Why Does the Wilbur Theatre Suck? Better Rock Shows in 5 Steps
Photo of the Day, November 24, 2009: Hook, Line, and Sinker
Photo of the Day, November 25, 2009: Boston as seen from the harbor
Cheap Eats: Burtons Grill
Sports Redux: Nobody Puts Bergey In the Corner
In today's Globe, Scot Lehigh assails a proposal in the legislature that would allow police to stop drivers whom they suspect are not wearing seatbelts (as it stands, drivers can only be busted for not buckling up after being pulled over for something else). Although we tend to favor public-safety legislation like seatbelt laws, Bostonist found ourselves agreeing with Lehigh, but we felt like he didn't quite make the point that needed making: If police can pull people over on suspcicion of not wearing seatbelts, they will. And if experience is any guide, not everyone will bear the brunt of the extra police stops equally. What's more, even if the police were completely race- and gender-blind in stopping people for possible seatbelt violations, the power to detain people - even briefly - for such a minor and unprovable suspicion (as compared to, say, a broken tail light), is an invitation for police to intrude upon the civil liberties of drivers.
The law makes a lot of room for police doing traffic stops to protect their safety: If a cop later testifies that he reasonably felt he was in danger, he can usually justify ordering a driver out of a car and searching the passenger compartment for weapons (and, of course, anything else he happens to find). What sorts of behaviors justify this fear by cops? According to numerous court cases, they can include a driver's leaning forward, leaning backward, or leaning to either side, along with any other movement an officer deems "furtive." Being visibly nervous is also a no-no, as is looking rapidly from side to side at officers on either side of the car. Having passengers doesn't help, and if any of the passengers should bend over in their seats, even briefly, that will probably justify an officer in ordering everyone out of the car, searching the car, and frisking all the passengers.
Now, Bostonist isn't trying to say that all these rulings by the august courts of our Commonwealth are wrong. We're just saying that once a cop pulls someone over, it's not hard for him to find a reason to search the car. So if the cops are permitted to pull a car over because they think they saw that someone wasn't wearing a seatbelt . . . well, look out. Bostonist will start having to carry our illegal drugs and weapons in the trunk, which will be super-annoying, because where will we put the baby carriage?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
If you favor victimless crime laws in the name of "public safety," then you support (intentionally or not) giving the police the power to harass the innocent. Any attempt to straddle the line doesn't work.
Victimless crimes are one thing. Broken taillights, headlights, not wearing seatbelts, etc. can actually have victims. If a car's brakelights aren't working, that puts other drivers at risk. If a car's headlights are off or not working, that puts other drivers and pedestrians at risk. If you are in an accident and are not wearing seatbelts, we are all at risk: the general public because it is we who must often pay the costs of emergency medical services; the members of the families of the injured or dead in terms of both money and grief and future income, etc.