The Price of Personal Liberty

The Price of Personal Liberty
By Robert Forto, PhD

I am sure you know me by now and my dog training school, Denver Dog Works. But I bet you don't know that I am a paralegal and a staunch defender of an individual's personal liberties and freedom. I have studied and became quite fluent in constitutional law and procedures over the years and have written several post conviction motions for those that are incarcerated and seeking relief either by a procedural error in the judicial process or other relief based on their position at the time. I have written articles on freedom of speech, protection of religious freedom, and censorship.

I am not an attorney, nor do I claim to be. I am a researcher and I am quite good at it. I have a keen ability to seek out case law and other documentation that will substantiate an argument and I often testify as a qualified expert witness in myriad canine cases from aggression to breed bans to landlord-tenant disputes. So this article is a little bit different from the normal weekly opinion from the "Dog Doctor" and it concerns my views on personal liberties and freedom based on a bill that is currently under review by the Colorado Legislature. In all honesty I love a good debate and this is one that has caught my attention.

This bill is a seat belt law. While you may ask how does that infringe on a person's liberty and freedom? Well, they want to make it a primary offense for the police to pull you over if you are not wearing your seat belt. Right now it is on the books as a secondary offense. This simply means that if a police officer pulls you over for speeding, an illegal left-hand turn on red, no brake light or any number of other offenses, the officer can then cite you for no seat belt if you are not wearing one at the time of the police contact. A primary offense means just that. They can pull you over for you not wearing your seat belt, even if you are driving like a driving instructor and you are obeying all of the rules of the road.

So why am I so up in arms about this? My first question is where does it stop? If they make it a crime not to wear your seat belt will it soon be a crime not to wear a helmet on your bicycle? Will it cause you to receive a citation if you aren't wearing kneepads on roller-blades? Will the doggie police send you to jail if you don't pick up after your dog?

Among the rights that constitute civil liberty and that the constitution guarantees are intended to protect is the right to individual personal liberty. There is not a specific guarantee, however, of individual personal liberty because it is assumed to be a part of any organized government. Individual personal liberty does not imply that each member of society is entitled to do what he or she pleases, free from all restraint, for that measure of liberty is inconsistent with social order and subversive of the very objectives of government. But it implies that each person shall have as much individual freedom from restraint as is consistent with other members of society. This is not what I am asking for. I am asking for a justifiable reason as to why this law should be enacted.

As stated by one constitutional scholar:

"If each cannot have all the rights he might have as a solitary being, he must have all which are consistent with the exercise of the highest practical rights of others. If there be a conflict, it must be reconciled by such compromise as will attain the best development, the highest happiness and well-being of all. Neither party must seek for itself a greater elevation by the deeper depression of the other; but each must so adjust to a social equilibrium, but the maximum elevation of each be avoided." This is what is happening here with this bill up for debate in the Legislature.
In my opinion, where two conflicting interests are combined in a society, civil liberty will be consistent in the preservation of that equilibrium, where the social rights of each so modify those of the other as to preserve to each the greatest amount of right and freedom consisting with their co-existence in social combination. Does a primary seat belt law in Colorado preserve that equilibrium?

In securing the civil rights of everyone, there must, of course, be some restraints made on personal liberty, which are therefore recognized as lawful. For example, a parent may properly exercise some control over the actions and conduct or his her child, a teacher may exercise authority over a student, those who are unable to care for themselves may be cared for by persons authorized for that purpose, and those who have committed a crime may be confined in pursuance of the provisions of criminal law. Personal liberty, like other civil rights, exists within the laws of the land.

But how can the lawmakers of the State of Colorado attempt to exercise this control over its citizens? I will tell you how. The Federal government made a "deal" with Colorado you see. If they pass this law, Colorado will get twenty million from the Feds. That's the true motivation behind this law. It's not to make the roads safer. Yes, seatbelts save lives but not always. When my brother was three years old he was in the backseat of a small car with his grandmother (He is my half-brother), his uncle, aunt, and another adult friend on a country road in Kentucky. A coal truck ran a stop sign and plowed into the car. My brother was ejected through the windshield and thrown down an embankment. Everyone else died at the scene. When the police showed up they didn't know a little boy was in the car until they heard screams from the steep embankment below. He was carried up the hill and only suffered minor injuries but if he was wearing a seatbelt he would have died. He is now 29 years old and in school to become a police officer in North Carolina.

This is not a crusade to dissuade you from buckling up. To the contrary. I wear my seatbelt, every time I drive my Jeep. It's not to conform to the rules of the road. It's so if I roll over I don't have road rash on my face.

I have no problem with seat belts and I have no problem with citations for not wearing one when you receive a ticket after the police contact you on the road for some other traffic offense. But do we truly need the police patrolling the streets pulling people over for not wearing their seat belts and only for that reason? Do we have the police manpower to adjudicate this offense? Shouldn't our men in blue be fighting crime not issuing a citation for a petty traffic infraction? Shouldn't we have the option of wearing our seat belts if we so choose? As you may know part of the lure of motorcycle ridding is the freedom of the road and lack of restraint. That's why people ride. But they are also totally aware of the dangers as soon as they pull out on the road.

So what is your personal freedom worth to you? Is it twenty million as proposed? How about twenty billion? You decide and let me know.
________________________
Dr. Robert Forto holds a doctorate in communication. Dr. Forto hosts a weekly radio show The Dog Doctor and is streamed on the Internet. Http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dogdoctor. Dr. Forto can be reached through his website http://www.denverdogworks.com/