Traffic Talk: What are the rules about young kids in cars? At what age can a child ride in the front seat?

By Troy Reimink,

Today's Traffic Talk concerns a topic (children) about which I have as
close to zero knowledge as it's possible for a human being to possess.
So I'll dispense with my customary witty intro and get right to the
question, which comes from a reader named Dan:
"What are the actual laws regarding the location of children? I have a
five year old daughter. If she is in a booster seat that raises her to
proper height, is it illegal for me to drive with her in the front
seat?"
Actually, a primer on kids in cars – where they're supposed to sit
until what age, the rules for safety seats and so on -- might be just
as useful to those of us without children.
Hear me out. People with kids presumably are pros when it comes to
correctly getting them into a vehicle. (Right before that magical few
seconds comedian Louis C.K. talks about, when the parent closes the
door and is momentarily alone with his thoughts on the too-brief walk
around the car.)
Those of us without kids likely will be asked at some point by a
stressed-out parent or relative to pick up a young child, but we
probably – well, not probably, almost certainly – have not bothered to
familiarize ourselves with the rules.

So, rather than force a parent who merely wants a moment's peace to
give you the full rundown, we'll have our traffic experts take care of
that preemptively. Sgt. Jill Bennett with the Michigan State Police
Traffic Services section brought me up to speed on what we might call
The Parent's (Or Helpful, Well-Meaning Childless Friend Or Relative's)
Guide to Kids in Cars:

Children under 4 must ride in the rear (if there is a rear seat) in
the appropriate child restraint system. Children 4 through 7 (until
they reach 4'9" or turn 8) must ride in a booster seat. Children under
16 must be restrained no matter where they are seated in the vehicle.
Children 4 and over may ride in the front seat, however statistics
show that the rear is the safest seating position for all children 12
and under. If there is no rear seat, or if the rear seat has been
completely occupied by children under 4, then a child under 4 may ride
in the front. A child in a rear facing infant seat may only ride in
the front if there is no airbag or it has been deactivated.
According to the Michigan Vehicle Code section on safety belts, anyone
who does not properly secure a child by the specified guidelines,
meaning the parent or caregiver, has committed a civil infraction.
Dan, however, is in the clear if he wants to let his daughter ride up
front.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends children ride in a
rear-facing child safety seat until they turn 2 or outgrow the seat
itself, even though the law does not specify the age, height or weight
at which a child can be turned around to face forward. "This is a new
recommendation," Bennett said, "as it used to be one year and 20
pounds (both criteria must be met before turning them around), but
this is not the law. There are some child restraint systems that go
rear facing until 45 pounds.
"Properly secured," she continued, "refers to the vehicle and child
safety seat manufacturer's recommendations. You must buy the
appropriate seat for the height and weight of your child in order to
be compliant with the law."

For an older toddler, say a four-year-old that weighs at least 40
pounds, properly securing would mean a belt-positioning booster chair
that utilizes the vehicle's safety belt as shown in this illustration.
"My 4 year old is approximately 38 pounds and is still riding in her 5
point harness which goes up to 65 pounds," Bennett said.
In Michigan it is legal for a child of 4 to ride in the front seat,
though all children 12 and younger are safer riding in the rear,
according to the Centers for Disease Control.
For more tips and safety information about securing young passengers,
visit Safe Kids or the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's guide to child safety.
Got all that? Good. Keep those young'ns safe. Nothing less than the
future itself is at stake.
Got a question about the rules of the road? Leave a comment or email
treimink@mlive.com with "Traffic Talk" in the subject line.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Trucking Industry Challenges U.S. on Driver Rest Rules

