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 Appx. 130 (11th Cir. 2007) (Unpublished).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, 353 Fed. Appx. 308 (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 40-8-76.1 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 stat- 518 40-8-76.1 INSPECTION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ute 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 prob- 40-8-76.1 able 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).