Al Cohalic Thank you. Please subscribe to my channel and watch, like, favorite and share my videos. Watch, kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p8hiqcilstPepGQ.html It is more car companies not wanting to put airbags in cars then insurance companies. It is also more because of cops lack of training and lack of understanding of laws and/or the constitution, and/or their disregard of them.

Al Cohalic I disagree. I believe that we have seatbelt laws because research shows that it protects people in accidents, that they save lives and reduce injuries. I agree that making laws to require the use by adults institutes a nanny state. It is the same for requiring helmets for bicicles or motorcycles. Adults should be able to choose to protect their life or not. The state can't mandate my diet, but how many people die from diabetic, obesity, or heart condition complications. Adults should be forced to be safe, just as long as they aren't actively suicidal. Kids on the other hand don't have the capacity to make completely educated choices about their own safety, so they should be required to wear seatbelts. The premise of the video is genius though. Not wearing a seatbelt is a violation only if the person doesn't have an approved exemption and for RS to apply, you would have to have some reason to believe that this person doesn't have an exemption. Much like a drivers license, we all have to have them, but you can't pull us over for not having an id unless you have a good reason to believe that we don't have one before pulling us over. The RS has to precede the stop. My suspicion is that if this went to court, based on a lack of RS, the judge might side with the officer saying that so few seatbelt exemptions are issued to make it reasonable to assume that most people who aren't wearing it, are doing so without an exemption. I don't agree, but that would be my assumed outcome. I will say this much, I have had my life saved by a seatbelt, so I will never drive without one, nor will any passenger in my vehicle ride without a belt on. I will also support legislation requiring kids to be belted, but I fully respect every adults rights act or not act in their own best interest or safety.

Thomas Paine Thanks. I'm glad you understood and appreciate my point. Please watch this one: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p8hiqcilstPepGQ.html It went to court, but the D.A. dropped the charge, because I filed a motion, and he saw that I didn't violate any law. As he said, any further prosecution would be malicious prosecution. Like I said in the video, seat belt laws exist because car companies were going to be forced to put airbags in all cars, but they paid law makers to create seat belt laws instead, because that was cheaper. The laws are not for are safety. The laws actually harm us. We are allowed to legally do much more dangerous and even harmful things.

Then why do we let people skydive, ride bikes, smoke, drink, etc? There are many much more dangerous and even harmful things which we are allowed to legally do. It's about money and power. If you don't think so then you are just an ignorant sheep.

Are they going to pass a law that says you have to wear shoes so you don't stub your toe. Personal safety is your right, If you want to build your own set of wings and jump off a mountain go for it, I hope you make it. LOL!

