing to do would have been to let them have their continuance in the interest of playing fairly. But I decided not to do that any longer because I know the State would not show a similar consideration for me if the roles were reversed. Another reason for my general hardliner approach to these types of issues has to do with the fact that the officer did the same when he issued his ticket. At the traffic stop, he was belligerent and had a know-it-all attitude, and told me in no uncertain terms that I was following too closely. When I asked him to explain how my following distance (which I - of course - thought was reasonable, proper and just for the situation - as required by the statute), he responded with “Sir, I’m not going to explain anything to you, I don’t have to.” which caused me to respond with “Fine, spare me your lecture and just give me my ticket.”

As for my “the state would have done the same position”, here is my reasoning: If my car breaks down, or I have some other pressing matter to attend to and I miss my trial date they will put out a warrant for my arrest for contempt of court and send an order to the Department of Public Safety instructing them to suspend my license. They remind you of this on every form you fill out that if you don’t show up, you’re going to jail. So in summary, if I don’t show up, my license gets cut up, I get a warrant for my arrest issued and when I am picked up, I go to jail. If they don’t show up, do they get a warrant, contempt citation or have their license revoked? Nope. The only consequence of not showing up is not winning and not being able to collect that back door tax. Are they made to pay for the lives they disrupted so they could run their little shell game? Not a chance.

Today’s traffic court system is stacked against the Defendant. It is designed to be a rubber stamp to the mandate of the politicians and the insurance lobbyists for the collection of back door taxes through the insurance of citations and fines. Its a throw everything at the wall and something will stick, bazooka type of approach. Some cases will be lost but enough will be won - or people wont even bother to take them to Court in the first place, opting instead to just mail the check using the self-addressed envelope provided with the ticket - to make it worth the trouble. Plenty of other Defendants have been victims of bazooka traffic citation writing campaigns.

My advice to all traffic Defendants is as follows: fight like hell, take advantage of every opportunity to win, protect your rights no matter what the cost or the hassle and don’t look back. Because you can bet the State would do the same to you if given the chance.

The situation will not get better by moaning about it or by making the citations go away by mailing in the checks. The situation will only get better by jumping down into the trenches, getting some dirt on your starched shirt and some grease on your hands and fighting each battle as though life itself hung in the balance and making it clear that you’re fed up and you’re not going to take it anymore. And thus you have the general principles that resulted in the original decision to launch SITCIOT.

Simply put, the primary goal of SITCIOT is to get people educated, then get them off the couch, off their duffs and into their courthouses to stand up for themselves and demand that the wholesale violation of our rights be put to an end. Thats the primal force that drives SITCIOT.

Like Smokey the Bear has said, “Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires”, SITCIOT is here to say “Only You Can Prevent Government Fraud”.

In Georgia, you can still legally refuse to put on your seatbelt - if you drive a pickup truck. Georgia is the last state with such a law remaining on the books, legislators in all of the other states have caved in to pressure by the NHSTA and other lobbyist groups attempting to infringe upon the will of the people.

The seatbelt in GM’s Saturn L300 have been alleged to be defective and believed to be responsible for at least one death, according to reports. The family of Jenny Singley, who died from injuries suffered in a March 2005 car wreck in Harker Heights - filed the lawsuit against the maker of the seatbelts in her car, TRW Vehicle Safety Systems and other parties.