So you admit that the "unintended" consequence is privacy violations, i.e., access to peoples' cars? I just don't see how people are OK with this. Especially those who otherwise complain about Big Brother every chance they get. All in the name of "law and order," I suppose.

 

That has been my point the entire time.

The courts tend to lean towards a mistake being made in good faith, Such as an officer running a license plate and it coming back to a different vehicle then stopping the vehicle. After making the stop, the officer realizes the X they saw on the plate is actually a K. If the officer winds up with further charges, the courts tend to say the officer made the stop in good faith.

 

I'm indifferent on seatbelts. But you can't fault the officer or his agency for utilizing the grants. They don't make the rules of the game, they just play it. Blame the government for making laws, not the ones who enforce it. No agency who is strapped for funding is going to tell state or federal government "No we don't want your grant money cause we think seatbelts as a primary violation is stupid." At the end of the day, those guys working grant OT are people with mortgages and families to support, they're just doing their job.

 

I agree the officers have to do as their told. They don't make the rules. I just don't like the rule. I think the grants could be used for much better things.