Your comment shows a lack of freedom respect

Wayne Rhoton yeah, that’s a cop. Not sure why you don’t think so. I agree, however, my point is cops shouldn’t stop people for not wearing seat belts. Seat belt stops aren't objectively grounded in the governing law. This can't justify the stops under the Fourth Amendment. Nor is it possible to justify the stops objectively, with the facts available to the cops when they make the stops: in their mistaken belief that the law requires everyone to wear a seat belt, they don't know who's required to wear a seat belt. The information that they gather - that there's no seat belt on - doesn't mean that the people aren't operating their cars in conformity with the law. The cops might hold their mistaken view of the law in good faith, but there's no good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for police who don't act in accordance with governing law. See United States v. Gantt,194 F.3d 987, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). To create an exception here would defeat the purpose of the exclusionary rule, for it would remove the incentive for cops to make certain that they properly understand the law that they're entrusted to enforce and obey. Therefore, the cops violate the Fourth Amendment when they stop unbelted drivers, and the evidence gathered as a result of the unconstitutional stops must be suppressed. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471,484-85(1963). See US v. Lopez-Soto, No. 05-2628 (1st Cir. 2006) We have the right to be free in our papers and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures under the United States Constitution, Amendments IV and XIV. It is not a crime to drive or ride in a car without a seat belt on if you have a restriction on your license that gives you that right to do so. Cops shouldn't stop people they see driving or riding without seat belts on to see if they're properly licensed to do so. The laws stipulate that people may receive permission, which allow them to drive motor vehicles without wearing seat belts. The cops are without the required information to even create suspicions of violations of the laws. The cops wrongfully pull us over to find out if crimes are being committed by checking our papers. However, if we have such papers; no crimes are committed and since the officers, can't know if any crimes committed until after the stops, the stops are unreasonable. Since the officers are unable to know if any crimes are committed prior to the stops, the cops don't have probable cause for the stops. The stops are merely random stops of people whose papers may or may not be in proper order. The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law, beginning with the officers on the street. We have a constitutionally protected right to be secure in our person, papers, and things and to be able to expect our privacy not be invaded at the whim of law enforcement. In Delaware v. Prouse, the Supreme Court made it perfectly clear that a stop made where the violation is dependent on one's papers and not one for a clear violation of some traffic law, is expressly prohibited. The cops have no reason to believe that we don't hold a license, or that we don't have insurance, thus the cops have no factual basis to believe we violated any laws related to those papers. Stopping us amounts to nothing more than spot checks as the cops don't know if our papers are in proper order and they check them on nothing more than inarticulate hunches that we won't have the appropriate papers. As in Delaware v. Prouse, the cops stop us without any viable suspicion of unlawful activity in order to check our drivers' licenses and insurance verifications. The decision in Delaware v. Prouse prohibits stops that require cops to view a person's private papers in order to determine if the suspects actually violated the law or not. Without a clear violation of a traffic law such as speeding, illegal turn or failure to stop at a stop sign, the cops are without proper cause to stop us. If however, the cops first see a clear violation of the law, and make appropriate stops, they can then properly ascertain whether or not the seat belt laws have been violated or not by checking the restrictions on our drivers' licenses. Please watch and share this KZfaq video: m.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p8hiqcilstPepGQ.html.

I’m not familiar with Canadian law, but if they have any exemptions in their laws and rights to not be stopped to check papers, and view the stops as stops to check papers, you may be able to get out of it. Probably just pay the ticket if you don’t want to fight it. Probably won’t effect your insurance.

I have exactly same situation. I have some medical issues but I was new and didn’t new about what to say why they stopped-us as there was no speeding nothing.

that's a really high fine for not using safety gear damn, worse than reckless driving in some states

Wtf

$$$ = seatbelt laws

Wow thats a LOT of money for a PPE violation... you'd probably get about that for reckless driving in my state which is a lot more dangerous

Jonathan Kyle In order to make a routine traffic stop a police officer must first observe a violation of law. It's not always against the law to not wear a seat belt, because that depends on papers. Therefore, police lack the reasonable suspicion required to stop people for suspected violations of seat belt laws. Traffic stops can't be based on a guess that a person doesn't have proper papers. Traffic stops must be based articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts, a reasonable person must believe a crime has occurred, otherwise the stop violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Delaware v. Prouse. An officer can't stop a person to check their papers.

I completely agree but, that doesn't answer my question of why this video looks and sounds edited and chopped. In the first 16 seconds I can see at least 3 "cut scenes". I question this videos credibility on the depicted events.

Jonathan Kyle It wasn't actually a seat belt stop. It was a speeding stop that I made look like a seat belt stop. There was long pauses and background noise. I also said something wrong and fixed it. And I added effects to make it look better. Watch this one, a real seat belt stop that I got a ticket for, but the charge was dropped: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p8hiqcilstPepGQ.html

Okay, Ill check it out. Did you make this for the lolz?

Jonathan Kyle No, I made it to show why seat belt stops are unconstitutional and they need to stop stopping us to check our papers.

U Saintwinnin Which guy sounds like a clown? That wasn’t why it was edited like that.

XD Gmail Did you like your own comment?

