"Case Dismissed" There is justice.

I mentioned on another thread recently that I was stopped by the local PD for seat belt violation and both I and my husband were given citations for not wearing a seat belt. At the time the young arrogant punk...uh, officer pulled me over, I attempted to explain to him that the statute under which he was attempting to charge me did not apply to my vehicle. I know the seat belt law in Kentucky quite well and know that it specifically applies only to vehicles manufactured after 1981. I even carry a copy of it in my car and have showed it to numerous other officers. They would read it, go back to their vehicle, check on it and come back with, "My mistake m'am, you have a good day." Not this one.
I was very patient and civil in my explanation to him.
"Sir, the statute applies to vehicles manufactured after 1981. It says so right there in the statute. As you can see from my registration, my car was manufactured in the 1970s, so that statute does not apply to this car. If you believe I've phonied that copy of the statute just go check on your laptop or call the county attorney's office. Giving me a citation will just clog up the court system unnecessarily and get the judge, the county attorney and me all ticked off at you. Then I'll have to go and complain to your boss because I've had to spend half a day in court because you are ignorant of the law you're attempting to enforce."
By this time, two other police cars had pulled up behind him and had our car surrounded!
His reply was, "I can take you to jail if I want to. You have a seat belt installed in your car therefore you must wear a seat belt."
My reply to him was, "Sir, you have the power to take me to jail, you have the power to shoot me because you have a gun on your hip but you do not have the power to stand in the street and make up laws. That is the job of the legislature and I doubt they would appreciate you usurping their power. That copy of the statute is the law---not what you say."
Since we were on our way to a doctor's appointment, I didn't really want to sit there any longer so I accepted the tickets but advised him that he would indeed hear from me further on the matter.
On Tuesday I had my day in court. Now I must reveal as a side note that I'm quite familiar with the judge before which we were appearing. He knows me well enough to know that I'm not some nutjob and I'm not someone who will allow law enforcement to walk over me. I read law for three years with one of his law professors, one of the most respected attorneys in our town at that time. So even though I didn't end up pursuing the law as a career, the judge knows that I know my way around the Kentucky Statutes.
After the initial identifications were done he said, "You are charged with failure to wear a seat belt. How do you plead?"
Obviously, he was expecting a "guilty" because when I said, "Not guilty, your honor." his head came up and his eyebrows shot up. I explained to him that the statute under which we were charged stated specifically that it applied to vehicles manufactured after 1981 and since the vehicle I was driving was of 1970s vintage, the statute did not apply to it. That brought him up short and made him reach for the Big Blue Book that contains all the Kentucky Revised Statutes. After paging through and reading it, then re-reading it, he looked to the county attorney saying, "David, I believe she is correct. I see no reference here as to whether the vehicle is equipped with seat belts, only vehicles manufactured after 1981." The district attorney stated that was his reading of the statute as well and therefore his only choice was to dismiss the charge with prejudice. I smiled and thanked them both. The judge's comment was, "Well, I've learned something today. But you really should wear your seat belts." I smiled again and said nothing more.
Half an hour later my husband was finally called for his citation. (We have different last names.) The judge called the county attorney to the bench. During a conference the audience couldn't hear, he said, "Same car, same argument." to which the county attorney replied, "Judge, if I had to dismiss hers, then I must dismiss with prejudice again."
So friends and neighbors, there is still some justice in the world.
I've submitted my complaint about the young, arrogant, self-important police officer and asked the chief to please send out a memo to his patrol officers so as not to continue to clog up the court system with these silly citations. I explained that I did everything in my power to avoid this embarrassment for him but his insistence on standing in the street and making up laws simply isn't acceptable and his threats to "pull you over every time I see you" sound really close to harassment to me. So far I've not heard back from the chief and since I don't live in the city I doubt that I will. Happily, I'm on really friendly terms with the mayor, the chief's boss, so if the chief doesn't want to talk to me about his out-of-control officers, I'm sure the mayor will advise him to get them in line.
Now before I get flamed for being stupid for not wearing a seat belt....it's my choice in my state and I've made the choice not to wear one. I've lost three dear friends to wrecks involving fire. I have a phobia of that so I lobbied hard in the legislature to get vintage cars exempted. I love my '60s and '70s vehicles and believe them to be much safer than anything manufactured in the past couple of decades. And I hate laws to protect me from myself. And I hate cops that think they are my Master.

reply to post by diggindirt


nicely done....as you say though it is shame you had to go through all that rhetoric to get to that point in the first place and someone whom did not have your knowledge in the first place may have had a much harder time.....in saying that it would make more sense to have educated officers patrolling instead of mindless goons...

either way good on you...

