Traffic stop question

[LeeinOC]

[IrishJoe3]

You can be stopped and cited for seatbelt alone in California.

Re 27315(d)(1) VC

[oldmotor]

if I remember correctly, it was originally a secondary offense. Had to be stopped for something else.

[LeeinOC]

I too thought is was secondary. Times changed I guess

[L-2]

Post 2 is correct.
It's an on-view infraction as observed, not needing another violation.

This can work the other way in that other things may be observed or infractions/crimes noticed after first observing VC 27315.
Any local LE department policy may differ, however, as to what it wants its LEOs to do.

The signs' slogan is something like "Click it, or ticket"; NOT "click it or ticket, as long as there's something else seen".

[ronbwolf]

Doesn't really matter, there are over 40,000 sections in CVC, if I follow you for a block, I can find one!

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

[socom2shooter]

You can definitely be stopped for just a seatbelt violation. 27315(d)(1) cvc. You can look it up on leginfo.com, theres lots of good information on there.

[Didymus]

You can be stopped and cited for seatbelt alone in California.

Re 27315(d)(1) VC

[Russian Bot]

Maybe they stopped me for other things and then just didn't mention them, but I have definitely been pulled over and cited for only the seat belt ticket.

[IrishJoe3]

Seatbelt changed from a secondary violation to a primary in 1993.

You can (and will be) stopped and cited for seatbelt alone in California.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002243759500019M

[Didymus]

Seatbelt changed from a secondary violation to a primary in 1993.

You can (and will be) stopped and cited for seatbelt alone in California.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...2243759500019M

Respectfully, you will have to cite the case law and the statute which the particular reviewing appellate court interprets for it to be binding law in CA or any jurisdiction thereof. A journal article asserting otherwise is just that, an assertion without any authority. If found I will gladly submit to that and declare myself in error.

[IrishJoe3]

Respectfully, you will have to cite the case law and the statute which the particular reviewing appellate court interprets for it to be binding law in CA or any jurisdiction thereof. A journal article asserting otherwise is just that, an assertion without any authority. If found I will gladly submit to that and declare myself in error.

Because the vehicle code has changed, and that change went into effect Jan 1st nearly 30 years ago.

Here is your quote from that case law;

......"Although a peace officer cannot issue a seat belt citation if he has no
other cause to stop the person (, a passenger in a
vehicle may be cited ....

That case law is citing 27315(k) for the reason for it being a secondary violation.

That section/subsection now says this:

(k) A motor vehicle offered for original sale in this state that has been manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, shall comply with the automatic restraint requirements of Section S4.1.2.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 C.F.R. 571.208), as published in Volume 49 of the Federal Register, No. 138, page 29009. An automobile manufacturer that sells or delivers a motor vehicle subject to this subdivision, and fails to comply with this subdivision, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) for each sale or delivery of a noncomplying motor vehicle.

If you still remain convinced please show me where in the vehicle code it states that section is not enforceable unless another violation exists.

[Didymus]

Agreed, the statute has changed, but the case law has not been overruled and the legislature did not change or add a statute to circumvent the ruling of the court either. Thus, the case law remains the same. Until an appellate court rules otherwise or a statute explicitly states probable cause for an isolated seat belt violation is enough to stop a vehicle, courts will follow Hunt

[RickD427]

Agreed, the statute has changed, but the case law has not been overruled and the legislature did not change or add a statute to circumvent the ruling of the court either. Thus, the case law remains the same. Until an appellate court rules otherwise or a statute explicitly states probable cause for an isolated seat belt violation is enough to stop a vehicle, courts will follow Hunt

Negative.

Case law can be superceded by statute, as was the case here.

Please refer to this guide for further detail: https://guides.libraries.uc.edu/c.ph...2559&p=1472876

[Didymus]

Negative.

Case law can be superceded by statute, as was the case here.

Please refer to this guide for further detail: https://guides.libraries.uc.edu/c.ph...2559&p=1472876

Respectfully Rick, I didn't say case law could not be negated by statute. It can be. I said it hasn't been in this case, thus the case law still holds.