The largest U.S. trucking group filed a legal challenge to
Transportation Department driver- fatigue rules that the industry says
focus on the wrong safety problems and don't meet legal requirements.
The American Trucking Associations, based in Arlington, Virginia,
filed a petition today challenging the regulation at the U.S. Court of
Appeals in Washington.
"We cannot allow this rulemaking, which was fueled by changed
assumptions and analyses that do not meet the required legal
standards, to remain unchallenged," Bill Graves, president and chief
executive officer of the American Trucking Associations, based in
Arlington, Virginia, said in a statement today.
While the final rule maintained an 11-hour limit on truckers' driving
day, instead of shortening it to 10 hours as proposed, the industry
objects to a requirement of a 34-hour rest period each week that would
require drivers to be off two consecutive nights, said Sean McNally, a
spokesman for the trucking group.
Many more fatalities and injuries are caused by speeding than fatigue,
making the department's focus on driving hours misplaced, the group
said in its statement. The industry supports regulations that would
require installation of speed- limiting devices on trucks, the group
said.
Restart Period
Werner Enterprises Inc. (WERN) and C.R. England are among trucking
companies that have objected to a government requirement that the
weekly time off include the periods between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. on two
consecutive days. Trucking companies describe the rest as a restart
because it resets drivers' weekly limits of time on duty.
The trucking regulator underestimated the cost of the restart
requirement, McNally said. It will reduce flexibility and may
undermine safety by forcing drivers onto the road during rush hour, he
said.
The group cited the Hobbs Act, a U.S. law that establishes the
jurisdiction of the D.C. court of appeals.
The original proposal by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration required two 12 a.m. to 6 a.m. rest periods during the
restart. Groups such as Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety had
argued that loopholes in previous rules let drivers average 82 hours
of work in seven days when they were supposed to be limited to 60
hours.
11 Hours
The trucking regulator is also facing criticisms from safety groups
and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union for sticking with
the 11-hour driving maximum. The government was sued in 2003, 2006 and
2009 for allowing 11-hour driving shifts. The third lawsuit was
settled with an agreement that FMCSA would redo the regulation.
There were 3,675 truck-related fatalities in 2010, up 8.7 percent from
3,380 in 2009, according to preliminary data from the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. As recently as 2006, there were 5,027
fatalities.
The hours-of-service rule as proposed in December 2010 was one of
seven regulations President Barack Obama's administration said would
cost companies at least $1 billion. Trucking companies opposed it,
saying the shorter hours would force them to rework routes and hire
more drivers.
The final regulation, which takes effect July 1, 2013, has annual
costs of about $470 million and benefits of around $630 million, the
Transportation Department said in a statement today.
Justin Nisly, a Transportation Department spokesman, didn't
immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment on the filing.
The case is American Trucking Associations v. Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, 12-1092, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia (Washington).

For more infomation on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Cameras protect our ‘right’ to safe travel

By Jerry A. Vander Sanden

I  hope local efforts to promote traffic safety do not take a back
seat to politics as the Iowa Legislature debates a proposal to ban the
use of automated traffic enforcement devices.

The empirical evidence clearly shows traffic cameras have dramatically
reduced the number of motor vehicle accidents and fatalities. They
have encouraged drivers to be more conscientious about obeying the
traffic laws. Anyone who regularly drives the S-curve on I-380 through
the heart of Cedar Rapids will tell you they have noticed a dramatic
difference in driving behavior since they were installed.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument against the traffic cameras.
The "big brother" or infringement on privacy rights argument seems
spurious given that streets and highways are public places. Has anyone
given up shopping now that retail and convenience stores have
installed surveillance cameras? What is so invasive about taking a
picture of a vehicle's rear bumper?

I also don't buy the "right to confront your accuser" argument.
Whether a traffic camera or an officer with radar is involved, it is
the mechanical device that is recording the speed of a vehicle. The
offender is provided with visual proof of the infraction and there is
an appeal process.

Local government should be given some latitude in finding the fairest
and most efficient means to enforce traffic laws. Traffic cameras help
local law enforcement agencies concentrate their efforts on what some
euphemistically refer to as "real crime." I prefer that police
concentrate on investigating crimes of violence. Why deny police the
technology that helps them make the best use of their limited
resources?

