Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/12/2004 08:00 AM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 316-SEAT BELT VIOLATION AS PRIMARY OFFENSE
SENATOR CON BUNDE, sponsor, told members SB 316 requires the
enforcement of existing law. Alaska has a statute that requires
motorists to wear seat belts when operating a motor vehicle.
However, law enforcement cannot enforce that law unless the
motorist violates an additional law. He commented:
Mr. Chairman, Alaska is, and I join them in this, a
pretty Libertarian state, and people say it's my right
if I want to put my head through a windshield and
scramble my brains I ought to be able to do so. And
again, that's an interesting trail of logic. If
there's a passenger they are required by law, and it's
a primary law, to have a seat belt. If there's a young
person, there's a substantial penalty if they're not
belted in. But we do this kind of thing with the
driver that allows them to play a little roulette
there. And I would agree that it's the driver's right
to scramble their brains if they choose to if it
didn't cost the state money. So, to put a little
different spin on that old saw, your right to swing
your fist ends where my nose begins. In this case,
your right to swing your fist ends where my wallet
begins.
So, Mr. Chairman, I bring you SB 316. It changes our
existing seat belt law from a secondary law to a
primary law. As you likely know, that simply means
that if you are stopped for another violation and
you're not wearing a seat belt, then you're subject to
the secondary law. This legislation would say that the
police, if they were to observe you operating a motor
vehicle without a seat belt, that is a cause to allow
them to stop you and enforce Alaska's existing law
that you require a seat belt.
You will probably hear some testimony from law
enforcement officials that say that they have the rear
view mirror influence. Somebody will be stopped at a
stop sign, stoplight, and they look in their rear view
mirror and they see a police car and then they reach
over and fasten their seat belt.
I am suggesting that if this law were in effect, the
primary seat belt law, perhaps they'd do that when
they first got in the car and save Alaska and
themselves a great deal of money. And let me just go
over some of the financial aspects. Obviously, it will
save lives. As a pilot I am sure you couldn't imagine
operating an aircraft without fastening your seat belt
because when vehicles that we are riding in stop, the
body that could be in motion would stay in motion and
that'd be you and I and we'd go - projected from the
vehicle. As a result of this legislation, it's likely
that seat belt use will go up about 15 percent and
that's a substantial number of lives when we talk
about living Alaskans as human beings.
We'll also gain federal money if we pass this law. We
will receive nearly $4 million to be used for road
improvements with the passage of this law - a federal
bribe, if you will, for us to entertain this but
Alaskans have never been known to turn down free
federal money and perhaps we ought not to do that. In
addition, there is federal money available for an
educational campaign about the importance of wearing
seat belts. I don't know what occurred in Fairbanks -
perhaps it was statewide, but certainly in the
Anchorage area this past fall and winter they had a
click-it or ticket campaign and it was a very vigorous
campaign encouraging people to wear seat belts. And
again, the net result is to save lives, not to gather
a few funds from seat belt tickets.
The primary seat belt law has saved billions of
dollars nationally in related accident costs. As
someone with some knowledge of automobiles you
understand that wearing a seat belt can protect the
most precious part of that vehicle in a crash and that
as we operate motor vehicles if we have a seat belt on
and there's some sudden event, we're more likely to
remain in control of that vehicle because we're belted
in rather than sliding across the front seat, losing
contact with pedals and steering wheels and that sort
of thing.
Mr. Chairman, 85 percent of all of the costs in motor
vehicle [accidents] are paid for by society through
emergency services, medical services, rehabilitation
treatment, health and automobile insurance premiums.
Every time there unfortunately is an accident, it has
impact on your and my insurance premium. The average
cost to Alaskans last year of accidents that we
weren't involved in was $820. Employers, of course,
are impacted by this as well, and we should be
cognizant of it.
Mr. Chairman, this is a common sense bill. Showing
their good judgment, nearly 70 percent of Alaskans
support a primary seat belt law and I would ask you,
sir, to allow law enforcement to enforce Alaska's laws
and pass this bill creating a primary seat belt law.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he is constantly surprised at the number of
his automobile customers who want their seat belt alarm signals
disconnected.
