• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

No Seat Belt Ticket

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

What is the name of your state? Arkansas

My husband got a ticket for No Seat Belt today, which is crazy considering he usually wears his seat belt! Anyway, the officer told him that he was being pulled over for not having his headlights on (it was raining). First of all, the officer was BEHIND him, not in front of him to know that my car has daytime driving lights that are CONSTANTLY on anytime the ignition is on and the parking brake is off. I have my owners manual to prove that... but he didn't get a ticket for that, just a warning! Anyway, so I looked up the laws on it and I found a few things that I thought were interesting.

27-36-204 (B)(i) No vehicle or the operator of the vehicle shall be stopped, inspected, or detained solely for violations of the requirements of subdivision (a)(2)(A) of this section.

That's on the headlights during inclement weather.

27-37-704 No motor vehicle, nor the operator of such vehicle, nor the passengers of such vehicle shall be stopped, inspected, or detained solely to determine compliance with this subchapter.

That's on the seatbelt law.

27-37-706 (a) Any person who violates this subchapter shall be subject to a fine not to exceed twenty-five dollars ($25.00). (b) When a person is convicted, pleads guilty, pleads nolo contendere, or forfeits bond for biolation of this subchapter, no court costs pursuant to S 16-10-305 or other costs or fees shall be assessed.

Also on the seatbelt law.

So, we talk about it and we have mixed thoughts at this point. It seems obvious that the officer really had no grounds to pull my husband over in the first place since the law clearly states that he could not pull him over for the reason he specified as the reason for pulling him over nor could he pull him over for the reason he ticketed him for. But the law also says the fine can be no more than $25, either. So, we call the number on the back of the ticket and they say the fine is $30. It's only a $5 increase from the state law... but it does exceed what the state law says. We question it and they say that they have assessed an additional fee of $5 for the County Jail! Yet, section (b) says no other costs or fees shall be assessed.

Fighting it would only be a matter of principal in that while yes, we do need to always obey all state laws, including wearing our seatbelts at all times... but so do the police officers and the court officials. It would be simpler to go and pay the $30 before the court date. We could pay it today no problem. But then the city continues violating the State Laws as well.

If we choose to fight it, would we do that by filing a Motion to Dismiss based on the fact that the stop was an illegal stop and that the fine exceeds the State Law? Or would we absolutely have to hire a lawyer?
 


sukharev

Member
Just do it by yourself. You do have a pretty good case. Did you check what insurance would think about the ticket? $30 may just be the downpayment :(
 
We have not checked with our insurance company on it yet. Neither of us have ever had any traffic violations before this. Both of our records state "No traffic violations exist for this person" and we are in our 30's, so our insurance is very reasonably priced. I will check with our Insurance Agent tomorrow on that, though. I imagine this would be classified as a moving violation and of course, my husband's record will no longer show "No traffic violations exist for this person" now. Or maybe it would for now, but not if he just pays the ticket because when paying for the ticket, it is the same as pleading guilty.

Would he need to file specific papers in the Court for this, or would he simply state his concerns at the hearing? Any ideas on which papers to file? Would a motion to dismiss be along the right track or is everything completely different in traffic court? We have only dealt with Custody in courts before.
 

moburkes

Senior Member
NotAnAttorney said:
We have not checked with our insurance company on it yet. Neither of us have ever had any traffic violations before this. Both of our records state "No traffic violations exist for this person" and we are in our 30's, so our insurance is very reasonably priced. I will check with our Insurance Agent tomorrow on that, though. I imagine this would be classified as a moving violation and of course, my husband's record will no longer show "No traffic violations exist for this person" now. Or maybe it would for now, but not if he just pays the ticket because when paying for the ticket, it is the same as pleading guilty.

