Quote:
Originally Posted by studiocritic
from wikipedia..
Additional objections settle specifically around the assertion that a seatbelt is a medical device, and because one is entitled to make their own medical decisions they should also be permitted to make their own decisions about wearing a seatbelt. [6]
baddog prolly knows better than constitution lawyers though. he's a webmaster!
|
Did you even read
the Court's ruling?
Let me summarize for you (as a note, the case you are referring to was questioning whether or not forcing someone to wear a seatbelt in the State of Indiana was constitutional or not according to the state constitution, not the US Constitution.)
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that: (1) I.C. § 9-19-10-2, along with its supporting statutory definitions, does not violate Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution; and (2) I.C. § 9-19-10-2 does not violate Kelver’s substantive due process right.
Affirmed.
DARDEN, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.
If you are so inclined, you can read the case at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...05.par&invol=2