Well guys & gals, we had the old showdown today in court. The citing officer is allowed to testify first to 'make his case'. Then the defendant is allowed to question the officer directly in regard to his testimony. Following that the defendant is allowed to testify in his own behalf and present any witnesses favorable to his defense.

CHP & 3 of his buddy officers were there in back and he smirked at me when he saw me, ['Got you by the gonies, hotshot' sort of look] First shot out of the gun the CHP officer knowingly & willingly lied right through his teeth! He claimed that he "...observed that the defendant's seatbelt was hanging straight down and was not in use." Fact is this would not be visible to a passing car going in the other direction at 45-50 mph in the slow lane on a 4 lane road with wide center divider, and me in the slow lane going 45 in the other direction, virtually 5 lanes away, with tinted glass & grey seatbelt on grey interior on my truck.

He then lied about my actual speed. My speedometer was tested by CHP themselves on radar last year and found dead-on accurate & it showed 45-46 mph at the time officer clocked me. He added 6 or 7 and said I was going 52 in a 40 zone. [I was not cited for speed because he knew he had an 'easy' on the seatbelt citation].

I was asked if I wanted to question him and I refrained, then I was allowed to testify in my own defense. I quoted the same section of law I was cited under: 27315 of DMV, and then referred to section F, para 8 & 9:
"This subdivision however does not require installation or maintenance of safety belts if not required by the laws of the United State applicable to the vehicle at time of its initial sale".

This then references Federal Law, as Code of Federal Regulation, CFR Title 49, Section 571.208, and its Subsection S4.1.1.1, S4.1.1.2 & S4.1.1.3:
"Passenger cars manufactured from January 1, 1972 to August 31, 1973 inclusive shall meet the requirements of S4.1.11, S411.2, or S41.1.3. A protection system may be installed that meets requirements blah blah blah".

"Further, your Honor, it will be seen in subsection S4.1.3.1.1 of CFR Title 49, Section 571.208:
'A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in non-compliance with this standard if its manufacturer establishes that it did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that such vehicle is not in conformity with the requirement of this standard.' Based on my interpretation of the laws of the State of California & the relevant statutes of the Code of Federal Regulations the subject vehicle is exempt from the seat belt requirement under both state & federal mandate, in the same section of law I was cited to be in violation of, due to its manufacture in the 1967 model year."

The officer had his opportunity to rebut my testimony but instead stepped outside of court procedure & told another outright lie, willingly & knowingly in a court of law while under oath: "As I approached the subject vehicle I heard the click and observed the driver fastening his seatbelt..." Well, that sure nailed it down for me.

If anybody here has ever heard a tweaked Cummins 4BT rattling at idle close up with open exhaust you know it's impossible to hear a seat belt click, let alone an SST taking off 20 feet away. Further, the minute I saw John Not-Law spin a U-ie across 5 lanes of traffic and lay the pedal to the metal in my direction, I clicked my seatbelt on. When he approached the vehicle I had passenger door wide open, both hands in plain sight & asked a moment to let the turbo cool down to protect the engine & he agreed. Again: he did not hear the click or see me fasten my seatbelt at that time because it was ALREADY FASTENED!

I started to raise out of my seat on this one and shot a look over at him. Bailiffs & judge saw my reaction and I sat back down, waiting to testify again under procedure. I had the right to respond then but the judge hushed me up & directed me not to testify or comment. Judge then gave a little preamble that I'm going to have to get a copy of, extremely clever and amusing twists of words, deep sense of humor, and demonstrating he also knew the copper was lying a storm, then: "... and therefore after reviewing all evidences & testimony presented I rule the defendant NOT GUILTY!"

On the way home I stopped & bought a great little pudding ring cake & a couple of lbs of French Vanilla to celebrate tonite, I guess I'll have to spoon some ice cream down the filler spout on old Rolling Thunder....