Full Version: "Click it or ticket" program-a boondoggle?
All across the country, law enforcement of all levels is engaging in the "click it or ticket" program. Found this on Reason.com, an interesting libertarian online magazine with many interesting articles. I haven't run across a check-point yet, though I'm certain that my time is coming. 
Article
This is an interesting take on the topic, I'm more against mandatory check-points myself. I for one feel that they violate the 4th amendment and should be stopped, no matter how much it might make us feel good.
Questions for debate:
1.)Does a "click it or ticket it" road-check constitute an "unreasonable search" and thus, violate the 4th amendment?
2.)Is the program a waste of time and resources for law enforcement.
3.)Why should programs like this, whose aim is to protect us from ourselves be allowed to exist?
QUOTE
Click It supporters say tougher seat belt laws will help make highways even safer, but the nationwide trend toward safer streets has continued with or without them. Take New Hampshire, the only state without an adult seat belt law. It might seem like the "Live free or die" state has chosen death, but drivers there actually enjoy the nation's fourth safest roads. Neither of the two safest states have primary enforcement, and of the top 20 safest states, 10 have primary enforcement and 10 do not.
Of the states with the most dangerous roads, many do not have primary enforcement, but here higher fatality rates have much to do with the fact that these states also tend to be rural. Risks common to rural driving—such as narrow roads, sharp curves, and steep drop-offs from pavement to the shoulder—make for treacherous travel. And when accidents occur in these remote locations, it's difficult to get ambulances to the scene in time to save lives.
Many factors make driving dangerous. Naturally, public officials like to highlight what we're doing wrong, but they could do a lot more good by tending to the highway safety aspects they've been neglecting. Getting to accident sites quickly saves lives, yet many local governments allow their emergency medical service to grow sluggish and complacent. Properly maintained roads make driving safer, yet our roadway system managed only a D grade from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Reversing the trend of ever worsening traffic congestion would also help. Congestion makes drivers desperate, and desperate drivers do stupid things that endanger all of us.
And that's the central folly of seat belt laws. They don't protect safe drivers from dangerous drivers; they protect careless people from themselves. Beltlessness does not cause accidents and—except in extremely rare circumstances—one driver's decision to go beltless does not make anyone else less safe. Most importantly, running down seatbelt scofflaws keeps officers away from more important public safety duties.
Of the states with the most dangerous roads, many do not have primary enforcement, but here higher fatality rates have much to do with the fact that these states also tend to be rural. Risks common to rural driving—such as narrow roads, sharp curves, and steep drop-offs from pavement to the shoulder—make for treacherous travel. And when accidents occur in these remote locations, it's difficult to get ambulances to the scene in time to save lives.
Many factors make driving dangerous. Naturally, public officials like to highlight what we're doing wrong, but they could do a lot more good by tending to the highway safety aspects they've been neglecting. Getting to accident sites quickly saves lives, yet many local governments allow their emergency medical service to grow sluggish and complacent. Properly maintained roads make driving safer, yet our roadway system managed only a D grade from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Reversing the trend of ever worsening traffic congestion would also help. Congestion makes drivers desperate, and desperate drivers do stupid things that endanger all of us.
And that's the central folly of seat belt laws. They don't protect safe drivers from dangerous drivers; they protect careless people from themselves. Beltlessness does not cause accidents and—except in extremely rare circumstances—one driver's decision to go beltless does not make anyone else less safe. Most importantly, running down seatbelt scofflaws keeps officers away from more important public safety duties.
Article
This is an interesting take on the topic, I'm more against mandatory check-points myself. I for one feel that they violate the 4th amendment and should be stopped, no matter how much it might make us feel good.
Questions for debate:
1.)Does a "click it or ticket it" road-check constitute an "unreasonable search" and thus, violate the 4th amendment?
2.)Is the program a waste of time and resources for law enforcement.
3.)Why should programs like this, whose aim is to protect us from ourselves be allowed to exist?
At last! An issue I do not agree with libertarians about.
