U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Number 386 April 2010

Traffic Safety Facts

Traffic Tech – Technology Transfer Series

Enforcement of Booster Seat Laws: Examples From 

Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington

The leading cause of death in the Nation for children 

age 3 to 6 and 8 to 14 is motor vehicle crashes. The 

most effective strategy for preventing injury and death 

to children involved in crashes is using age- and sizeappropriate restraints. Although child restraint use is 

over 90% for children younger than 4, only 50% of children 4 to 7 are appropriately restrained in booster seats 

or child restraints despite the fact that most States (45) 

and the District of Columbia have booster seat laws in 

place. States differ on age, weight, and height requirements for booster seat occupants. 

While there is evidence that occupant protection laws 

and enforcement (with publicity) do promote child 

restraint and booster seat use, there is a need to better 

understand the most effective strategies law enforcement agencies (LEAs) can use to encourage higher levels 

of booster seat use in their communities. This study 

included topics relating to training, logistics, types of 

techniques, legal issues, socio-demographic and highway safety concerns, education, and other issues that 

can affect LEAs’ abilities to enforce booster seat laws.

Recruitment of Law Enforcement Agencies 

NHTSA recruited law enforcement agencies that had 

access to NHTSA Section 2011 booster seat grant funds 

or were able to allocate some Section 405 grant funds 

to the effort to participate in this study. State Highway 

Safety Offices in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

and Washington recommended candidate agencies. 

Enforcement Activities

All of the LEAs participated in training activities; used an 

enforcement card with a description of all CR laws; followed enforcement schedule and reporting requirements; 

and attended debriefings. Although not a project requirement, many departments conducted car seat checkup 

events and other child passenger safety education programs as part of their regular community initiatives.

Police used three types of enforcement strategies: 

checkpoints that stopped or slowed traffic so that officers could observe child passengers, dedicated roving 

patrols that searched for child passengers in traffic, and 

stationary patrols where police observed traffic from a 

single location without interfering with the traffic.

Law 

Enforcement 

Agency

Child 

Restraint 

Citations

Booster 

Seat 

Citations 

Enforcement 

Hours

Enforcement 

Type

Passaic, NJ 364 68% 244 Checkpoints

Westhampton 

Township, NJ 232 84% 387 Checkpoints

Galloway 

Township, NJ 151 85% 373 Dedicated Roving Patrol

Grant County,

WA 120 n/a 145 Dedicated 

Roving Patrol

Exeter 

Township, PA 22 32% 136 Stationary & 

Roving Patrols

New Castle City, 

DE 21 86% 192 Dedicated Roving Patrol

Georgetown, DE 18 72% 108 Stationary 

Patrol

Millsboro, DE 6 33% 160 Stationary 

Patrol

Haverford 

Township, PA 4 25% 64 Stationary & 

Roving Patrols

Barriers to Enforcement

Police officers cited several barriers that inhibit the 

enforcement of booster seat and other CR laws: 

■ Weak booster seat laws (secondary laws).

■ Inefficient methods (routine patrol, limited staff 

resources).

■ Physical barriers (obstructed views).
■ Officer discretion issues (extra costs to the drivers 

associated with multiple CR law tickets). 

■ Inability to identify age of booster-seat-age children, 

especially 6- and 7-year-olds.

■ Roadway environment (suitable locations to safely 

enforce).

Effective Enforcement Approaches

Officers reported that the most effective approaches for 

enforcing booster seat laws depend on the following 

elements:

■ Support from top management as well as resources 

to support dedicated booster seat law enforcement 

programs;

■ Primary booster seat laws;

■ Enforcement methods that are dedicated to booster 

seat and other CR laws;

■ Enforcement strategies that include checkpoints, 

dedicated roving patrols, or stationary spots; and

■ Child passenger training and use of enforcement 

cards.

Other Issues 

Police indicated that increasing fines and penalties 

for CR law violations might have adverse effects on 

a department’s motivation to enforce the booster seat 

law, if such increases result in more court appearances 

for police officers when the cited motorists try to lower 

the fines and penalties. 

Officers expressed mixed feelings about detaining 

motorists cited for child restraint violations who did not 

have child restraints or booster seats in their vehicles. 

While they had no problem detaining motorists, they 

could only do so when they focused enforcement on 

CR laws and when there was a safe place on the roadside to park the stopped vehicle. 

Officers strongly believed that the officer writing 

the ticket should not also have the role of educating 

the driver about child passenger safety. The officers 

believed their role should be limited to explaining the 

reason for the ticket and providing information about 

CR laws and car seat checkup events. The officers 

recommended that if an enforcement detail includes 

education, additional staff dedicated to education 

should work alongside the officers issuing citations. 

Interpreting the Findings

■ The keys to effective booster seat and CR law enforcement programs are top management support, funding 

resources, and a dedicated enforcement program. 

■ Booster seat laws need to be primary laws. 

■ The most effective approaches were dedicated checkpoints and roving patrols.

■ To effectively spot booster seat and other CR law 

violators, police need to slow motorists to identify 

child passengers and stop vehicles carrying children 

to check the children’s ages and restraints. 

■ Minimal training of 1 to 2 hours on topics relating 

to best practices for booster seat and CR use and CR 

laws is sufficient for officers to enforce these laws. 

■ Brief videos and enforcement cards should complement training. 

■ The task of booster seat enforcement and education should be separate. If education is part of the 

enforcement program, then one set of officers should 

only issue citations and a second set of officers in a 

separate safe parking area should provide the education and give away car seats.

■ In order to collect data to study the problem further, 

law enforcement agencies need to record specifics 

of CR law code (e.g., subsection of code relating to 

booster seat law) or age of child in the comments 

field of tickets.

The report includes a description of various booster seat 

types, a summary and inventory of State child occupant 

restraint laws, and examples of program publicity.

How to Order

For a copy of the report (32 pages plus appendices), 

prepared by TransAnalytics, write to the Office of 

Behavioral Safety Research, NHTSA, NTI-130, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington DC 20590, send a 

fax to 202-366-7394, or download from www.nhtsa.gov. 

John Siegler was the contract manager. 

TRAFFIC TECH is a publication to disseminate information about 

traffic safety programs, including evaluations, innovative programs, and new publications. Feel free to copy it as you wish. If you 

would like to receive a copy, contact Angela H. Eichelberger, Ph.D., 

Editor, fax 202-366-7394, e-mail: angela.eichelberger@dot.gov.

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-132

Washington, DC 20590