Section constitutional under state and federal provisions.

- O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 works no violation of federal due process or trial by jury by precluding evidence that the driver's failure to wear a seat belt was the proximate cause of the driver's injuries, nor does the statute work violations of state constitutional "right of access" to the courts (Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XII) or equal protection of the laws (Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. II). C.W. Matthews Contracting Co. v. Gover, 263 Ga. 108, 428 S.E.2d 796 (1993).

Section does not deny equal protection.

- Defendant who filed a motion to suppress evidence found in the defendant's automobile after being stopped for failing to fasten the defendant's seat belt could not show the absence of a rational relation between the classification drawn by O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 and the public safety purpose thereof; thus, the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion based on an equal protection challenge to that statute was not error. Farley v. State, 272 Ga. 432, 531 S.E.2d 100 (2000).

Seat belt law is a prospective statute only, applying to incidents on or after September 1, 1988. Payne v. Joyner, 197 Ga. App. 527, 399 S.E.2d 83 (1990).

Vehicular homicide.

- Victim's failure to wear a seat belt can play no role in determining whether the defendant is guilty of vehicular homicide. Whitener v. State, 201 Ga. App. 309, 410 S.E.2d 796, cert. denied, 201 Ga. App. 905, 410 S.E.2d 796 (1991).

Probable cause for initial stop.

- Even though O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 does not require shoulder strap safety belts, the officer's observation that the defendant was not wearing the defendant's car's shoulder strap safety belt supported probable cause for stopping the defendant for violating subsection (b). Davis v. State, 232 Ga. App. 320, 501 S.E.2d 836 (1998).

When the officer testified that the officer had a clear and unobstructed view of the driver of the vehicle not wearing a seat belt, this view was sufficient to establish probable cause for the stop, and once the vehicle was lawfully stopped, the officer was allowed to ask for the driver's consent to search the car. State v. Millsap, 243 Ga. App. 519, 528 S.E.2d 865 (2000).

O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 was amended in order to provide that minors in pickup trucks were required to use seatbelts; as subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 specifically included pickup trucks that contained minors, the driver of a pickup truck could be stopped and ticketed for the failure to require a minor occupant to wear a seatbelt. State v. McDuff, 252 Ga. App. 183, 555 S.E.2d 213 (2001).

After the defendant's car was legitimately stopped during a police operation to stop vehicles wherein an occupant was not wearing a seatbelt, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(b), the court held that the traffic stop was justified and the search of the vehicle thereafter was based on the defendant's consent; accordingly, the denial of the defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized therein pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-5-30 was proper. Taylor v. State, 263 Ga. App. 420, 587 S.E.2d 791 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 941, 124 S. Ct. 2916, 159 L. Ed. 2d 820 (2004).

Police officer's observation that the first defendant, who was driving the vehicle, and the second defendant, who was a front-seat passenger, were violating the seatbelt law by not wearing their seatbelts was a sufficient ground for making a valid investigatory stop of their vehicle, which led to the later finding that the defendants were transporting cocaine. Fernandez v. State, 275 Ga. App. 151, 619 S.E.2d 821 (2005).

Consensual search upon traffic stop for seatbelt violation supported denial of a suppression motion as the search conducted pursuant to the defendant's consent was not a search based solely on the defendant's failure to wear a seatbelt; thus, the trial court did not err by ruling that law enforcement did not violate the Fourth Amendment during an officer's traffic stop for a violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1. Blitch v. State, 281 Ga. 125, 636 S.E.2d 545 (2006).

Trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the stop of the defendant's vehicle; the stop of the defendant's vehicle for a seat belt violation under O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(e)(3), (f) was permissible even if pretextual. Soilberry v. State, 282 Ga. App. 161, 637 S.E.2d 861 (2006), cert. denied, No. S07C0381, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 55 (Ga. 2007).

Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the defendant was properly stopped for driving without a seatbelt in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1, and the officer's search of the passenger area and recovery of the firearm beneath the driver's seat was valid because the arrest was lawful. United States v. Jackson, 249 Fed. Appx. 130 (11th Cir. 2007)(Unpublished).

In a trial for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1), denial of a defendant's motion to suppress was not clear error because a police officer had probable cause to stop the defendant based on observing the defendant violate O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 and during the stop developed probable cause to arrest the defendant for drug possession and search the defendant's vehicle. United States v. Price, F.3d (11th Cir. Nov. 18, 2009).

Probable cause for stopping for seat belt violation.

- Although the federal safety standard referred to in O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(b) did not mandate the use of shoulder strap safety belts, a police officer had probable cause to stop the defendant on suspicion that the defendant was violating § 40-8-76.1(b) when the officer observed that the defendant was not wearing a shoulder strap safety belt while driving. Moran v. State, 257 Ga. App. 236, 570 S.E.2d 673 (2002).