I would consider safer roads as good a reason as any as to have cars detoured to drive through a check point. The fact of the matter is that this could help save lives, even the fact that there are checkpoints will help maintain seat belt safety. I do not even count this as a search per se; to me this qualifies as more of a pass-and-go check. No one is asking you to step out of your car and you are forced to watch them invade your glove compartment. So, A.) it is helping remind drivers that there are other people on the road whose lives matter, too (which is perfectly reasonable) and B.) it is not a real search, an inconvenience perhaps, but so are colonoscopys (necessary evils of the world are all around us, it does not mean all must violate an Amendment of some kind).
Not if you consider another alternative to this project:
It is 5:30 in the afternoon and you are driving home from work, when suddenly you slow down as you approach a red light, you stop but do not notice the SUV barrelling toward you at full thrusters. You lean back to take a deep breath and soon you are hurled into oncoming traffic because your seat belt was not in its position because you chose to be immortal that night.
I would not like to be the officer called out to scrape you up. All that mess, and your death, could have been prevented with a reach, a pull and a click.
Well if the answer is usually in the question please reread the question to find the answer:
QUOTE
1.)Does a "click it or ticket it" road-check constitute an "unreasonable search" and thus, violate the 4th amendment?
I would consider safer roads as good a reason as any as to have cars detoured to drive through a check point. The fact of the matter is that this could help save lives, even the fact that there are checkpoints will help maintain seat belt safety. I do not even count this as a search per se; to me this qualifies as more of a pass-and-go check. No one is asking you to step out of your car and you are forced to watch them invade your glove compartment. So, A.) it is helping remind drivers that there are other people on the road whose lives matter, too (which is perfectly reasonable) and B.) it is not a real search, an inconvenience perhaps, but so are colonoscopys (necessary evils of the world are all around us, it does not mean all must violate an Amendment of some kind).
QUOTE
2.)Is the program a waste of time and resources for law enforcement.
Not if you consider another alternative to this project:
It is 5:30 in the afternoon and you are driving home from work, when suddenly you slow down as you approach a red light, you stop but do not notice the SUV barrelling toward you at full thrusters. You lean back to take a deep breath and soon you are hurled into oncoming traffic because your seat belt was not in its position because you chose to be immortal that night.
I would not like to be the officer called out to scrape you up. All that mess, and your death, could have been prevented with a reach, a pull and a click.
QUOTE
3.)Why should programs like this, whose aim is to protect us from ourselves be allowed to exist?
Well if the answer is usually in the question please reread the question to find the answer:
QUOTE
3.)Why should programs like this, whose aim is to protect us from ourselves be allowed to exist?
While I do not like having yet another reason for law enforcement to stop your average motorist, wearing safety belts has been law for some time, and Michigan police do cite drivers who do not wear the safety belts.
My brother is very conservative in most of his thinking, and he has expressed to me his opinion about motorcycle helmet laws which are similar to the "click it or ticket" seat belt program. He figures he doesn't want to be paying with his taxes for idiots who get into accidents and end up in comas or persistent vegetative states because of their discomfort wearing head protection. I didn't say he was a compassionate conservative.
In a society where we have to caution people not to put live cats into microwave ovens to dry them off (it actually happened), and where there has to be a big warning that hot coffee is hot at the drive-through, it looks like we need the "Hey Stupid" laws. Our entire family has used safety belts for as long as I can remember; the only time they have gotten in the way was after my mastectomy and after a port was implanted in my chest. Then it's a booger at times, and I have to place a pillow between the belt and myself.
It cannot be assumed that all persons know how to strap in baby seats or even use them. It is widely known that many people do not want to be bothered with buckling up their safety belts. While we complain about the "nanny state," it has been amply demonstrated that safety belts do save lives, and some people have to have to be hit in the wallet before they consider using them.
My brother is very conservative in most of his thinking, and he has expressed to me his opinion about motorcycle helmet laws which are similar to the "click it or ticket" seat belt program. He figures he doesn't want to be paying with his taxes for idiots who get into accidents and end up in comas or persistent vegetative states because of their discomfort wearing head protection. I didn't say he was a compassionate conservative.
In a society where we have to caution people not to put live cats into microwave ovens to dry them off (it actually happened), and where there has to be a big warning that hot coffee is hot at the drive-through, it looks like we need the "Hey Stupid" laws. Our entire family has used safety belts for as long as I can remember; the only time they have gotten in the way was after my mastectomy and after a port was implanted in my chest. Then it's a booger at times, and I have to place a pillow between the belt and myself.
