Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

In my work I occasionally get DMV records of our drivers and I look them over for moving violations because too many can cost a driver his/her job. My question is: Is not wearing your seat belt considered a moving or a non-moving violation?
My supervisor says it's a non-moving violation, but if you're not moving then you can't be cited for not wearing your seat belt.

Because the answer can mean the diffierence between a driver keeping or losing their job, I really need to know the correct answer from an officer of the law.

It's non-moving here. I wouldn't think it would be different in any other state but you never know.

It doesn't really factor in if the car is moving or not. What they mean by moving violation is it was a result of the vehicle moving, such as running a stop sign, fail to yield. Non-moving is more of equipment type of violations such as headlights, seat belts, registration, etc.

Hope this helps.

Non-moving in Pennsylvania also.

Non-moving in michigan as well, but it is now a primary violation, meaning that can be the reason for the traffic stop.

Non-moving in TN. $67 ticket.

CLICK IT OR TICKET

In VA, its known as a "traffic infraction" = NON-moving/No points



My supervisor says it's a non-moving violation,....

But you questioned authority--
"Maybe that is why the guy that told you non-moving is your Supervisor!":D

Non-Moving in Florida.

Non-moving in michigan as well, but it is now a primary violation, meaning that can be the reason for the traffic stop.

Maine just tried to make the seatbelt law a primary violation, but it got shot down by the legislature.

It came at a great time, too. Maine had a campaign to urge motorists to use their sealbelts to avoid those pesky tickets. Needless to say every Mainer started laughing at those commercials after the state reached their decision.

Maine Revised Statutes
3-A. Other passengers 18 years of age and older; operators. When a person 18 years of age or older is a passenger in a vehicle that is required by the United States Department of Transportation to be equipped with seat belts, the passenger must be properly secured in a seat belt. Each such passenger is responsible for wearing a seat belt as required by this subsection, and a passenger that fails to wear a seat belt as required by this subsection is subject to the enforcement provisions of subsection 4. The operator of a vehicle that is required by the United States Department of Transportation to be equipped with seat belts must be secured in the operator's seat belt. Violation of this subsection is a traffic infraction for which a fine of $50 for the first offense, $125 for the 2nd offense and $250 for the 3rd and subsequent offenses must be imposed. A fine imposed under this subsection may not be suspended by the court. [2005, c. 12, Pt. AAA, §3 (amd).]

4. Enforcement. The following provisions apply to subsections 2, 3 and 3-A.


A. Unless the vehicle is operated by a person under 21 years of age, the requirements do not apply to a passenger over one year of age when the number of passengers exceeds the vehicle seating capacity and all of the seat belts are in use. [1997, c. 737, §7 (amd).]


A-1. The requirements of subsection 3-A do not apply to a driver or passenger who has a medical condition that, in the opinion of a physician, warrants an exemption from the requirements of subsection 3-A and that medical condition and opinion are documented by a certificate from that physician. That certificate is valid for 5 years. [1995, c. 432, §3 (new); §4 (aff).]

Thanks, guys. You answered my question...and then some. I see that our drivers could still lose their at-work driving privileges if they get ticketed for no seatbelt and fail to pay the fine. I really don't understand why a person who is required to wear a seatbelt on the job may refuse to wear one in his/her personal vehicle. I know such a person; I call him Dumas :D