| Official Memory Patch $10.00 Order here with Paypal |
BOLTofCA was last updated 4/6/2013
| If you were wearing a helmet, but a police officer wrote a helmet ticket to you anyway, scan and send a copy of that ticket to the BOLT webmaster. It is important to realize that ticket is worth its weight in gold. If you plan on either paying it or fighting it, email a copy of the ticket to BOLT of California. |
| There is a core group represented here that had vowed to do "whatever it takes" to protect themselves against bad laws and bad cops. This began BOLT of California. At this HLDL/BOLT Summit we also hammered out the well known list of 12 questions for the NHTSA/DOT. May 1993. Later, this jokingly became our salute. |
Proceeds from this 3" x 5 1/2" patch go to the costs and fees for the
next legal challenge to help stop the improper enforcement of the
helmet law. Quigley is Gone But Not Forgotten.
You may also simply donate to the fund to pay for the fees and costs of the law suit.
To do this, contact the BOLT of California webmaster, using the link at the top of this
page.
next legal challenge to help stop the improper enforcement of the
helmet law. Quigley is Gone But Not Forgotten.
You may also simply donate to the fund to pay for the fees and costs of the law suit.
To do this, contact the BOLT of California webmaster, using the link at the top of this
page.
| BOLT appreciates the donations and support Freedom minded riders in California and across the country have provided by contributing to this fund. Thomas Jefferson said the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance. This website explains what that vigilance is, and what you can do to BE vigilant. How much of your own freedom are you willing to earn? |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Site Navigation
| Show your support by wearing the BOLT logo. Contact us for BOLT SUPPORT shirt prices and availability. All official BOLT SUPPORT shirts are known for quality because they are printed by White Hawk Designs. |
3" x 10" bumper sicker - $3.00
| As a result of our 2008 legal actions against the California Highway Patrol, Quigley v. CHP and CHP v. Superior Court, the CHP has negotiated an enforcement policy change with us. Management Memorandum 08-071 represents one of three aspects of this negotiated settlement. The CHP petitioning of the California Judicial Counsel represents the second of the three aspects of this negotiated settlement. This resulted in the change to the Bail & Penalty schedule. Helmet violations ARE correctable. If a rider is wearing no helmet at all - it is not considered correctable. The CHP's dropping their demand for additional court costs was the third of three aspects of this negotiated settlement. Why did we sue the CHP? Article by Don Blanscet What does this mean for motorcyclists in California? We don't know the future, but we can give our opinion. It is important to note that this policy change is by the CHP and only effects their officers, but it does, in fact, reflect the changes to the Bail and Penalty schedule which sets penalties statewide. Therefore, we would expect all allied enforcement agencies to align their policy with the CHP. However, this new CHP policy ignores the ruling from Buhl v. Hannigan, that says neither an officer nor a consumer is expected to be able to determine compliance by visual inspection, a proposition that the Buhl court said was "absurd" Note the reference in 08-071 to the phrase "obviously not a motorcycle helmet," which assumes a visual inspection enables one to determine proper fabrication. It assumes a motorcycle manufacturer cannot fabricate a helmet that visually resembles another type of headgear. Also ignored are the intent requirements (burden of proof on the people) established in Bianco V. CHP, which requires the following: formal determination of non compliance and proof that the rider knows their helmet is non compliant, regardless of whether LEO is writing a "fix it ticket" or a straight violation. Buhl and Bianco are still in effect and no citation should be issued without the ability to meet the requirements of Buhl and Bianco. While we have no doubt that the CHP is stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to helmet law enforcement, we also see the good faith effort they are showing in an attempt to legally enforce a vague and ambiguous law, both as written and applied. The new policy does take steps to minimize Rights violations by LEO, but it does not fix the problem. The only fix in our opinion would be a list of compliant helmets; thus we continue to say: No list? No Law! The presiding Judge in Quigley v CHP did not rule that the helmet law was not vague, only that we had not presented ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO MAKE THE CASE. The vagueness issue is still viable. The Judge stated that the law needs to be "cleaned up." Those requirements in Buhl and Bianco are reiterated by Federal Judge Napoleon Jones in the EasyRiders v. Hannigan case. On May 25, 1995, the district court issued its decision on Easyriders' request for a permanent injunction. Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 887 F. Supp. 240 (S.D. Cal. 1995). The district court found that under the California helmet law as interpreted by Buhl and Bianco, a motorcyclist wearing a helmet that does not comply with Standard 218 can violate the helmet law in two situations: (1) where the helmet did not bear a certification of compliance at the time of sale, or (2) where the helmet did bear a certification but (a) the helmet has been shown, by failing a FMVSS 218 test, not to conform with federal safety standards and (b) the person being cited has actual knowledge of a showing of non-conformity with federal standards. Scan and send a copy of any and every helmet ticket whether you want to fight it, or pay the fine without a defense. |
The New upcoming California lawsuit:
It has been 18 years since the federal Judge agreed with
motorcyclists that law enforcement officers had been
writing helmet tickets without Probable Cause, violating
riders' Rights.
