Dumbass mother II: it wasn't illegal! - Jay Maynard

> Recent entries
> Calendar view
> Friends page
> User info
> Jay's web page

Sunday, 22 June 2003


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
2155 - Dumbass mother II: it wasn't illegal!

I can't believe the law operates like this, but the plain wording would seem to back her up. From a posting to misc.transport.road:

While looking at another post on this topic, I followed some links and came up with this:

Michigan Law:

M.C.L. 257.710d. Child restraint system required
(2) This section does not apply to any child being nursed.

Ohio Law:

O.R.C. § 4511.81. Child restraint system required
(F) If a person who is NOT A RESIDENT of this state is charged with a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section and DOES NOT PROVE to the court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person's use or NONUSE of a child restraint system was in accordance with the law of the state of which the person is a RESIDENT, the court shall impose the fine levied by division (H)(2) of section 4511.99 of the Revised Code.


Damn. She might get away with it, unless Ohio law has anti-dumbass provisions. I would hope that Michigan passes a law providing that the exemption only applies if the persion doing the breastfeeding isn't driving.

Update: Well, she's not as protected as it first appeared. Not only is she a resident of Pennsylvania, she also has no driver's license anywhere. Being that it's Ohio, they might throw her under the jail.

current mood: [mood icon] surprised

(1 comment | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:michaelmink
Date: - 0000

Well...

(Link)
If I were the local prosecutor, I would argue (assuming that *only* this law was in play, not the other facts you cite) that the "nursing" exception would apply to a passenger nursing the child, not someone operating the car. This would likely be consistent with the other laws many jurisdictions have adopted regarding cel phone usage while operating a car (not as a passenger). The laws regarding safe driving would likely trump this exception.

The fact that she has no driver's license, of course, means that any defence is going to be very difficult.


> go to top
LiveJournal.com