@@ryangille no

ryangille i did

Tyrant supporter

We have the right to be free in our papers and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures under the United States Constitution, Amendments IV and XIV. It is not a crime to drive or ride in a car without a seat belt on if you have a restriction on your license that gives you that right to do so. Cops shouldn't stop someone they see driving or riding without a seat belt on to see if they are properly licensed to do so. Oklahoma law stipulates that a person may receive permission from the Commissioner of Public Safety, in the form of a restriction added to one's driver's license, which allows that person to drive a motor vehicle without wearing a seat belt. The officers are without the required information to even create a suspicion of a violation of the law. The officers pull us over to find out if a crime is being committed by checking our papers. However, if we have such papers; no crime is committed and since the officers, can't know if a crime is committed until after the stops, the stops are unreasonable. Since the officers are unable to know if a crime is committed prior to the stops, the officers don't have probable cause for the stops. The stops are merely random stops of people whose papers may or may not be in proper order. The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law, beginning with the officers on the street. We have a constitutionally protected right to be secure in our person, papers, and things and to be able to expect our privacy not be invaded at the whim of law enforcement. In Delaware v. Prouse, the Supreme Court made it perfectly clear that a stop made where the violation is dependent on one's papers and not one for a clear violation of some traffic law, is expressly prohibited. The officers have no reason to believe that we don't hold a license, or that we don't have insurance, thus the officers have no factual basis to believe we violated any laws related to those papers. Stopping us amounts to nothing more than spot checks as the officers don't know if our papers are in proper order and they check them on nothing more than inarticulate hunches that we won't have the appropriate papers. As in Delaware v. Prouse, the officers stop us without any viable suspicion of unlawful activity in order to check our driver's licenses and insurance verifications. The decision in Delaware v. Prouse prohibits stops that require officers to view a person's private papers in order to determine if the suspects actually violated the law or not. Without a clear violation of a traffic law such as speeding, illegal turn or failure to stop at a stop sign, the officers are without proper cause to stop us. If however, the officer first sees a clear violation of the law, and makes an appropriate stop, he can then properly ascertain whether or not the seat belt law has been violated or not by checking the restrictions on the driver's license. Please watch and share these KZfaq videos: m.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p8hiqcilstPepGQ.html and m.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ob2YgqmKkqzFXaM.html

The exemption is not an affirmative defense. It is an application to the law. Cops don't get to give people tickets for not proving they didn't commit any crimes by providing papers. We the people are sick and tired of our government abusing their discretion and violating our rights. I'm also disappointed and ashamed of all the ignorant Nazi loving sheep trolls like you. Go to a different country if you don't appreciate patriots standing up for liberty, privacy and freedom you asshole.

I don't see any abuse by the police in the video. The video is edited and incomplete, I am under the impression the driver was pulled over for not wearing seatbelts. You are comparing other crimes with seatbelt tickets, thats like apples and oranges to me. To give an example I don't want to get pulled over or questioned by police if i haven't committed a crime or violation and then searched for the purpose of finding something illegal, that would in my opinion support what your trying to point out. Common how many people have seatbelt exemptions or should i say what percent of people have it, I would guess not to many. There are many videos on the internet that supports your claim not just this one.

Anthony S. It doesn't matter how many people have papers. Just because most people don't have them does not mean that they should stop anyone to check their papers. They can't give you papers that give you the right to do something and then stop you for doing that thing. That is because they lack probable cause. Probable cause doesn't mean they probably saw a crime because usually in those circumstances a crime occurs. Probable cause is when they believe a crime has occurred based on all the facts. The fact that some people have papers allowing them to do certain things must be considered. We have the right to be free in our papers because this is America not Nazi Germany. They can't stop us to check our papers no matter how many people have papers. If they could then there would be no need or such things as probable cause or reasonable suspicion. They would just stop everyone to check their papers all the time. I'm pushing back against tyrannical actions. What are you doing? Supporting them violating our rights because you don't understand that it's a threat to you to yet? A threat to liberty anywhere is a threat to liberty everywhere. Go jump in front of a train because you are part of the problem.

Do you oppose dui checkpoints?