Day 5

Wyoming Constitution: Article 1, Section 7...Absolute arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen (freewomen?) exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

January 17, 2005

And the bill of the day is…SF 66, Safety Belts-Primary Offense. Now I know that statistically it is a very good idea to wear a seat belt, I do it all the time! But there are, as always, some other considerations.

Currently the state law requiring we the citizens to wear seat belts is a secondary law, which means that the various policepersons who enforce the law are not supposed to make an initial stop based solely on the non-use of a seat belt.

If a driver is stopped for another reason, and is not wearing a seat belt, then a ticket can be issued for both or either offense.

If SF 66 passes, then John Law will be able to take a glance at the passing motorists and pull anyone over that appears to not have their safety belt in use. I can see this leading to a lot more leeway for stops to occur. I can see the potential for abuse.

And this leads to a split in citizen philosophy. A certain group has come to the conclusion that the vast majority of police actions are taken with the right set of values, and questioning the actions of the police is very rarely necessary.

The other group, of which I am one, has come to the conclusion that the ongoing increases in the power and the scope of the many police forces is an issue. I know from my conversations with various citizens in Casper that a police stop is not always limited to the question of a ticket.

It is also an opportunity for the police to heavily suggest that they would like to search the vehicle, with the implication that an innocent person should have no problem with such a request. In case you missed this part of the State Constitution…

Wyoming Constitution; Article 1, Section 4....The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the places to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.

Of course the person driving the vehicle can refuse the request. But many citizens are not fully aware of their rights and do not feel comfortable doing so, because they may come into conflict with the lawman. And that is not a situation that appeals to very many citizens.

And as for the Legislators who will be voting on this issue? Well…let’s just say that I doubt if any of them have had the heavy hand of the law laid on them recently.

Later…..Keith