It cannot be assumed that all persons know how to strap in baby seats or even use them. It is widely known that many people do not want to be bothered with buckling up their safety belts. While we complain about the "nanny state," it has been amply demonstrated that safety belts do save lives, and some people have to have to be hit in the wallet before they consider using them.
I don't think it constitutes and unreasonable search and seizure.
I don't think it's a waste of time. While I don't like the law and yes, New Hampshire is the only state (Thank God!!) that doesn't have an adult seat belt law on the books, I think the program is appropriate for states that do. (I am not in favor of adult seat belt laws).
Why should they be allowed to exist? If a state's legislature passes such (stupid) laws and their Governor signs it then they should be allowed to exist because that's supposedly what the public wants.
I don't think it's a waste of time. While I don't like the law and yes, New Hampshire is the only state (Thank God!!) that doesn't have an adult seat belt law on the books, I think the program is appropriate for states that do. (I am not in favor of adult seat belt laws).
Why should they be allowed to exist? If a state's legislature passes such (stupid) laws and their Governor signs it then they should be allowed to exist because that's supposedly what the public wants.
QUOTE
1.)Does a "click it or ticket it" road-check constitute an "unreasonable search" and thus, violate the 4th amendment?
Nope. I don't see how it could be an unreasonable search, any more than an officer looking through the windows of a car, see a driver drinking a can of beer, and not being allowed to stop him because it's an "unreasonable search".
If traffic is funneled through a check point, what is the harm as long as the officer does not unreasonably delay any person in that line of cars. The courts have upheld that repeatedly. State legislatures around the country have legislated that into state codes. Police officers conduct these forms of stops all the time. While some may argue it is unreasonable, the ultimate goal to have seatbelted drivers (as well as those that are sober, driving with valid licenses, carrying insurance, etc,) The stop is for the general good of all of society (with the exception of those that would want to evade the law).
QUOTE
2.)Is the program a waste of time and resources for law enforcement.
Nope. Can someone please tell me what is a useful use of time and resources for law enforcement? Certainly I would believe most would argue it is to protect life and property. Wearing a seat belt does protect life (the motorist that is seatbelted) and property (my money - so I don't have to pay increased insurance rates because of claims due to serious injuries of those that choose not to wear their searbelts).
QUOTE
3.)Why should programs like this, whose aim is to protect us from ourselves be allowed to exist?
"Protect us from ourselves" - this is the war cry of just about everyone I've ever talked to who disagrees with the law. Nope - it's put into place to protect my assets from the person who doesn't mind risking them by not wearing his/her seatbelt.
Race car drivers are REQUIRED by regulations of racing to wear safety gear, including a seatbelt while they are racing. It seems to me that race car drivers would want to wear a seatbelt if they are driving around a track at 200+ MPH. So why is it legislated into their rules? Because chances are there will be a crash, and there will be death or great injury if they didn't - and the race sanctioning body does not want to take the chance that a driver may choose not to.
Why are there speed limits? Why are their laws against drunk driving? Why are there regulatory signs everywhere? Because if there wasn't, there would be more serious injuries and fatalities due to car crashes. Why are there seat belt laws? Because if there wasn't, there would be more serious injuries and fatalities in car crashes. This is a well established fact (anyone who would like cites, please let me know - I'll PM them to you)
QUOTE
I do not even count this as a search per se; to me this qualifies as more of a pass-and-go check. No one is asking you to step out of your car and you are forced to watch them invade your glove compartment. So, A.) it is helping remind drivers that there are other people on the road whose lives matter, too (which is perfectly reasonable)
The problem with this is that the police are conducting a fishing expedition to find a "probable cause," they don't have a "probable cause" in mind when specifically for you when you are pulled over. Pulling cars over at a checkpoint looking for what they might find doesn't quite cut it constitutionally speaking when it comes to the 4th amendment. We don't allow people to be pulled over solely based on race, so why do we tolerate it for what a person might be doing, but there is no reasonable suspicion(i.e.-weaving in traffic, drivign too slow or too fast) on which they can and should be pulled over? So do I take it, that you believe the "reasonable suspicion" line doesn't stack up against the security of the population driving or for whatever reason is made up?
