Best intentions?

Seat belt law could invite police abuse

Last week the state Senate passed a bill enabling police officers to stop motorists for not wearing their safety belts. The measure now lies in the hands of Gov. John Engler who must decide whether he will sign it into law. At first glance, the bill seems beneficial, or at least like it was proposed with good intentions. The potential the law allows for abuse by police will outweigh any of its intended benefits.

For most people, it is just common sense to put on a safety belt when entering a car. It only takes a few seconds to do and it greatly reduces the chances of getting injured in an accident. At first glance, such a law may seem relatively benign with the motorist's best interest in mind.

Despite the advantages of wearing seat belts, making a law that enforces their use to this extent is ridiculous and unnecessary. There are already laws that promote the use of safety belts. Currently, it is illegal to ride in the front seat of a car without a seat belt. In the back seat, all passengers under the age of 16 must be strapped in. If either one of these laws is violated, the driver or adult passenger can be ticketed if stopped by a police officer for some other violation. The proposed law does nothing more to promote safety beyond what older laws already cover. Considering that officers can stop drivers for anything from driving a few miles over the speed limit, to changing lanes too abruptly on a freeway, giving police an additional reason to stop someone seems to invite harassment of motorists.

If a person decides to drive without a seat belt, they are only putting their own lives at risk. Their decision does not make the roads any more dangerous for others, and if violators get caught driving too fast or recklessly, they will get an extra ticket for not buckling up. These drivers know that they are breaking the law by not wearing a safety belt and should already realize that they are jeopardizing their safety when they drive without one.

Considering the media's attention to recent civil rights violations on the part of police officers, one is lead to wonder if the purpose of the bill is to legitimize traffic stops by law enforcement under the eyes of legal scrutiny. Although the vast majority of local and state police officers have the utmost concern for the rights of citizens, such a law could be enforced unfairly. Factors such as race, sex, and ethnicity could be unlawfully applied by biased police officers who could use the law to disguise illegal traffic stops motivated by their own prejudices.

In light of highly publicized allegations of police brutality in large cities like New York, the public will no doubt be watching police more carefully. The proposed seat belt law could prove invaluable to any police officers accustomed to less than professional behavior on the job.

To characterize the new law as a plot by unscrupulous police officers would be irresponsible and sensationalistic, but there can be no denying that most police forces suffer from a degree of corruption. If signed, the bill will make it easier for bad cops to conceal illegal or abusive actions and the problem will only be exacerbated. Lawmakers should be working on legislation to root out corruption, not hide it.

Michigan motorists should always consider the obvious downsides of any legislation that grants law enforcement greater powers in the name of safety. Not only is this measure intrusive, but it is unlikely that, given the motor safety laws currently in place, a great number of lives will be saved. Considering the abuse such a law could invite, and the likelihood that it will have little impact on individuals' attitudes towards seatbelts, the benefit of this measure would be negligible.

05-17-99