Would he need to file specific papers in the Court for this, or would he simply state his concerns at the hearing? Any ideas on which papers to file? Would a motion to dismiss be along the right track or is everything completely different in traffic court? We have only dealt with Custody in courts before.
Since its considered a non-moving violation, it usually isn' charged by the insurance company. Free pass! Anyway, don't call about it. Never ALERT your insurance company about what MIGHT show up on your driving record. Insurace companies don't always order driving records at every renewal, therefore, by calling, you are giving them a heads' up notice to manually order it....and find something else!
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Given the circumstances, I would arge that 27-36-204(a)(1) applies and NOT (a)(2)(A) ...

(a)(1) Every vehicle, except motorcycles and motor-driven cycles, upon a highway within this state at any time from one-half (1/2) hour after sunset to one-half (1/2) hour before sunrise and at any other time when there is not sufficient light to render clearly discernible persons and vehicles on the highway at a distance of five hundred feet (500') ahead shall display lighted lamps and illuminating devices as respectively required for different classes of vehicles, subject to exceptions with respect to parked vehicles as stated.

So, if I were the officer I would argue that the stop was made for a violation of the (a)(1) section and not for the (a)(2)(A) section thus making the stop - and the subsequent belt violation - perfectly valid.

And as for fees being added, I will wager that if you read the state codes further (not necessarily in the chapters for vehicles) you will find that certain fees for jails, rehab, victims' compensation, etc. are outside the scope of the "fees" covered in the statute you read. If they are only tacking on $5 consider yourself fortunate ... in many states these assessments can equal or exceed the fine!

- Carl
 
Last edited:
CdwJava said:
Given the circumstances, I would arge that 27-36-204(a)(1) applies and NOT (a)(2)(A) ...

(a)(1) Every vehicle, except motorcycles and motor-driven cycles, upon a highway within this state at any time from one-half (1/2) hour after sunset to one-half (1/2) hour before sunrise and at any other time when there is not sufficient light to render clearly discernible persons and vehicles on the highway at a distance of five hundred feet (500') ahead shall display lighted lamps and illuminating devices as respectively required for different classes of vehicles, subject to exceptions with respect to parked vehicles as stated.

So, if I were the officer I would argue that the stop was made for a violation of the (a)(1) section and not for the (a)(2)(A) section thus making the stop - and the subsequent belt violation - perfectly valid.

And as for fees being added, I will wager that if you read the state codes further (not necessarily in the chapters for vehicles) you will find that certain fees for jails, rehab, victims' compensation, etc. are outside the scope of the "fees" covered in the statute you read. If they are only tacking on $5 consider yourself fortunate ... in many states these assessments can equal or exceed the fine!

- Carl
He got the ticket at 10:00 a.m. this morning. It was daylight and even sunny, but it was raining. And the officer stated to him that he pulled him over for not having his headlights on when he was using his windshield wipers. So, the officer can't really argue that he stopped him for 27-36-204(a)(1). The time is clearly stated on the ticket as is "warning - no headlights (raining)". However, he can also prove that my car's headlights are constantly on anytime the car's ignition is on and the parking brake is not engaged with my owner's manual or even a trip to my car with the Judge (if that's allowed). Or... we could always bring in a couple hundred witnesses... literally.

As for the fees, I didn't realize that. I will look into that further. The $5 isn't that big of a deal really. The whole fine isn't that big of a deal at all in fact... except that it's just the principal behind it all in that the officer didn't abide by the laws either and not wanting the blemished driving record!
 
Last edited:
moburkes said:
Since its considered a non-moving violation, it usually isn' charged by the insurance company. Free pass! Anyway, don't call about it. Never ALERT your insurance company about what MIGHT show up on your driving record. Insurace companies don't always order driving records at every renewal, therefore, by calling, you are giving them a heads' up notice to manually order it....and find something else!
How is it a non-moving violation? I don't understand the way the traffic tickets all work! I thought it would be a moving violation because you can only get a ticket for no seat belt if you are actually in a moving vehicle while not wearing it. If you weren't moving, it wouldn't be a ticketable offense. I thought that the only way it would be a non-moving violation would be if it was like a parking ticket or something like that! How far off am I? :confused:
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
NotAnAttorney said:
He got the ticket at 10:00 a.m. this morning. It was daylight and even sunny, but it was raining. And the officer stated to him that he pulled him over for not having his headlights on when he was using his windshield wipers. So, the officer can't really argue that he stopped him for 27-36-204(a)(1).
Sure he can ... the rain, the windshield wipers, and the visibility all combined to render discernible visibility less than 500' thus making the (a)(1) section quite viable.

