Evidence required for seatbelt conviction

Moderators: Reflections, admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Decatur, bend

davec
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 22
Joined:

Evidence required for seatbelt conviction

Unread post by davec on

My son was charged with failure to wear seatbelt.

The officer observed him driving by from about 20 meters away. Given that the officer allegedly didn't see the seatbelt. Is this evidence ? My point would be that evidence requires you to actually see something, not seeing something is not evidence ?

Dave


fortec_man
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 20
Joined:

Unread post by fortec_man on

the officer could have "seen" that the seat belt buckle was next to your son's head..... or that he was trying to put it on when he noticed the cop....


Frozenover
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 53
Joined:

Unread post by Frozenover on



davec
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 22
Joined:

Unread post by davec on

I have disclosure, no mention of seeing the seatbelt latch. Looked at that site, going with officers ability to see. As it turns out the officer "pulled him over" in our driveway so no reason to have his seatbelt on there.


OPS Copper
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 355
Joined:

Unread post by OPS Copper on

That is unless he saw him not wearing his seatbelt on the road as STOPPED him in the driveway..

ops


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined:
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

Unread post by hwybear on

davec wrote: Given that the officer allegedly didn't see the seatbelt. Is this evidence ? My point would be that evidence requires you to actually see something, not seeing something is not evidence ?
The officer did not see something... "no use of a seatbelt".
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


davec
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 22
Joined:

Unread post by davec on

hwybear wrote:
davec wrote: Given that the officer allegedly didn't see the seatbelt. Is this evidence ? My point would be that evidence requires you to actually see something, not seeing something is not evidence ?
The officer did not see something... "no use of a seatbelt".
So this is considered evidence ? There are so many things he does not see. I would think evidence would be he saw the seatbelt unlatched.


davec
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 22
Joined:

Unread post by davec on

OPS Copper wrote:That is unless he saw him not wearing his seatbelt on the road as STOPPED him in the driveway..

ops
He alleges that he did not see the seatbelt about 1km away from our driveway. He followed my son to our driveway. Did not pull him over, rather once my son had parked he pulled up to the curb by our driveway. At this point I would think there is no reason for my son to have his seatbelt on. He is parked in a driveway. Which is private property and the HTA does not apply.


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined:
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

Unread post by hwybear on

davec wrote:
hwybear wrote:
davec wrote: Given that the officer allegedly didn't see the seatbelt. Is this evidence ? My point would be that evidence requires you to actually see something, not seeing something is not evidence ?
The officer did not see something... "no use of a seatbelt".
So this is considered evidence ? There are so many things he does not see. I would think evidence would be he saw the seatbelt unlatched.
I rarely have the seatbelt unlatched as evidence as that is not easy to see. It is way easier to explain that no portion of the seat belt assembly was observed diagonal across the upper torso of the driver.

Just b/c someone leaves the hwy (such as pulling into a convenience store, mall, gas station etc... ) does not make the offence no longer valid, otherwise everyone would just drive off the hwy.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


davec
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 22
Joined:

Unread post by davec on

hwybear wrote:
davec wrote:
hwybear wrote: The officer did not see something... "no use of a seatbelt".
So this is considered evidence ? There are so many things he does not see. I would think evidence would be he saw the seatbelt unlatched.
I rarely have the seatbelt unlatched as evidence as that is not easy to see. It is way easier to explain that no portion of the seat belt assembly was observed diagonal across the upper torso of the driver.

Just b/c someone leaves the hwy (such as pulling into a convenience store, mall, gas station etc... ) does not make the offence no longer valid, otherwise everyone would just drive off the hwy.

Yes, but I would think someone driving by you at a distance of 20 meters makes it difficult to see the diagonal strap if the strap is the same colour as your shirt. Now if you stopped them and were 2 feet away, that is different.

Yes I agree about leaving the highway, but it is not expected for someone to have their seatbelt fastened in their driveway.

On that note, is it even legal for the officer to come on our property without permission ?


OPS Copper
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 355
Joined:

Unread post by OPS Copper on

It is actually quite easy to see some one not wearing a seatbelt...even from 20 meters.

yes the police can come onto your property with out permission. He is in lawful execution of his duties.

gs


davec
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 22
Joined:

Unread post by davec on

Officer was a no show charges withdrawn.

I think this is more common now that we have all these agents. Agents deal with most of the cases, and when they do they negotiate. Of course now that I think about it, it's in their best interest to negotiate. If they embarass the prosecutor their future negotiations will be prejudiced. So it would be rare for a charge to go to trial.






Post Reply

Return to “General Talk”