BOLT of California

Official
Memory
Patch
$10.00

Order
here with
Paypal

BOLTofCA was last updated 9/27/2011

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 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 bikers against bad laws and bad cops. This began BOLT of California.
At this HLDL 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 go to the costs and fees for the legal challenge
to help stop the enforcement of the helmet law.

BOLT appreciates the donations and support Freedom minded riders in
California and across the country have provided by contributing to this fund.

How much of your own freedom are you willing to earn?

Site Navigation

Short Sleeve T
large logo on the front

Short Sleeve pocket T
logo on pocket
and large logo on the back

Long Sleeve T
small logo on front
and large logo on the back

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.

BOLT letters on left sleeve

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.

Motorcyclists Sue Over Enforcement of Nevada’s Helmet Law

By Steve Green
Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2011 | 4:31 p.m.

Twelve motorcycle riders filed a class action lawsuit Tuesday against Clark County and
five cities within the county, charging arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of
Nevada’s helmet law.

The suit filed in U.S. District Court names as defendants the county and the cities of Las
Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson and Mesquite; and Boulder City.

If certified as a class, the suit could represent more than 40,000 motorcycle riders in the
county.

The suit, filed by Las Vegas attorney Travis Barrick, charges "defendants, through their
agents, have an ongoing pattern and practice of issuing helmet tickets to the class
members that are not supported by constitutionally sufficient probable cause, thereby
violating the civil rights of the class members."

This violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution barring unreasonable search
and seizure, the lawsuit says.

The suit also alleges violations of the 14th Amendment protections against arbitrary and
discriminatory enforcement, charging the defendants, through their agents, "have an
ongoing pattern and practice of dismissing helmet tickets when contested in the courts or
appealed to the courts, thereby denying the class members their due process rights to
challenge enforcement of the Nevada Helmet Law."

The suit also alleges there’s a disparity in fines and fees for helmet law violations with no
rational basis for the disparities; and that the helmet law is enforced "as a pretext for
invading the liberties and civil rights" of the class members.

Barrick wasn’t available to elaborate on the allegations and the defendants have not yet
responded to the lawsuit.

Efforts over the years to repeal Nevada’s 1972 law requiring motorcycle riders to wear
helmets as a safety measure have failed, most recently this year.

www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/sep/27/motorcyclists-sue-over-enforcement-nevadas-helmet-/

Video:
www.8newsnow.com/story/15573175/lawsuit-challenges-nevadas-motorcycle-helmet-law

Repeal It Or Feel It
The time to donate is now.                                   via PayPal

Read the Complaint

or send your donation to:
Guerrilla Lawfare
3216 Point Lobos Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89108