Justice (concurring specially).
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but I write separately to add a point, to emphasize a point, and to point out statutory language that I conclude is confusing.
I would add to the majority’s argument the fact that the origins of Minn.Stat. §§ 169.685, subd. 5(b) and 169.686, subd. 1(3) (1998) are very different. Minnesota statute section 169.686 was first enacted in 1986 after the United States Secretary of Transportation issued guidelines setting forth the minimum requirements necessary for state seat belt laws to meet federal standards. See Minn. Stat. § 169.684 (1986). This statute set forth mandatory requirements for seat belt use. Minnesota statute section 169.685 was enacted much earlier, in 1963, and specifically dealt with equipping motor vehicles with seat belts. The subdivision concerning the installation and use of child passenger restraint systems was added to Minn.Stat. § 169.685 in 1981.
As the majority points out, Minn.Stat. § 169.685, unlike Minn.Stat. § 169.686, does not contain the provision that A peace officer may not issue a citation for a violation of this section unless the officer lawfully stopped or detained the driver of the motor vehicle for a moving violation other than a violation involving motor vehicle equipment. Minn.Stat. § 169.686, subd. 1(3). Because Minn.Stat. § 169.685 has a different origin, was first enacted more than 20 years before Minn. Stat. § 169.686, subd. 1(3), and has been amended numerous times, including in 1987, 1988, 1993, and 1994, it seems to me that we can infer the legislature chose not to include in Minn.Stat. § 169.685 the limiting language found in Minn.Stat. § 169.686. This is the position taken by the dissent to the court of appeals’ majority opinion and I believe that this argument further supports, the decision that we reach today.
The point I wish to emphasize is that our holding today applies only to the suppression of evidence obtained as a result of a stop under Minn.Stat. § 169.685, subd. 5(b), a statute which we hold to be clear and unambiguous. We are not construing Minn.Stat. § 169. 686, subd. 1(3), a completely different statute. I believe that it is important to make this distinction absolutely clear, especially in light of Justice Page’s concurrence. There well may be merit to Justice Page’s conclusion that the court of appeals erred when it held that Minn.Stat. § 169.686 prohibits a law enforcement officer from lawfully stopping the driver of a motor vehicle solely on the basis of a suspected violation of that statute. See State v. Fiebke, 554 N.W.2d 755 (Minn.App.1996). But Minn.Stat. § 169.686 is not squarely before us today; therefore, I believe we should leave the interpretation of this statute for another day.
Finally, as I examine the language used in Minn.Stat. §§ 169.685, subd. 5(b) and 169.686, subd. 1(3), I conclude that certain parts of these two statutes are confusing. Minnesota statute section 169.686, subdivision 1(3) provides that a properly adjusted *96and fastened seat belt, including both the shoulder and lap belt, shall be worn by:
(3) a passenger riding in any seat of a passenger vehicle who is older than three but younger than 11 years of age. (Emphasis added.)
Minnesota statute section 169.685, subdivision 5(b) provides that:
(b) No motor vehicle operator who is operating a motor vehicle on the streets and highways of this state may transport a child under the age of four in a seat of a motor vehicle equipped with a factory-installed seat belt, unless the child is properly fastened in the child passenger restraint system * * *.
(Emphasis added.)
I believe that older than three can be construed to mean a person who is three years and one day of age while under the age of four clearly means a person who has yet to reach four years of age. Wearing a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt including both the shoulder and lap belt is different from having a child properly fastened in a child passenger restraint system, yet it seems that both, are statutorily required for a person older than three but under the age of four. This leads me to question whether it would be a proper defense to a citation for violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.685, subd. 5(3) to contend that, at the time the citation was issued, the child under the age of four, but at least three years and one day of age, was wearing a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt, including both the shoulder and lap belt.
My concern about this ambiguity is further heightened if, under some circumstances, violation of either of these two statutes could be construed to be a criminal violation. It is clear from our prior holdings that the criminal consequences which attend criminal violations of a statute obligate us to construe the statute’s provisions strictly in favor of the accused. See State v. Larson Transfer and Storage, Inc., 310 Minn. 295, 304, 246 N.W.2d 176, 182 (1976) (stating that penal provisions in statutes and municipal ordinances are strictly construed because [bjefore a person may be subject to criminal liability, it must be reasonably certain that the statute or ordinance renders his conduct a criminal offense.).
While resolution of the dilemma caused by the different and possibly irreconcilable language used in these two statutes is not necessary to decide the case before us today, it may well be relevant in a future case. It is for this reason that I believe it is important to make this potential ambiguity known.