Traffic cameras should not be used to raise revenue for local
government and the fine should be proportionate to the offense.
However, the traffic camera $75 speeding citation is a relative
bargain compared to the regular state traffic ticket. The total cost
for a state-issued citation for speeding 11 to 15 mph over the limit
is $168 ($80 fine, $28 surcharge and $60 court costs). A stop sign or
signal citation would total $195, and both would go on your driving
record. Which is more onerous?

Some who gripe about the traffic cameras are really complaining
because they can no longer exercise what they consider to be their
"right" to disregard traffic laws with impunity. What is truly at
stake is the motoring public's "right" to expect that others drive
safely and obey the law.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Defining Identity Theft

Identity theft is a serious crime that is not punished lightly. A
person convicted of identity theft can face thousands of dollars in
fines and years in a state prison. With modern technology, identity
theft has become easier to commit by the minute.
Identity theft refers to when someone uses someone else's personal
identifying information such as their name, social security number,
checking routing number, or their credit card number, without their
consent with the intention to commit fraud or any other crime.

According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), approximately 9
million Americans have their identities stolen each year. Often times
the victim is not aware they are the victim of identity theft until
months or years afterwards, when their credit and their reputation
have already been damaged.

Identity theft thieves use other people's identifying information to
commit a broad range of crimes. They may use the information to rent
an apartment, obtain a credit card or checking account, or establish a
cell phone or cable account in the victim's name. The victim doesn't
usually find out they have been a victim of identity theft until it's
too late, or until they have been contacted by a creditor.

Identity theft begins when the thief acquires personal identifying
information such as another person's social security number, driver's
license number, or credit card. It doesn't matter if the victim is
dead or alive; it's still a criminal offense and is prosecuted to the
full extent of the law when the perpetrator is caught. Personal
information can be illegally acquired in a variety of ways including:

Skimming – This occurs when a special devise is used to steal a credit
or debit card number when processing the person's card.

Changing the Victim's Address – The person changes the victim's
address by mailing in a change of address form. As a result, the
billing statements are diverted to another location.

Theft – This is the oldest type of theft in the book. This refers to
stealing the victim's purse, or wallet, pre-approved credit card
offers, new checks or other tax information.

Dumpster Diving – This refers to rummaging through someone's trash to
find bills, bank statements, voided checks etc. with identifying
information on them.

Phishing – The thieves pretend to be a financial institution such as
the victim's bank, or a credit card company and send spam to try and
get the person to reveal their social security number or bank account
information etc.

Pretexting – The thief uses false pretenses to obtain personal
information from a bank, credit card company, telephone company and
other sources.

Identity theft is taking very seriously in all fifty states. In
Washington, there are two levels of identity theft. How they are
prosecuted depends upon value of the credit, money, goods, or services
that were taken. If the value of the goods or services etc. obtained
through someone else's identity were valued more than $1500, it is
prosecuted as a Class B felony. For any goods or services obtained
below the value of $1500, it is prosecuted as a Class C felony and the
penalties range from up to 10 years imprisonment, a fine up to
$20,000, or both.

If you have been charged with identity theft, it's critical to enlist
the services of an aggressive defense attorney as early as possible.
An attorney will be able to investigate every aspect of your case and
negotiate with the prosecutor, the judge, or jury on your behalf when
it comes to sentencing.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Paris cyclists given right to break traffic laws

By Henry Samuel

Breaking traffic rules, almost a national sport in France, has just
been legalised – but only for Parisian cyclists.

A new government decree has just authorised cyclists in the French
capital to go through red lights, after road safety experts deemed the
measure would cut road accidents.
It follows a fierce three-year campaign by cyclists' associations.
Under the new system, which will be first tested on 15 crossroads in
the East of the French capital, cyclists are allowed to turn right or
go straight ahead even when the lights are red.
They must, however, make way for pedestrians and incoming traffic on
the left and will be held responsible in the event of an accident.
Red and yellow signposts posted on traffic light poles will inform
cyclists that they can ignore the lights in designated 30km per hour
zones. If judged feasible, the scheme will then be rolled out to 1,700
crossroads in Paris.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Wash. considers collecting DNA upon arrest

By GENE JOHNSON
Associated Press

A bill before the Legislature would have Washington join a growing
number of states that automatically collect DNA from people when
they're arrested for a serious crime, rather than waiting until
they're convicted.

