« Ind. Gov't. - More about: Is Indiana’s voluntary environmental cleanup program a failure? [Updated] | Main | Ind. Courts - Access many Indiana court daily calendars online, at no charge [Updated] »

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Ind. Law - More on: New seat belt law may not cover occupants of truck bed [Updated]

Bryan Corbin of the Evansville Courier & Press writes again today on the new seat belt law. His story Sunday began "Two state lawmakers who helped pass Indiana's new truck seat belt law were surprised to learn a loophole they tried to close still may be open." (See ILB entry here..)

From today's story:

Still irked at law enforcement's interpretation of the new truck seat belt law, Senate Transportation Chairman Thomas Wyss hand-delivered a letter Monday to the state attorney general, asking him to render a legal opinion as to whether riding in the beds of pickups is legal.

Wyss hopes Steve Carter's legal opinion will hold greater sway with police than one posted recently by the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, which recommended police not write tickets for riders in truck beds.

Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, said that taken to its logical extreme, the institute's interpretation would allow "wind-surfing" in the bed of a moving pickup, which the Legislature clearly never intended. * * *

At issue is a new law closing two seat belt loopholes. Occupants of pickup trucks or sport utility vehicles that display truck plates no longer are exempt from the seat belt requirement; nor are back seat passengers. Violations can result in a $25 ticket.

As Senate sponsor of the House bill, Wyss believes the new seat belt law also makes it a violation for a passenger to ride in the bed of a moving pickup or cargo area of an SUV, where there are no seat belts. He has told police officers that they can issue such tickets, he said.

"I was talking to cops in Fort Wayne and told them, 'We not only took care of the front seat, we took care of the back seat and we took care of the back of pickup trucks.' And they said, 'Yes sir, great,'" Wyss recalled.

But a legal interpretation posted on the Web site of the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, the state's planning agency for traffic safety issues, reached a sharply different conclusion. Written by traffic safety prosecutor Deborah Reasoner, the memorandum recommends police not make traffic stops of pickup trucks with passengers in the bed, noting how a specific ban was not in the final bill.

Reasoner's legal interpretation is non-binding, but Evansville police and the Indiana State Police read the new law the same way: that it does not authorize officers to ticket truck-bed riders age 16 and over. * * *

The attorney general's legal opinions also are nonbinding, but Wyss believes a different interpretation coming from Carter would be taken seriously and followed by police officers. * * *

Wyss said the Senate Transportation Committee removed wording that specifically banned pickup-bed riding because it already was incorporated within another part of the bill, mandating all occupants wear manufacturer-installed seat belts.

If the attorney general does not render an opinion in his favor, Wyss would support a bill in the 2008 Legislature to specifically outlaw the practice of riding in truck beds, he said.

Take a look at the new law, HEA 1237, and judge for yourself. Look at p. 3, SECTION 7, where IC 9-19-10-2 is amended to require that:
Each occupant of a motor vehicle equipped with a safety belt that:
(1) meets the standards stated in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 208 (49 CFR 571.208); and
(2) is standard equipment installed by the manufacturer;
shall have a safety belt properly fastened about the occupant's body at all times when the vehicle is in forward motion.
One might readily read that to require only that if you are in a seat that has a factory-installed seatbelt, it must be fastened.

The law enforcement memorandum referenced (access it here thanks to Fort Wayne Observed) warns at the bottom of p. 1:

Although there are no specific exceptions for occupants in the beds of pickup trucks or cargo areas of vans and trailers, a thorough review of the newly added exceptions and of prior legislation outlawing riders in truck beds which was rejected indicates that seatbelt citations in these situations are not appropriate and would not be viewed well in the Courts.
An earlier version of the bill (House version, scroll down to SECTION 12) had language which would have added a new IC 9-21-8-58, which would have required:
Sec. 56. (a) An individual may not operate a truck on a public highway (as defined in IC 9-25-2-4) while another individual is in the open bed of the truck.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an individual operating a truck:
(1) in a parade; or
(2) on a farm in connection with agricultural pursuits that are usual and normal to the farming operation, as set forth in IC 9-29-5-13(b)(2).
That language was deleted when the bill was in Senate committee; it did not become law.

[Updated already, at 7:50 am]The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has an editorial today, headed "Close seat-belt loophole." Some quotes:

Sen. Tom Wyss campaigned for years to close the loophole in Indiana’s seat-belt law that exempted drivers and passengers in trucks and SUVs. The law took effect on July 1, but now Wyss is battling the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council over whether the law prohibits passengers from riding in the beds of pickup trucks or cargo areas of vans.

The law should ban such dangerous practices. But some legal officials are saying the precise wording doesn’t. The General Assembly needs to clean up the language when it reconvenes early next year. * * *

During deliberation over the bill, Wyss himself removed an amendment that would have specifically banned riding in pickup truck beds when it came to the Senate Transportation Committee, which he chairs. He argued that the amendment was unnecessary because the bill requires all passengers to be restrained in a seat belt or child-safety seat, and there are neither seats nor seat belts in cargo areas of pickup trucks or vans.

“The prosecutors’ council people were sitting in the audience when we did that,” he said. “Nobody ever said a word. They knew exactly what our intent was.”

However, the final language appears only to require passengers in any seat equipped with a seat belt to use it. The amendment that Wyss’ committee removed would have added to state law: “An individual may not operate a truck on a public highway ... while another individual is in the open bed of the truck.” * * *

The disagreement is the latest that shows how important it is for legislators and their legal advisers to scrutinize the precise language of the bills they author and shepherd through the legislative process.

This brings to mind a recent Supreme Court ruling (see ILB entry here from June 23rd), Utility Center, Inc., d/b/a Aquasource v. City of Fort Wayne, where the Court wrote, re the wording of the law as passed and the intent of a legislator:
Finally, we make note of the fact that Senator David C. Long, the author of chapter 30 when it was enacted by the Legislature in 1999, filed an affidavit and supporting exhibits with the trial court in this matter, explaining his “intent as the author” of the statute. The trial court declined to consider the affidavit and the Court of Appeals affirmed, reflecting this Court’s policy that “[i]n interpreting statutes, we do not impute the opinions of one legislator, even a bill’s sponsor, to the entire legislature unless those views find statutory expression.” * * * We respect Senator Long’s work in this field but, for the reasons set forth above, are unable to conclude that his intent in this regard was enacted into law.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 10, 2007 06:39 AM
Posted to Indiana Law