In Kodani v. Snyder (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 471, the defendant argued that there was no basis for a traffic stop because the arresting officer could not have observed whether he was wearing a lap-style safety belt and there was no evidence that the officer saw a shoulder harness installed on the vehicle. The Kodani court rejected this argument, concluding that the officer's testimony that he saw appellant not wearing a seat belt provided reasonable cause to stop the defendant. "Absent any evidence to the contrary, the most reasonable interpretation of the arresting officer's reference to a 'seat belt' is to the current and most prevalent configuration--a 'lap belt' and 'shoulder harness' combination, with the latter component often easily observed from an adjacent oncoming vehicle." ( Id. at p. 475.) The court further held that the arresting officer was not required to know the particular safety restraint system used in the make and model of the defendant's car before he concluded that a shoulder harness was installed in the vehicle but not being used. ( Id. at p. 477.) It noted, however, that there might be some cars of "antique vintage" that an officer could not reasonably expect to contain shoulder harnesses. "In such an uncommon situation, the absence from sight of a shoulder harness would not reasonably imply a violation of the mandatory seat belt law and could not support a lawful stop of the vehicle." (Ibid.)