Interested in working with us? Call us on (800) 800-5678 or fill out this quick form and we will contact you within 24 hours!
Latest News from Wisconsin & Illinois
Partial Victory In California Helmet Law Challenge
Posted on Sep 02, 2009
Posted 2/23/2009
The mandatory helmet law took effect in California in 1992, and for the last 17 years a small group of dedicated freedom fighters, including Hupy and Abraham, S.C., has fought it tooth and nail.
The most recognizable and prolific adversary to the law was Richard Quigley, who passed away on September 15, 2007, before his case of Quigley v CHP was heard. Richard Quigley, Steve Bianco, Don Blanscet, Steve “Red” Barron and Pat Holmes, all BOLT/ABATE members in California, filed a lawsuit in 2007 challenging the unconstitutional enforcement of the helmet law there.
A previous court challenge, Buhl v. Hannigan, said that neither an officer nor a consumer is expected to be able to determine if a helmet complies with the federal FMVSS 218 Standard by visual inspection alone. In fact, the court said that was absurd.
Later, in 1994, another challenge from one of the current plaintiffs, Steve Bianco, went even further. In Bianco v. CHP, the court required a formal determination of non-compliance and proof that the rider knew the helmet did not comply with FMVSS 218.
In 1995, reiterating what was said in Buhl v. Hannigan and Bianco v. CHP, Federal Judge Napoleon Jones issued a permanent injunction in Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v Hannigan, 887 F. Supp.240 (S.D.Cal.1995), limiting the issue of citations for non-compliant helmets. The CHP apparently ignored the court ruling and continued to issue citations based on visual inspection and fabrication.
This set up Quigley asking the court to find the CHP in contempt for not writing helmet citations as “correctable” violations, per the statutes. The court agreed which resulted in Superior Court v. CHP. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision but set the stage for the final assault, Quigley v. CHP.
A call for assistance went out nationally, asking the bikers of America to support this challenge through donations to a special fund administered by ABATE of California. Hupy and Abraham, S.C. donated $5,000.00 to the fund, joining many individuals and business around the country. Tiny ABATE of Delaware was one of the first to answer the call with their donation of $5,000.00.
Due to some 11th hour motions by the defense, much of the plaintiff’s evidence was disallowed. The court ruled in favor of the CHP in finding no unconstitutional application of enforcement of the helmet law.
Still some positive aspects came from this trial. Besides dropping their demand for court costs, the CHP petitioned the California Judicial Counsel to change the Bail & Penalty schedule to list sections 27803 (b) and (c) of the California Vehicle Code, relating to motorcycle helmet enforcement, as “eligible for correction.”
Further, the CHP issued Management Memorandum 08-071 to all Commanders, which informed them that officers shall no longer cite for hard shell “beanie type” helmets. Also, officers shall not seize any helmet as evidence and supervisor approval shall be obtained before citing a motorcyclist for wearing any type of head covering an officer determines is not a motorcycle helmet.
While the CHP memorandum and change in the Bail & Penalty schedule address some of the enforcement problems faced in the past, there is still the issue of vagueness which could be challenged again in the future.
BOLT of California has said along, if there is No List, there is No Law!