QUOTE(CarthagoDelendaEst @ Jun 5 2005, 03:38 AM)
... any more than an officer looking through the windows of a car, see a driver drinking a can of beer, and not being allowed to stop him because it's an "unreasonable search".
If an officer sees someone drinking while driving, he has the "probable cause" as is required by the 4th Amendment to stop that person.
In N.C., when the seatbelt law was first passed, the government promised that law enforcement would not stop people for seatbelt violations alone. They said people would not be ticketed for seatbelt violations unless they were stopped for some other reason such as speeding. That promise didn't last very long.
Yes, seatbelts can and do save lives. Should there be a law mandating their use? I would have to answer that with an emphatic NO!
Many people use the "promote the general welfare" clause of the Constitution to justify the law, but the clause does say 'promote', not 'dictate'. Educate the people on the effectiveness of wearing a seatbelt. Once people know their life-saving potential, if they then choose to not wear one, it becomes that person's own responsibility. After I heard a 20 year veteran of the Florida Highway Patrol state that he had never unbuckled a dead person, I had no problem wearing a seatbelt. That was when the U.S. military made seatbelt use mandatory on bases in the early 1980s. It wasn't mandatory off base, but because of what the patrolman had said, I used mine all the time.
I would also answer the same way if asked about motorcycle helmets. Yes, helmets can and do sometimes save lives, and it's usually a good idea to wear one. However, there are times when I would like to have the choice to not wear one.
Of course, being a card-carrying, dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party, I'm pro-choice on everything.
I'm in the minority on this issue. I find the "Click It Or Ticket" program nothing more than a cash cow for the states to milk. In these past two weeks of traveling around the state of Michigan, I've run across 4 or 5 of these "checkpoints". At one of these checkpoints alone, I counted 8 police cars. These checkpoints snarl traffic and (in my opinion) are a waste of manpower and tax dollars. At just the ONE above mentioned checkpoint, you had eight officers that were either diverted from other enforcement duties or were being paid overtime to take part in the program. To me this is a waste, given the amount of real crimes that go unsolved in our state, the resources could be put to far better use.
As for the seat belt law...While I do wear mine, I really grow tired of these "National Nanny" laws that claim to care about your wellbeing but seem more about reaching into taxpayer wallets. I also personally know of deaths that occurred due to people being unable to get their seatbelts off and exit their vehicle. Two women I worked with burned to death because people attempting to rescue them couldn't get their seatbelts off. By the time one of the rescuers got back with a knife to cut them free, the vehicle exploded and burst into flames. I also have a friend that's a first responder and while he mouths the "company line" on seatbelts, he's privately stated that while sometimes seatbelts CAN save your life, he's also seen them COST lives as well. People trapped in flipped over vehicles that can't get to their seatbelt release in time. Several have drowned in that manner.
As for the seat belt law...While I do wear mine, I really grow tired of these "National Nanny" laws that claim to care about your wellbeing but seem more about reaching into taxpayer wallets. I also personally know of deaths that occurred due to people being unable to get their seatbelts off and exit their vehicle. Two women I worked with burned to death because people attempting to rescue them couldn't get their seatbelts off. By the time one of the rescuers got back with a knife to cut them free, the vehicle exploded and burst into flames. I also have a friend that's a first responder and while he mouths the "company line" on seatbelts, he's privately stated that while sometimes seatbelts CAN save your life, he's also seen them COST lives as well. People trapped in flipped over vehicles that can't get to their seatbelt release in time. Several have drowned in that manner.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jun 5 2005, 01:28 AM)
1.)Does a "click it or ticket it" road-check constitute an "unreasonable search" and thus, violate the 4th amendment?
I don't see a thing wrong with it. It isn't like they're going to stop you at these checkpoints, they just have you slow down, look in your window real quick and wave you through. This is no different than the drunk driving checkpoints, you're either obviously in violation of the law or you're not. If you are, you deserve a ticket. If not, what are you worried about?
QUOTE
2.)Is the program a waste of time and resources for law enforcement.
I don't think so. In fact, I wish they'd do more traffic enforcement like this, I certainly see plenty of people every day who drive like maniacs, break traffic laws, have their kids run across 3 lanes of heavy traffic because they're too lazy to actually find a parking spot, etc. I'd much rather see the police spending time on things like this where they can make money to offset the cost of a larger police force than nothing at all.