I'm not saying it is correct, but I am going to bet you that he will make the argument and since the visibility issue is subjective, he's likely to prevail. And with wipers going, I'd say it's a good one.

The time is clearly stated on the ticket as is "warning - no headlights (raining)". However, he can also prove that my car's headlights are constantly on anytime the car's ignition is on and the parking brake is not engaged with my owner's manual or even a trip to my car with the Judge (if that's allowed).
Ah! But if he was behind him, I will guess the TAIL LIGHTS were not on! The cars I have seen that operate with daylight "running lights" use headlights but no taillights. If there is no tail lights it is a reasonable inference that the headlights are not on.

except that it's just the principal behind it all in that the officer didn't abide by the laws either and not wanting the blemished driving record!
As I've pointed out, the law is subject to interpretation. It may not be that he is not abiding by the law, but that he is interpreting it differently than you are. He may also have knowledge of case law that has effected the statutes while you may not.

Take it to court and find out what happens.

- Carl
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
NotAnAttorney said:
How is it a non-moving violation? I don't understand the way the traffic tickets all work! I thought it would be a moving violation because you can only get a ticket for no seat belt if you are actually in a moving vehicle while not wearing it. If you weren't moving, it wouldn't be a ticketable offense. I thought that the only way it would be a non-moving violation would be if it was like a parking ticket or something like that! How far off am I? :confused:
A "moving violation" is generally a violation that involves the actual opration of the vehicle ... speed, stopping, turning, etc. Equipment and seatbelts don't generally result in points against one's license.

- Carl
 
CdwJava said:
Ah! But if he was behind him, I will guess the TAIL LIGHTS were not on! The cars I have seen that operate with daylight "running lights" use headlights but no taillights. If there is no tail lights it is a reasonable inference that the headlights are not on.
- Carl
You are absolutely correct on this! Sadly, I was not aware of this until today!!! When my husband came home with this ticket in hand and said that he was originally pulled over for not having the headlights on, my response was "What are you talking about? My car has daytime driving lights!" He said that's what he told the officer, which is the reason he didn't get ticketed for the no headlights, but only got a warning for it instead. I got out my manual and while reading it, I saw that it does say that my taillights will not be on, only the sidelights, fog lights, and headlights. I knew my interior lights would not come on, which is what reminds me to turn me the switch on when it gets dusk. But until today, I didn't realize that the taillights were not on. But the side lights are on, which his dash cam should show... but then again, that could leave him with the impression that he only had the parking lights on. Yet, again, my car is also a 2005 model and with it being such a newer model car, the officer could have also easily realized that the newer model cars are all being made with the daytime driving lights also!!! At least, I believe they all are! I guess I should make absolutely sure of that before I go around saying that, though!

I don't know, the more I think about it, the sillier it seems to waste the time and money to try to fight it. But the officer was such a jerk! And I swear there was no way the headlights were not on and he would have to totally twist the law to make it stick. He also made my husband take his contact out to prove to him that he was wearing them!!! I can look in his eye and see that he's wearing them! You can see contacts in people's eyes if you look for them! He should not have had to take his contact out on the side of the road! He had to have his passenger drive back because he couldn't get his contact back in and I NEVER let ANYONE else drive my car other than me and my husband. But none of that is legal grounds for anything and I know that. It just ticked me off because the officer was being a jerk. He was trying to pull his weight is all.

