|
|
|
Sunday, 22 June 2003
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]](https://www.livejournal.com/img/mood/neko/kaokitty/suprised.gif) surprised
|
Comments:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
LiveJournal.com |