SENATOR BUNDE said that raises the point that national highway
data shows that adults who wear seat belts positively impact
their children and passengers to wear them.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if there is any opposition to this bill.
MS. LINDA WILSON, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration (DOA) said, at first blush, SB 316 appears to be
very simple. However, the bill as presented only eliminates
section (e) of the statute. Section (b) of that statute requires
anyone under 16 riding in a vehicle to wear a seat belt and says
that a violation of (b) can be the basis for being stopped.
Therefore, Alaska's law is a hybrid: it is a primary law state
for riders under 16, but a secondary law state for riders over
16. She pointed out that thirty other states are secondary
states. Her primary concern is that changing Alaska's law to a
primary law will allow police to stop a vehicle on the basis of
a seat belt violation and open the door to "pretextual" stops.
More often than not, the people who are stopped are people of
color. She advised that although that is not the underlying
intent of the bill, it could open the door to profiling and
harassment. She noted that the current penalties for violating
section (b) are a $15 fine and points against one's license. She
suggested increasing the fine instead of changing the law.
MR. JOSH FINK, Director of Public Advocacy, Department of
Administration, echoed Ms. Wilson's comments and said he
supports the concept that everyone should wear seat belts but
his concern with SB 316 is twofold. On a practical level, he is
concerned that cars with lap seat belts would be stopped
regularly.
His second and greater concern is that SB 316 will lead to a
significant increase in the number of pretextual stops. As a
former public defender in the Mat-Su Valley, MR. FINK said he is
aware of people who have been stopped for all kinds of things
like switching lanes without using a turn signal, and the
officers were fairly straightforward about the fact that they
were not interested in citing drivers for those offenses, they
were more interested in stopping vehicles to further
investigate. He expressed concern that allowing the police to
stop individuals for not wearing a seat belt is a pretext for
stopping individuals for other reasons. He believes that will
result in a backlash from the public. He maintained that Alaska
is a big government state and this tool may cross the line.
SENATOR FRENCH asked Ms. Wilson and Mr. Fink if they are aware
of any lawsuit filed by a minority person in civil court
alleging harassment by law enforcement officers.
MS. WILSON said she and Mr. Fink deal in the criminal world, not
the civil world, so if someone were to file a complaint against
the police it would be filed with the police department. She
pointed out that people of color in Alaska are over-represented
in the criminal justice system and believes those statistics
warrant some concern.
MR. FINK responded that he is not aware of any civil suits
either but he is aware of many successful suppression motions on
bad stops that were determined to be pretextual stops. He noted
that teenagers and minorities are most often stopped.
SENATOR FRENCH said he followed the subject of pretextual stops
when in law school, which divided the circuit court at that
time. He noted:
I was aware when it was subsequently resolved in the
[U.S.] Supreme Court that pretextual stops really
[aren't] the basis now of any legal challenge to a
stop, is it? I mean that's been resolved. I think it
was a unanimous supreme court decision that said that
if there's a legal reason to pull a car over, you
don't examine the motives of the officer in making the
stop. You simply ask whether or not he had a legal
basis for doing what he did. Is that right?
MR. FINK replied, "...That is not correct. The United States
Supreme Court has ruled that way. Pretextual stops - the
prohibition on pretextual stops is still alive in Alaska. The
Court of Appeals and our supreme court have indicated that is
still a valid basis at the present time."
CHAIR SEEKINS maintained that every committee member is
concerned about giving a person with the wrong motives the
ability to harass someone else but the question is one of
balance and safety. He believes enactment of this bill will have
a positive effect on the health and safety of people using the
highways. However, if the legislature sees the number of
pretextual stops flourish, it would most likely contemplate some
way to address that problem. He said sometimes the "might
happens" stand in the way of good public policy. He questioned
how long it would take a police officer to tell which model
vehicles have lap seat belts rather than shoulder harnesses.