QUOTE
3.)Why should programs like this, whose aim is to protect us from ourselves be allowed to exist?
Because unfortunately, a lot of people are plain stupid. It isn't so much to protect us from ourselves, but to protect everyone else from you. The guy who crashes and goes flying through his windshield poses a potential hazard to everyone around, as well as costing the taxpayers money to put his worthless carcass back together.
Maybe if people took more responsibility for themselves, we wouldn't need legislation like this.
Well first of all, this article needs to get its facts/arguments straight:
Wearing a seatbelt does not make the highways safer, what it does is reduce your chances of a fatality should you happen to get in an accident.
1.)Does a "click it or ticket it" road-check constitute an "unreasonable search" and thus, violate the 4th amendment?
I can't see that it does, as CarthagoDelendaEst stated the courts have repeatedly held this practice up. Don't think that cars go through check points right now? You'd be wrong.
We have:
- Drunk Driving check points
- Speed Traps
- Controlled Roadblocks
- And of course border check points
All of the above involve conducting a "fishing expedition" to determine if you are breaking the law. In fact a cop can pull you over for no reason at all other than because he has had a bad day.
Where the constitution kicks in is searches not in plain sight such as your trunk or glove box.
2.)Is the program a waste of time and resources for law enforcement.
That is debatable but I think you'd have to go a long way towards proving that this program results in higher taxes or pulling police off other matters such as theft and homocides. So far I haven't seen any sort of evidence presented suggesting police are diverting resources from other things to participate in this program. Until such time as that evidence materializes I believe police should be able to spend their budget as they see fit.
3.)Why should programs like this, whose aim is to protect us from ourselves be allowed to exist?
In general I'm against laws that "protect you from yourself". However seat belt laws aren't designed solely to protect you from yourself (although that is certainly a benefit) they are designed to benefit the community as well.
The biggest factor here is Insurance. If you get in an accident and someone doesn't have their seat belt on and dies uneccessarily then this becomes a much more expensive accident and everyone's rates go up.
The secondary factor here that probably isn't as easy to measure is the cost of services that have to be provided for accidents involving a fatality. You have to get police involved to do a more thorough investigation, you have to pay paramedics and perhaps pay for a life flight. All of this results in increased costs to taxpayers simply because you chose not to protect yourself adequately while riding in your vehicle.
QUOTE
Click It supporters say tougher seat belt laws will help make highways even safer, but the nationwide trend toward safer streets has continued with or without them.
Wearing a seatbelt does not make the highways safer, what it does is reduce your chances of a fatality should you happen to get in an accident.
1.)Does a "click it or ticket it" road-check constitute an "unreasonable search" and thus, violate the 4th amendment?
I can't see that it does, as CarthagoDelendaEst stated the courts have repeatedly held this practice up. Don't think that cars go through check points right now? You'd be wrong.
We have:
- Drunk Driving check points
- Speed Traps
- Controlled Roadblocks
- And of course border check points
All of the above involve conducting a "fishing expedition" to determine if you are breaking the law. In fact a cop can pull you over for no reason at all other than because he has had a bad day.
Where the constitution kicks in is searches not in plain sight such as your trunk or glove box.
2.)Is the program a waste of time and resources for law enforcement.
That is debatable but I think you'd have to go a long way towards proving that this program results in higher taxes or pulling police off other matters such as theft and homocides. So far I haven't seen any sort of evidence presented suggesting police are diverting resources from other things to participate in this program. Until such time as that evidence materializes I believe police should be able to spend their budget as they see fit.
3.)Why should programs like this, whose aim is to protect us from ourselves be allowed to exist?
In general I'm against laws that "protect you from yourself". However seat belt laws aren't designed solely to protect you from yourself (although that is certainly a benefit) they are designed to benefit the community as well.
The biggest factor here is Insurance. If you get in an accident and someone doesn't have their seat belt on and dies uneccessarily then this becomes a much more expensive accident and everyone's rates go up.
The secondary factor here that probably isn't as easy to measure is the cost of services that have to be provided for accidents involving a fatality. You have to get police involved to do a more thorough investigation, you have to pay paramedics and perhaps pay for a life flight. All of this results in increased costs to taxpayers simply because you chose not to protect yourself adequately while riding in your vehicle.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.