Seat belt bill gives too much power to government

The S.C. Senate is debating primary seat belt enforcement legislation, an attempt to give the police the power to pull a driver over for failing to wear a seat belt without the person being stopped for another traffic violation. Our current secondary enforcement law allows for a charge of failing to wear a seat belt only after another violation is cited, but still requires wearing a seat belt. Everyone should choose to wear a seat belt, because in the majority of accidents it protects you.

But this bill, I believe, is full of problems. With a fine of $25, we risk creating a “he said, she said” situation, with the police saying you were not wearing your seat belt. This contingency is more probable since there is also a strong likelihood that a person will not fight an offense by driving to court and missing a day of work to contest a mere $25 fine. Some small towns may consider this new law to be a collection plate for their budgets, as some small towns do with speed traps.

Also, the police will have the power, if this law is passed, to perform searches if they see something suspicious or another law possibly being violated. With few safeguards in place concerning record-keeping for statistical data, it is possible that this new law may be used more often against minorities.

Additionally, the bill allows the police to detain a person solely on the basis that a police officer thought he saw you without a seat belt. Further, the police can create a roadblock, lining you up for many minutes while they check for seat belt violations. When you unbuckle to reach for your wallet, will you be charged?

The bill says your seat belt charge is not a criminal one, but it is silent on the burden of evidence in court. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt or past a preponderance of the evidence? Think about it: Government can now detain you and fine you for conduct not a danger to another person or immediately to you.

This now brings us to the central issue of the creeping assault on our liberty that this type of legislation presents in precedent after precedent. Yes, more important than the technical flaws of the proposed law, the most important issues are the assault on our liberty that this bill represents and the precedents it creates.

We as South Carolinians should always be leery when we are asked to surrender our liberty because someone else says that they know what is best for us.

It is our choices that make us who we are. We should also be careful where the government control is justified because the regulated conduct could affect others’ insurance rates. Our lives are fraught with many decisions, some easy and some difficult. These choices also directly relate to the enjoyment of our lives. We may not agree with the decision a person makes, but as long as it does not impact someone else’s health or safety we should err on the side of liberty.

Otherwise, I firmly believe that we land on a slippery slope allowing the government to decide what is best for each of us. If we surrender this point, will the next avenue of attack be what we eat, how much we eat, or whether we may smoke? Each impacts on safety and affects insurance rates. Should I parachute or rock climb? Or eat while driving, or talk to passengers in a car?

Each person can answer those questions differently. The common denominator is being free to choose. What the legislative supporters of the safety squads are proposing is to take your voice out of the equation and fine you or hold you up in lines to check on you.

Another argument made by those supporting primary enforcement is that by enacting this law South Carolina will get $11 million in federal funds. We are being asked to surrender our freedom that was created in the fires of our nation’s beginning for essentially a federal bribe. They cite the need to reduce insurance costs, but such a law has not reduced rates anywhere.

If left unchecked, the march to make America safer will have you fighting the safety squads as they restrict where you can buy and what you can eat. I hope that during this debate, which will be a seminal moment in defending our personal freedom, that South Carolinians will call their senators and representatives to tell them to stay out of their lives. The police need to spend their time on speeders, drunken drivers, red-light runners and others who pose the real risk.

Mr. McConnell is president pro tempore of the S.C. Senate.