Not justice until you are adequately compensated for the time you had to take out of your life to straighten these people out. Kudos for standing up for yourself, though.

Congratulations on the citations that were dismissed in your and your husbands favor!

Well done to the judge going by the letter of the law!

However I don't think your duties as a citizen are fully resolved yet!

Yes I am asking for more from you ... literally because you seem capable and the results of your trial prove that!

I agree with VictorVonDoom that you are entitled to compensation for the time wasted in this frivolous legal episode, and I encourage you that you could follow up on this 'punk' policeman and get a personal apology from them or threaten to sue them for damages because you need to hold him to account for the rest of us!

ALL Our liberties are at stake with a guy like that in a position of power and authority.

I believe you are also entitled to ask about what kind of childhood he was exposed to and whether his parents were decent upstanding moral people who would be mortified to find out just what kind of thug with a gun their son had become.

I am sorry to hear about your deceased friends and may they RIP!

As a side question I'd like to ask ... does not wearing a seat-belt void your medical coverage in case of an car accident?

reply to post by diggindirt



What a Jackass!!!! I had the same thing happen to me here in So Cal. However, my situation was a tad bit different. I encountered a California Highway Patrolman that admitted he pulled me over simply so he could check out my 1968 Barracuda. He went on to say that if I showed up in court, he would just walk away...and he kept his word.

I feel bad for you, because I know how that feels. My husband and I have been pulled over 3 times in one month for not wearing a seat belt in a 1955 Chevy Bel Air! What the heck? Always dismissed, but never compensates for the time wasted going to court.

I said "the next time it happens...I'm suing the crap out of the next A Hole who cites me, when I'm legally riding/driving with no seat belt". Mind you going about 35 miles per hour.

What a piece of work your cop was

Great story. I think it may have been worth the time, simply because of the anecdote you have now, which I'm sure will be a hit at future parties, family gatherings, office shindigs, etc.

boncho
Great story. I think it may have been worth the time, simply because of the anecdote you have now, which I'm sure will be a hit at future parties, family gatherings, office shindigs, etc.

YES!!! I think you're quite correct. My 25 thousand (exaggerated) stories or so have sparked a many of conversations Worthy of getting everyone's feathers ruffled up of course. I have a ton of them in several different classic cars...lmao.

These stories are always a crowd pleaser!

Not to be taken lightly of course if you're cited for a stupid infraction and have to spend time in court.

reply to post by diggindirt


Maybe they can make this story into an exciting movie...

reply to post by diggindirt


Overall a great story. The Police do need to know the laws that they enforce.

But the fire phobia thing doesn't fly with me. I guess you're OK with numerous plastic surgeries, if you survive a collision though, right? But at least your clothes, though bloody as hell, won't be wrinkled when you show up in the emergency room. And if I were to read a story were you were grievously injured in a accident where not much would have happened to you while wearing a seat belt, I know I would just think that as another idiot statistic (Darwin Award).

Oh well, your choice. Since you don't like seat belts, I also hope you don't text or talk on the cell phone while driving as well. After all, your phobias are oh so much more important than your family...right?

Excellent result...just glad you weren't dragged from the car and shot in the face.

Nice to see you know your stuff!
But why did the Prosecutor ask that the charge be dismissed WITH prejudice?
Sounds like he was pissed off that someone lower on the food chain than he actually beat him at his own game.
Great job!
Now go after the idiot that thought he could do an end run on the State's statute and your rights under same to get your personal apology.

I'm only a few miles south of the base and I will never believe that this exchange occurred in a court in session that is public record.

"The district attorney stated that was his reading of the statute as well and therefore his only choice was to dismiss the charge with prejudice. I smiled and thanked them both. The judge's comment was, "Well, I've learned something today. But you really should wear your seat belts." I smiled again and said nothing more.

You are telling me that David J. Hale had this exchange with you and a non mentioned judge over a seat belt violation in open court?.
" But you really should wear your seat belts" That could get your mystery judge impeached for misconduct as it is not up to the judge to decide how laws are enforced. Also, you charged that you were given 'special treatment' by the judge because you knew him? This stuff is public record.

