Oh, I Thought Your Seat Belt Wasn't On...What's In the Trunk?

A bill is currently advancing through the Arkansas Legislature that irks me on various levels for varying reasons.

Senate Bill 78 would make the act of not wearing a seat belt a primary offense, meaning that they can be pulled over for that reason and that reason alone. Right now, one can only be given a ticket if they are already pulled over and have previously failed to click it.

So if I'm flying down I-30 headed to God's Country, Saline County, Arkansas at about 73 miles per hour, and a police officer sees that my seat belt is not fastened, bingo. I'm pulled over and may be issued a ticket, if the officer claims that I, indeed, was not wearing the seat belt that I indeed fasten every time I drive, mostly out of sheer reflex — my father was and is still a stern advocate of buckling up. And he's a rather large fellow who could crush most men, and most certainly a growing boy, with his bare hands.

My first point of ire was the same as Senate Minority Leader Denny Altes, R-Fort Smith. “How are you going to be able to enforce this law?”

State Police Director Col. Winford E. Phillips, speaking for SB 78, said very plainly that an officer would have to see the violation first, and if he cannot see that the seat belt is being worn, he (or she, ahthankyou) has no reason to stop the car.

How is an officer supposed to be able to hawkeye a driver's left shoulder to determine whether or not they're wearing a seat belt? It just doesn't seem feasible unless one is in a congested area, like downtown or something.

But I'm rather concerned with that other point: The reason.

An officer must have good cause or reason to pull someone over. You swerved, you sped, you tossed your slushie cup, what have you. Police officers have a lot of latitude to say whether or not someone has done these things, and understandably so. There's no telling how many lives have been saved by officers getting swerving drunks off the road and in jail where they belong.

But might law enforcement officers be granted undue latitude with this law? It's based, after all, with what they perceive, not an act that might be verified by any other number of means, like a swerving man might knock over a trash can, or pop a curb or something. With this, it's mere appearance; it looks like that guy might not be wearing a seat belt, and the sirens blare.

Many will be quick to jump this commentary as that of an anarchical alarmist — someone who is ever-fearing the heavy hand of the Man, and swift to accuse police of brutality, racism, and any other vice that seems often contrary to common sense. That is not the case. I know many, many police officers and many, many of them are fine upstanding individuals who would never dare to do such things.

But why bring up the question? Why even allow the idea in people's minds? I asked a colleague of mine one time whether or not he thought Hillary Clinton's being married to Bill, who went around collecting money from other nations for his charitable fund, created a conflict of interest. He replied that in actuality no, it didn't matter but that that didn't matter; there was a newfound reason to be suspicious.

I don't think that police will be more inclined to do dastardly deeds, but I'd rather them not be under more scrutiny therein.

And how many more lives are saved by pulling over numerous people who may in fact be wearing their seat belts? How many people swerving drunkenly, undetected by police officers who have someone pulled over because of their safety belt? There are a gamut of questions that would need to be rectified.

I don't think I'll have to spend too much time thinking about it. I believe police do — and rightfully so — have bigger fish to fry.