Traffic stop question

[Didymus]

Oh, BTW, and thank the founders (and God) that case law could be overrulled/superceded/negated by statute, since statutes are supposed to be the will of the people codified. We shouldn't live in a fiefdom controlled by autocrats in black robes; however, increasingly, it seems we are headed that way and that is a terrible injustice. On that, I think we all can agree.

[RickD427]

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.

Copy. I much appreciate your distinction. We may be at semantics here.

The point is that if I cite a defendant for the sole violation of not wearing a seatbelt, and the case goes to trial, and the defendant attempts to cite the Hunt case in seeking a dismissal, there's going to be a prosecution objection based on Hunt having been superseded by statute.

The expression "the case law still holds" isn't authoritatively defined, but it's commonly understood to mean that the can be cited in court, and that the court is bound to follow it. That's not the case when the cited decision has been superseded by statute.

[IrishJoe3]

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.

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. .

Didy, you are reading way to much into this.

My knowledge on that specific case is limited to reading through the case notes I googled after you posted it so bear with me.

That case isn't about citing a driver with no other violation. The seatbelt is an issue because the defendant ultimately was arrested for unrelated charges, and was arguing that he was unlawfully stopped therefore the arrest would essentially be fruits of the poisonous tree.

In that case the court acknowledges yes, "a peace officer cannot....." because that was in fact the law at the time. And the court cited the vehicle code section that made that fact so. This is not the equivalent of decreeing till the end of time that an officer may not stop a seatbelt violation alone.

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 HuntI've never encountered a seat belt violation that hasn't been accompanied by another infraction that led to the stop. .

I'm not sure what professional context you have where you'd be exposed to seatbelt violation enforcement. However, I have cited countless seatbelt violations and testified in court on those violations. I can't think of a single case where the cited seatbelt violation was a secondary violation. And in every case where I testified in court I've always testified to exactly the facts; I observed no worn seatbelt and stopped the driver for that fact.

[Didymus]

Didy, you are reading way to much into this.

My knowledge on that specific case is limited to reading through the case notes I googled after you posted it so bear with me.

That case isn't about citing a driver with no other violation. The seatbelt is an issue because the defendant ultimately was arrested for unrelated charges, and was arguing that he was unlawfully stopped therefore the arrest would essentially be fruits of the poisonous tree.

In that case the court acknowledges yes, "a peace officer cannot....." because that was in fact the law at the time. And the court cited the vehicle code section that made that fact so. This is not the equivalent of decreeing till the end of time that an officer may not stop a seatbelt violation alone.




I'm not sure what professional context you have where you'd be exposed to seatbelt violation enforcement. However, I have cited countless seatbelt violations and testified in court on those violations. I can't think of a single case where the cited seatbelt violation was a secondary violation. And in every case where I testified in court I've always testified to exactly the facts; I observed no worn seatbelt and stopped the driver for that fact.

I really appreciate the courtesy extended to me in this debate. Thank you.

I expected some strong push back once I posted my answer because of the particular statute cited in Hunt being removed. And this is the crux of our disagreement. You believe a statute being removed automatically vitiates court holdings surrounding that statute. My position is it doesn't...until a challenger comes along, cites the case and an appellate court states the holding is not relevant b/c the statute is no longer on the books. So that clarifies our disagreement.

That's why I said when I come to an isolated case of a seat belt violation and a trial court rules against me, I'll let you know. Because I will appeal that. And I do want to know what an appellate court will say. And I will argue Hunt is still controlling law in CA.

Which brings me to the question of my professional context. I am a practicing defense attorney in the Los Angeles / San Diego area. And I am not alone in believing Hunt is still law. It is a widely held opinion in legal defense circles. See this link and scroll down to Section 3.1

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/vehicle-code/27315/

I do not work for this firm.

Now, to IrishJoe's point, about the larger context of the case, I could see a trial court not even acknowledging the former statute at issue here, and claiming the statement in Hunt requiring probable cause for a separate violation, is merely dicta - not binding case law. Maybe that is the case, but you will not be able to pry my iron hands from my argument until another CA appellate court comes along and says Hunt requiring PC for a separate violation in order to ticket a seat belt violation is superceded by the statute being removed which makes that particular statement in Hunt moot.

However, no internet arguing over that will resolve our intransigent positions. Respectfully, please keep lawfully citing drivers and if I get a call from a defendant on an isolated seat belt charge, you can bet I will test my theory in open court. And I know you will test yours if you are in the dock during my XE. Which I absolutely expect you to do and fully respect that.

Thank you guys for doing your job. It is a tough one and increasingly so in this age of open flouting of the law by terrible people with no respect for lawful authority. Stay safe.

[GizmoSD]

[SVT-40]

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

I suggest you drive around your town and find a nice motor cop also driving around.

Roll your windows down and remove your seat belt in a obvious manner.

I'm sure the nice Officer will accommodate you with a citation...

Lol.

[TrailerparkTrash]

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

Nope. Not in the last 20+ years anyway. No seat belt could always be sole reason for the stop.

[IrishJoe3]

Nope. Not in the last 20+ years anyway. No seat belt could always be sole reason for the stop.

29 years, to be precise. It changed in 1993.

[BOBGBA]

On Ventura Blvd, between Tamp & Reseda (in the 1990's) I watched an officer motion a bunch of drivers not wearing seatbelts to pull over.

He hid behind a tree at the curb and when the light turned green, he stepped out from behind the tree (facing slow oncoming traffic) and he just kept pointing at drivers not wearing seatbelts and had them pull over to the side of the road using hand signals.

[oldmotor]

Nope. Not in the last 20+ years anyway. No seat belt could always be sole reason for the stop.

Originally, it was a secondary offense and as already stated it later changed to a primary violation as it is today.