You rant and rail at the system yet you do EXACTLY what you rant and rail about- You smiled at DA Hale and the judge and get off?

What in the Sam hill would the District Attorney be doing in traffic court?

Good job-the officer was trying to save your life.

reply to post by diggindirt


F&S op ..congrats ..I want to tell my little story about seat belts .In 1977 my wife picked me up at the golf course and was driving me to work .I didn't wear seat belts back then and try and avoid doing that still .As we came to a blind turn a large car coming towards us dropped of the shoulder of the road and when he corrected he came on our side of the road .My wife froze but I grabbed the wheel and went for the opposite side of the road .His passenger side caught our passenger side and seeing his car was a large Chrysler and ours was a small Mazda he took about a foot off the side of our car from the front to the rear .Had I have been strapped into my seat and not able to move to the other side of the car I would be dead today ...Oh and the guy in the other car had robbed a bank and was making his get away at the time ...I was injured and had to go through therapy for a year but had a complete recovery ...peace

So your pre-1981 vehicle has seat belts, which you refuse to wear? Seems silly to me. Mind you, I'm against seatbelt laws..but for common sense.

I don't see this as some victory for justice, just an overblown battle of wills. Irresistible force meets immovable object and wastes taxpayer money.

reply to post by totallackey


LMAO!

Isn't this called a Phyrric victory?

By the letter of the law, you are correct. By simple common sense, you're not. In the event of a collision, that seatbelt you are so adamant about not wearing, isn't going to be able to stop you playing terminal jack-in-the-box with the windscreen. Do your family a favour.

Wear the belt. Survive a wreck.

reply to post by BMorris


Agreed. Take it from someone who lost a loved one because they weren't wearing a seatbelt. He would most certainly still be alive today if he were wearing his seatbelt last year during the accident. There were three people in the vehicle, two died and one walked away unharmed. Guess who was wearing their seat belt?

To make sure I stay completely on topic - the cop obviously shouldn't have issued you a citation. However, I agree with the judge that you should indeed be wearing your seat belt whether the law tells you to or not.

Seems to me in the event of a car fire a seat belt is pretty easy to take off. I would think as long as you're conscious you should be able to get out of a seat belt in most cases. However, if your phobia is that bad perhaps you're much better off having a knife within reach so that in a worst case scenario with a car fire and you couldn't get the belt off you could just cut it.

reply to post by diggindirt


The seat belt laws are a great example of legislative overreach.

Based on the logic that the state must criminalize a citizen's failure to make use of all safety precautions possible, I can think of a few additional laws that we can expect in the future:

From this point forward, it shall be considered a crime to:

Not hold a handrail on stairs if one is available.
Not use an oven mitt when handling cooking utensils.
Walk under ladders or climb to the top rung.
Not wipe your feet when coming in from any form of precipitation or from any artificially hydrated environment.
(insert your absurd example here)

As you can see, the logic of these laws are non-existent. There is no reasonable argument for mandating such actions and they should be stripped from the books and nullified immediately.

reply to post by greencmp


Don't think I would disagree with you, despite my belief that everyone should wear their seatbelt. People should be smart enough to wear their seat belt without being forced to. They're not though. The problem is the ones left behind after a fatal accident are the ones that suffer.

I suppose you could get rid of the law, which does get a lot of people to wear their seat belts who might not otherwise, and then just every time someone is in a fatal accident due to not wearing their seat belt we could just go ahead and give them a Darwin award.

Pimpish
reply to post by greencmp

 

Don't think I would disagree with you, despite my belief that everyone should wear their seatbelt. People should be smart enough to wear their seat belt without being forced to. They're not though. The problem is the ones left behind after a fatal accident are the ones that suffer.

I suppose you could get rid of the law, which does get a lot of people to wear their seat belts who might not otherwise, and then just every time someone is in a fatal accident due to not wearing their seat belt we could just go ahead and give them a Darwin award.

So, you better hold those handrails and we are going to need thousands of new officers to enforce this for the betterment of mankind.

Can you not see the folly of this?

reply to post by greencmp


Sure. Falling down the stairs is exactly the same as being in a car accident. That's why the deaths from falling down stairs are so close to the deaths in motor vehicle accidents.

They probably need to make laws about tying shoes too because so many people die from tripping over their shoe laces.