The Easyriders v. Hannigan federal lawsuit resulted in an
Injunction against writing helmet tickets unless the citing
officer has a recall notice from the manufacturer or has test
results proving non-compliance. This documentation must
be in the citing officer's hand before he writes the ticket. It
must be specific to that exact helmet manufacturer, size,
and model number. The officer must have proof that the
helmet wearer knew of the recall and/or knew of the
de-certification due to failure during the testing process.
What has transpired since 1995?
Have police officers stopped writing tickets in violation
of federal case law?
No.
Some have stopped the false arrests, but others have
forged ahead, violating Constitution and 4th Amendment
protections of motorcycle riders.
The two biggest problems that lead to the 4th Amendment
violations are:
1.) Riders and officers alike misunderstand how federal
preemption and case law control the way a helmet is
determined to be legal, and illegal.
2.) Most riders honestly believe the federal government
has approved the sale of certain helmets based on what
they look like, and a DOT sticker is issued by the
Department of Transportation. In other words, many
believe you must wear a "DOT approved" helmet. The
earth is not flat, but try convincing those guys. It's hard to
un-learn something you have believed so long:
The DOT does not issue the certification stickers and the
DOT does not stamp approval on certain helmets, or any
product.
BOLT now knows how many tickets were written by each
police department in California in 2012. We are ready to
act on this information, because we also know those same
departments did not write any of those tickets based on the
recall notices or test results described above by the
federal court system as Probable Cause.
motorcyclists that law enforcement officers had been
writing helmet tickets without Probable Cause, violating
riders' Rights.
The Easyriders v. Hannigan federal lawsuit resulted in an
Injunction against writing helmet tickets unless the citing
officer has a recall notice from the manufacturer or has test
results proving non-compliance. This documentation must
be in the citing officer's hand before he writes the ticket. It
must be specific to that exact helmet manufacturer, size,
and model number. The officer must have proof that the
helmet wearer knew of the recall and/or knew of the
de-certification due to failure during the testing process.
What has transpired since 1995?
Have police officers stopped writing tickets in violation
of federal case law?
No.
Some have stopped the false arrests, but others have
forged ahead, violating Constitution and 4th Amendment
protections of motorcycle riders.
The two biggest problems that lead to the 4th Amendment
violations are:
1.) Riders and officers alike misunderstand how federal
preemption and case law control the way a helmet is
determined to be legal, and illegal.
2.) Most riders honestly believe the federal government
has approved the sale of certain helmets based on what
they look like, and a DOT sticker is issued by the
Department of Transportation. In other words, many
believe you must wear a "DOT approved" helmet. The
earth is not flat, but try convincing those guys. It's hard to
un-learn something you have believed so long:
The DOT does not issue the certification stickers and the
DOT does not stamp approval on certain helmets, or any
product.
BOLT now knows how many tickets were written by each
police department in California in 2012. We are ready to
act on this information, because we also know those same
departments did not write any of those tickets based on the
recall notices or test results described above by the
federal court system as Probable Cause.