Anthony Dias is the poster boy for why police and prosecutors hope
Washington will join a growing number of states that require people to
give DNA samples as soon as they're arrested for a serious crime,
rather than waiting until they're convicted.

In 2005, Dias was released on bail while facing a felony hit-and-run
charge in Pierce County. He went on to commit crimes against 19 more
people before the year was up, including a half-dozen rapes. If he had
given a DNA sample after his hit-and-run arrest, detectives could have
caught him after the first rape - not the last.

"By the time he committed his next rape crime, he could have been
identified, arrested and taken off the streets," Charisa Nicholas, who
was tied up and forced to watch as her roommate was raped, told
lawmakers recently. "My case would have been the first case
prevented."

Nevertheless, the rush to expand DNA's use in criminal investigations
worries privacy advocates, and courts around the country have
disagreed about whether such laws violate the 4th Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, which protects people from unreasonable searches
and seizures. Many judges have found that routinely collecting DNA
from convicts is OK because, among other reasons, committing a serious
crime reduces their expectation of privacy. It's not clear that
reasoning would extend to people who have not been convicted and who
are presumed innocent.

"The way judges come out depends in a sense on how much trust they
have in the government," says Penn State Law School professor DH Kaye,
who tracks the issue. "Some judges say, `What's the big deal? It's
like a fingerprint.' But DNA samples contain a lot of information, and
other judges say that sooner or later somebody is going to abuse the
system."

Under bills before Washington's Legislature, the state would collect
DNA from people when they're arrested for nearly all felonies or for
violating a domestic violence protection order. Once a judicial
officer finds that the arrest was supported by probable cause, the
State Patrol crime lab could test the DNA to create a profile and
enter that profile in a nationwide database used to help solve crimes.
The cost of the measure - more than $400,000 a year - would be paid
with money from traffic tickets.

If the person is exonerated or not charged, they could petition to
have the crime lab destroy their sample and profile. The lab would be
obligated to do so, but could run a check on the profile first.

About half the states and the federal government have similar laws.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, the highest
federal court to rule on the issue so far, closely upheld the federal
law 8-6 last summer in a case that could be headed for the Supreme
Court. The majority found that although crime labs typically maintain
the actual DNA samples, the profiles entered into the national
database comprise only a small portion of the information available in
the sample. There's no indication that the government has any intent
to use the full samples, judges said.

The judges reasoned that the government has a right to confirm the
identities of the people it arrests, and there are two parts to
someone's identity: who they are, and what they've done. Using the DNA
profile to see if arrestees have committed other crimes is a part of
the government's interest in their identities, the judges said.

The dissent argued that the government doesn't need the DNA profile to
identify arrestees. Officials want to be able to conduct an intrusive
search of a person's body - taking their DNA - without a warrant and
without suspicion, in hopes of finding evidence unrelated to what the
person has been arrested for.

"We do not view a finding of probable cause for one crime as
sufficient justification to engage in warrantless searches of
arrestees' or pretrial detainees' homes for evidence of other crimes,"
the dissent noted.

That's one of the analyses offered by Doug Klunder, privacy counsel at
the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.

"It's collecting really sensitive information about an individual
without there being reason to suspect that person of a crime," he
says. "There are many ways that law enforcement could collect
information that would help solve crimes. They could rifle through my
house every day and maybe they'll find it, but we don't allow that
without a warrant. Certainly going into my body is as intrusive as
going into my house."

Virginia's Supreme Court has upheld that state's law, and an appeals
court in Arizona has OK'd the law there. However, California and
Minnesota appeals courts have rejected their laws, and a panel of the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on a federal
challenge to California's law, even though the arguments took place 18
months ago.

Washington's proposal could face an even tougher legal road if passed,
because the state Constitution is even more protective of people's
right to be free from intrusion by the government.

"There's not a definite answer on the constitutional questions," says
Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist. "But the merits of this are
so obvious it's worth having it go up to the courts."

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"