2019 007 ORDINANCE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(d) Notwithstanding Ft of law to the eentmfy, no law enfer-eement offieer- shall eause an operator- of an atAemebile being oper-a4ed on any stfeet eF highway to stop the autemebile the sole purpose of deteFmiaiag whether- a viela4ion of subsee4ion (b) hefeef has been or- is bei eonffnit4ed of for the sole purpose of issuing a tieket, eita4ien or- stffnmons for- a vielation of that na4ur-e or- eausing the affest of or- P. a pr-oseeution of a per -son for- a violation of that ated on any street of highway for- the sole purpose of detefmining Whether- a violation fl-;#Mfe has been or- is being eommiaed. (d) Any law enforcement officer with reasonable suspicion may cause an operator of an automobile being operated on any street or highway two stop the automobile for the sole purpose of determining whether a violation of division (b) of this section has been or is being committed or for the sole purpose of issuing a ticket, citation, or summons for the violation or for causing the arrest of or commencing a prosecution of a person for the violation. AU law enforcement officer may view the interior or visually inspect any automobile being operated on any street or highway for the sole purpose of determining whether the violation has been or is being committed. (e) All fines collected for violations of subsection (b) hereof shall be forwarded to the Treasurer of State for deposit as provided in Ohio R.C. 4513.263. (f) (1) Subject to subsection (f)(2) of this section, the failure of a person to wear all of the available elements of a properly adjusted occupant restraining device in violation of subsection (b)(1) or (3) or the failure of a person to ensure that each minor who is a passenger of an automobile being operated by that person is wearing all of the available elements of a properly adjusted occupant restraining device, in violation of subsection (b)(2) of this section, shall not be considered or used by the trier of fact in a tort action as evidence of negligence or contributory negligence. But the trier of fact may determine based on evidence admitted consistent with the Ohio rules of evidence that the failure contributed to the harm alleged in the tort action and may diminish a recovery of compensatory damages that represents noneconomic loss, as defined in Ohio R.C. 2307.011 in a tort action that could have been recovered but for the plaintiff's failure to wear all of the available elements of a properly adjusted occupant restraining device. Evidence of that failure shall not be used as a basis for a criminal prosecution of the person other than a prosecution for a violation of this section; and shall not be admissible as evidence in a criminal action involving the person other than a prosecution for a violation of this section. (2) If, at the time of an accident involving a passenger car equipped with occupant restraining devices, any occupant of the passenger car who sustained injury or death was not wearing an available occupant restraining device, was not wearing all of the available elements of such a device, or was not wearing such a device as properly adjusted, then, consistent with the Rules of Evidence, the fact that the occupant was not wearing the available occupant restraining device, was not wearing all of the available elements of such a device, or was not wearing such a device as properly adjusted is admissible in evidence in relation to any claim for relief in a tort action to the extent that the claim for relief satisfies all of the following: A. It seeks to recover damages for injury or death to the occupant.