In response to Chair Seekins' comment that the legislature would
be concerned if harassment did occur, MS. WILSON offered to send
the committee data from states with a hybrid law. The State of
Michigan recently changed its law and started with a pilot
project to determine whether a basis for the concern of
pretextual stops existed. She noted Michigan put a "safety
valve" into its law to address that concern.
SENATOR BUNDE presented a publication by People Saving People
and said the group's in-depth studies of various communities
showed no shift in enforcement patterns that could be
interpreted as harassment that resulted from changing to a
primary law. He pointed out that since Alaska's law is a hybrid,
a pattern of harassment would already exist. He said that
although he understands the concern, he does not believe it is
of a sufficient level to avoid changing to a primary law.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if anyone else wanted to testify in
opposition to SB 316. [No response was heard.] He then asked
members to express any concerns about SB 316.
SENATOR FRENCH said he would like to read the case that Mr. Fink
referred to in regard to pretextual stops.
CHAIR SEEKINS told members he would like to advance SB 316 from
committee, as he believes it is good legislation as is. He
offered to hold it in committee if Senator French would like
more time to review it.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced that he would hold SB 316 in committee
and asked Ms. Wilson and Mr. Fink to provide the requested
information to committee members. He also informed participants
who were waiting to testify in support of the bill that the
committee understands the weight of their testimony.
SENATOR BUNDE asked that a representative from the law
enforcement community testify on the subject of pretextual
stops.
MR. PAUL HARRIS, Director of the Fairbanks Police Department,
stated support for SB 316 and said the law enforcement community
asks that this bill pass. The law enforcement community believes
that having a law requiring people to wear seat belts without
being able to enforce it is similar to having a law that
prohibits a person from stealing that cannot be enforced unless
that person uses the money for another criminal act. He informed
members that Fairbanks passed a primary ordinance last year that
was repealed after about three months. The police enforced it
for those three months and saw increased seat belt use during
that time. During that three months, he received many calls in
opposition to that ordinance but not one complaint about police
officers making a pretextual stop, nor did he hear that
allegation from the district attorney in DUI or other cases. He
noted the police are too busy to make pretextual stops but
acknowledged police do look for reasons to stop a suspicious
vehicle at times. That vehicle might be in a place where it
should not be, or carrying people it shouldn't be. In most of
those situations, any reasonable person would want to take a
further look to feel more secure. He also suggested that people
who feel that mandating seat belt use is inconvenient or a
restriction of personal rights take a look at a person in a full
body cast or with other serious injuries. He admitted as a
police officer, he gets tired of picking up the pieces and of
not being able to do anything until an accident occurs. SB 316
will allow police to take preventive action to save lives and
reduce injuries.
SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Harris to offer advice on how to
implement this law and prevent the backlash that occurred in
Fairbanks.
MR. HARRIS said he understands the independence of Alaskans but
believes SB 316 is the right thing to do. It will save the state
money and protect citizens' rights. He said legislators should
expect to hear constituents complain that their rights are being
restricted but, as a police officer, he is asking them to do the
right thing.
CHAIR SEEKINS said as a body shop owner, he has seen major
damage done to vehicles yet the people involved sustained minor
damage because they wore proper constraints. He noted those
constraints could be improved and a lot of research is underway
to find ways to better protect people. He repeated it is
important to balance this issue on the side of protection and
that the legislature will need to address any use of this law
for pretextual stops if that occurs. He again asked if anyone
waiting to testify opposed SB 316. [No response was heard.] He
noted he would be willing to move this legislation from
committee today.
SENATOR FRENCH objected as he asked to see the material from Ms.
Wilson.
SENATOR THERRIAULT suggested that Senator French agree to moving
the bill while awaiting the information.
SENATOR FRENCH agreed.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved SB 316 and attached fiscal notes from
committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced that without objection, the motion
carried. He then told Senator French if he finds something
onerous in the information he is waiting for, he would commit to
addressing it at a later date.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|