Copeland wrote the Republican lawmaker from Hilton Head Island in an e-mail this past week: "I've never taken a seat belt off a dead person."

The coroner invited the senator to "stand at a front door and tell a family that their child or husband or wife or father or mother is dead as a result of a foolish error while driving -- especially when I know that the death would definitely have not occurred if only they had been wearing a seat belt."

Even though South Carolina law requires use of seat belts, the failure to buckle up is a secondary violation. That means police can only ticket adult drivers for a seat-belt violation if they've pulled over a car for another violation. Police can stop a vehicle for a seat-belt violation only if an unbuckled driver or passenger is under 18.

Richardson said the state's 1990 seat-belt law was a good idea.

Senators could discuss the stricter seat-belt proposal as soon as Tuesday. Proponents cite safety issues and the escalating costs of insurance, while opponents say the bill infringes on privacy rights.

Richardson said this past week that he needed more information on the bill before deciding whether to back it. He hadn't read Copeland's message.

"At the end of the day, I'm more likely to support it than not, but I want to hear it fully vented out," Richardson said.

He said he was concerned that allowing police to more freely pull over drivers could lead to racial profiling.

"I am totally in support of making people wear seat belts," Richardson said. "The only thing that I'm looking at is ... the enforcement might cause problems. There's been reference that studies have shown that it has been used for racial profiling."

The state Department of Public Safety, which oversees the Highway Patrol, favors the bill.

Last year in South Carolina, 963 people died in traffic accidents, according to the department. Of those killed, 775 had access to a seat belt, but 549 were not buckled in.

About 73 percent of South Carolina residents currently buckle up, according to a National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study released in November.

The study also found that the 20 states that have passed a primary seat-belt law have user rates of roughly 80 percent.

In 2002, accidents in South Carolina cost $1.2 billion. A National Safety Council formula estimates the cost and includes lost wages, insurance costs and the cost of medical treatment. Proponents of the bill argue that unrestrained vehicle occupants involved in crashes often require hospital treatment, increasing insurance rates for state residents.

The fine for not buckling up is $25. The fine goes up to $40 if a child under age 18 is unrestrained.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, won't vote for the stricter seat-belt law because he said it would set a "slippery slope" precedent for further infringement of civil liberties.

"The issue to me is not the wearing of the seat belt," McConnell said. "It's the invasions of liberty and the precedent that such a law will make. This law will now permit the police to stop a person in their property, in their liberty, and in a place which is not a danger at that moment to either themselves or another person."

He said government-sponsored restrictions could extend to tobacco and unhealthy foods.

"They run around saying that this many people died this weekend, and they possibly could have lived if they had worn their seat belts," he said. "I fear on both sides that there's a degree of speculation."

McConnell said police were better left concentrating on drunken drivers and speeders, not pulling over otherwise law-abiding citizens because they didn't buckle up.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, said there appeared to be enough votes to pass the stricter seat-belt law, but support might fall short if opponents move toward a filibuster. He said he favored a tougher law because he thought it would save lives.

Hutto said of his opponents' arguments, "There are many things where we infringe upon people's total liberties. A guy could say, 'Well, I have the right to smoke marijuana.' We have made a policy decision, no you don't. Another guy could say, 'I have a right to drink and drive.' Well, we made a policy decision, no you don't."