Because sufficient evidence existed to support a finding that the arresting officer had a clear and unobstructed view of the defendant not wearing a seat belt as required by O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(f), the officer's subsequent stop of the defendant's vehicle was supported by probable cause, making suppression of the evidence thereafter seized unwarranted; as a result, reconsideration of the court's ruling did not amount to an abuse of discretion. Schramm v. State, 286 Ga. App. 156, 648 S.E.2d 392 (2007).

Inability to see the employment of any restraining device, coupled with the common knowledge that seat belts were not standard equipment in the back of pickup trucks, provided a sufficient basis for a traffic stop to ensure compliance with O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1. State v. McDuff, 252 Ga. App. 183, 555 S.E.2d 213 (2001).

Exclusion of evidence.

- For the exclusion of evidence provision of O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 to apply, it is not required that the occupant was not wearing a seat belt and was charged with not wearing the seat belt. Crosby v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 240 Ga. App. 857, 524 S.E.2d 313 (1999).

Intent of subsection (d) of O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 is to disallow admission of evidence of the failure to wear safety belts; thus, such evidence would not be allowed on the basis that it was relevant and admissible for the limited purposes of reduction of any damages, refutation of an element of plaintiffs' failure to warn claim, and impeachment. Crosby v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 240 Ga. App. 857, 524 S.E.2d 313 (1999).

O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(d), which prohibits the use of evidence of the failure of an occupant of a motor vehicle to wear a seat safety belt as evidence of negligence or causation or to diminish any recovery for damages in any civil action, is not a statute that merely confers waivable rights on a party. Rather, O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(d) provides the substantive law which courts must apply to any case involving an automobile. Denton v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 645 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (N.D. Ga. 2009).

Evidence from stop as probable cause for arrest.

- When a stop for a seat belt violation was made, O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 did not preclude an officer from conducting a reasonable inquiry and investigation to insure both the officer's safety and that of others, and evidence gathered as a result of the stop could be used as probable cause to arrest the driver for driving under the influence and other offenses. Temples v. State, 228 Ga. App. 228, 491 S.E.2d 444 (1997); Holt v. Leiter, 232 Ga. App. 376, 501 S.E.2d 879 (1998).

When any one of the traffic violations observed by a police officer would have provided probable cause to effectuate a traffic stop, the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence found during a subsequent search of the defendant's person, based upon an allegedly improper traffic stop, was not clearly erroneous. Tukes v. State, 236 Ga. App. 77, 511 S.E.2d 534 (1999).

Nothing in O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(f) prevents an officer who stops a motorist for failing to wear a seat belt from conducting a reasonable investigation to ensure the officer's safety and if, during that investigation, the officer sees evidence of an unrelated crime, the officer may arrest the motorist for the unrelated crime notwithstanding the fact that the motorist originally was stopped for failing to wear a seat belt. Edwards v. State, 239 Ga. App. 44, 518 S.E.2d 426 (1999).

Arrests for additional offenses.

- Even though the probable cause for the initial stop cannot itself be used as probable cause for arrests based on other violations, once a stop for a seat belt violation is made, O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 does not prevent an officer from making an arrest for additional offenses based upon separate probable cause. Davis v. State, 232 Ga. App. 320, 501 S.E.2d 836 (1998).

Prosecution on DUI not barred by earlier disposal of seat belt violation.

- Trial court erred in dismissing the defendant's charge for DUI, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391(k), on double jeopardy grounds under O.C.G.A. § 16-1-7(b) based on the prior disposal online of a separate seat belt citation; there was no showing that the solicitor had actual knowledge of the DUI charge at the time the seat belt charge was handled. State v. Garlepp, 338 Ga. App. 788, 790 S.E.2d 839 (2016).

Sport utility vehicles covered.

- Even though a sport utility vehicle had design characteristics of an off-road vehicle, it was designed and intended primarily for use on public roads and, therefore, the General Assembly intended for seat safety belts to apply to it as a passenger vehicle in order to promote safety. Crosby v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 240 Ga. App. 857, 524 S.E.2d 313 (1999).

Erroneous jury instruction warranted new trial.

- Because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the use of evidence a married couple's failure to wear their seatbelts as evidence of negligence or causation or to diminish any recovery, and such likely prejudiced the couple, a new trial was warranted. King v. Davis, 287 Ga. App. 715, 652 S.E.2d 585 (2007).

Cited in Katz v. White, 190 Ga. App. 458, 379 S.E.2d 186 (1989); Scott v. Chapman, 203 Ga. App. 58, 416 S.E.2d 111 (1992); Heard v. State, 291 Ga. App. 550, 662 S.E.2d 310 (2008); Hughes v. State, 293 Ga. App. 404, 667 S.E.2d 163 (2008).

Payments to Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund.

- Amount required to be withheld and paid over to the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund is not required to be withheld and paid over in cases involving the failure to wear a seat safety belt under O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(e). 2008 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2008-4.

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 8 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, §§ 542, 568, 569.

C.J.S.

- 61 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 1061, 1071, 1105, 1106, 1110, 1365.