But realistically... I guess we should just go pay the ticket tomorrow and take the blemish on his record. After all, he should have had his seatbelt on. We'll buy him a motorcycle at the first of the year! He doesn't even have a wear a helmet... but he has to wear a seat belt in a car! He usually does, though... and he'll wear a helmet anyway!!!
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
There's no helmet law in AR? I didn't know that. I recently heard there were mauybe a half dozen states that had no helmet laws ... though it's hard to believe.

Seatbelt tickets are pretty minor stuff out here. It would cost most people more money to take the two or three hours off to go to court than the total amount of the fine.

But, as Sukharev mentioned, he may have a valid defense. If the running lights cannot be over-ridden (my mom's Buick can't be) then the headlights are automatically on (unless they are on a light sensor in which case there might be no way to know). But, the court could see the stop as perfectly rational because of the lack of taillights and then - while he had the driver lawfully detained for investigation of the headlight thing - he observed the seatbelt violation ... in that scenario the officer likely wins anyway. I would tend to think the officer would prevail in court. But, I'm biased. :cool:

Good luck, and remember those seatbelts! And, remember that motorcycles suck in the rain ... and even if there is no helmet law, the smart money says wear one. Ever seen what happens to a man's head at even 25 MPH? ... Think dropping a watermelon from the roof of the courthouse ...

- Carl
 
In Arkansas, you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet as long as you are over 21... but can not ride in a car without a seatbelt!!! Makes no sense in my opinion! But I agreed to the motorcycle under the condition that he would always wear a helmet... so I covered that one anyway! ;) I'm usually the one forgetting my seatbelt because it irritates me that they would pass the law requiring us to wear our seatbelts but not require people to wear helmets and I feel like they are interfering with my freedom of choice. They also just passed a law saying I can't smoke in my car if there is a child in it. It irritates me that they pass these sort of laws, especially without allowing us to vote on them. No smoking in public places, even in bars! I don't even go to bars, but it's just the principal... losing freedom of choice. The whole seatbelt law bothered me from day one. But my husband, he always wore his. He didn't like the law, but he always wore it. I was floored when he told me got a ticket for it. I've never seen him NOT wear his seatbelt!!! The one time he doesn't have it on, he gets pulled over... and for something totally not even legit! If he had been pulled over for any other reason, we would have already paid the ticket and been done with it. That's the worst part about it. If that officer had said, "I pulled you over because you aren't wearing your seat belt." we would not have questioned it and just paid it never knowing that he couldn't pull him over for that! But instead, he pulled him over for something that we KNEW wasn't true... could not be true... and so it made us want to know what the laws were on it!

Oh well... it's just $30. We'll pay it. But we won't like it one bit. Especially since my husband told the officer he wouldn't pay it and then when he called the Sgt. (who is a friend of ours) he told him we weren't paying it... come to think of it. I say we'll pay it. My husband may not be ready to let it go yet!!! I hope he is, though! I don't think I want to pay an attorney to fight this and I don't know enough about the law to fight it and my husband definitely doesn't know ANYTHING about law!!! All I know is how to type in the computer "Arkansas Statutes" and use the search function!!!!
 

MASTERNC

Junior Member
CdwJava said:
If they are only tacking on $5 consider yourself fortunate ... in many states these assessments can equal or exceed the fine!
Yes that is true. Be glad you don't live in Pennsylvania. When you get a ticket, everyone holds out their hands asking for money. Ambulance services and the few remaining people receiving money from a now-disbanded state-run malpractice fund are the primary beneficiaries. A $25 ticket can easily top $120 with all the fees attached.
 

sukharev

Member
MASTERNC said:
Yes that is true. Be glad you don't live in Pennsylvania. When you get a ticket, everyone holds out their hands asking for money. Ambulance services and the few remaining people receiving money from a now-disbanded state-run malpractice fund are the primary beneficiaries. A $25 ticket can easily top $120 with all the fees attached.
What difference does it make? Would you rather have a $120 ticket to start with, no added fees? At least they tell you where money is going...
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top