 |
Articles Area
Home Login / Register Get RSS Feeds Add Free Article Content Article RatingsGuidelines
Authors PublishersPartners
ArticlesAreaQuigley v. CHP California Helmet Law Trial
Submitted by serious on Friday Mar 20, 2009 and viewed 447 timesTotal Word Count: 776
Author Rating: NA
Rate this article
|
Publisher
|
Print
A Motorcycle Lawyers Perspective: The Court Judgment in the Quigley v. CHP California Helmet Law Trial .
The Quigley v. CHP injunction/declaratory relief case went to trial in
May, resulting in a judgment for the CHP. The Plaintiff's trial
attorney, Wendy Lascher, Esq., is currently considering whether to
appeal the judgment.
The presentation of much of the Plaintiff's evidence was prevented by the Judge's rulings on a couple of last minute defense motions in liming. The Court issued a ruling prohibiting testimony regarding helmet law citations that were illegally issued to the named Plaintiffs and other California bikers prior to 2005. This was problematic, as came out in the testimony of Mark Temple, because the California Highway Patrol adopted a policy several years ago not to ticket many of the BOLT members, including Plaintiffs Steve Bianco and Don Blanscet, so that notwithstanding that they ride with two inch wide helmets or sunglasses with DOT scratched into the side, their last CHP ticketswere all pre-2005. The Judge also rejected testimony with regard to helmet law tickets illegally issued by other law California law enforcement agencies which we had sought to admit on the basis that these other police agencies take their lead from the CHP on traffic law enforcement policy. For a more complete discussion of the legal issues from the motorcycle lawyers perspective,
But notwithstanding the trial Judge's adverse rulings, there were major steps forward achieved at the trial that will serve us on appeal or in the next trial we bring to overturn California's helmet law. For one, we obtained the unrehearsed and apparently unprepared testimony of Sergeant Valdez, whom the CHP designated as its employee "most knowledgeable" about CHP helmet law enforcement policy. Appallingly, Sergeant Valdez testified that he was unaware of the published California appellate decisions which severely restricted the CHP's constitutional leeway to issue helmet law citations. Sergeant Valdez also stated that he was unaware of the federal injunction restraining the CHP from issuing helmet tickets in violation of these California constitutional restrictions.
As discussed in previous BIKER magazine BOLT columns, the two published California constitutional cases and federal injunction held that the CHP must not consider helmet fabrication and must have “probable cause” to believe that the rider has “actual knowledge” that his helmet has been recalled or determined by NHTSA to be noncompliant with FMVSS 218. Sergeant Valdez testimony that he was unaware of the foregoing case law is an insult to the Courts which issued those decisions, and makes plain that the CHP has no intention to comply with the constitutional restrictions on its authority to enforce the helmet law. Sergeant Valdez also made this plain when he testified that the officers decide to ticket a biker solely on basis of their subjective determination whether particular headgear "looks like a helmet" or not. This "if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck" testimony plainly violates the prohibition on consideration of qualities of helmet fabrication. The CHP policy also plainly violates the federal court injunction, under which a rider can only be ticketed the officer has probable cause to believe that the rider has actual knowledge that his headgear has been recalled or determined noncompliant with FMVSS 218.
The Plaintiffs trial attorney, Ms. Lascher, is considering, among other things, whether the Valdez testimony is sufficient evidence upon which to mount an appeal from the defense judgment, weighing also the fact that the Judge prevented the Plaintiffs from presenting the biker testimony which would have established in fact, just as we did in the Easyriders case, that the CHP had issued hundreds of illegal helmet tickets in the dozen years following the above referenced California and federal decisions.
While we "lost" the trial, we have taken a big step forward in obtaining this testimony of Sergeant Valdez, and there is nothing in this result that dissuades us from our convictions about the validity of the constitutional positions central to BOLT's attack on the California helmet law. The Plaintffs may or may not appeal the result in this case given the judicial limitations upon our introduction of our strongest evidence. But there is one thing about which all may be certain, and that is that BOLT will never give up the fight. We will not stop until we prevail. We will not stop until all California riders are accorded the ordinary dignity to make their own decisions about what to wear when they ride.
Ray Henke is a California motorcycle accident lawyer, former Governor of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association and LATLA's nominee for the "Trial Lawyer of the Year" Award. Mr. Henke also co-moderates Bruce & Ray's Biker Forum.
The presentation of much of the Plaintiff's evidence was prevented by the Judge's rulings on a couple of last minute defense motions in liming. The Court issued a ruling prohibiting testimony regarding helmet law citations that were illegally issued to the named Plaintiffs and other California bikers prior to 2005. This was problematic, as came out in the testimony of Mark Temple, because the California Highway Patrol adopted a policy several years ago not to ticket many of the BOLT members, including Plaintiffs Steve Bianco and Don Blanscet, so that notwithstanding that they ride with two inch wide helmets or sunglasses with DOT scratched into the side, their last CHP ticketswere all pre-2005. The Judge also rejected testimony with regard to helmet law tickets illegally issued by other law California law enforcement agencies which we had sought to admit on the basis that these other police agencies take their lead from the CHP on traffic law enforcement policy. For a more complete discussion of the legal issues from the motorcycle lawyers perspective,
But notwithstanding the trial Judge's adverse rulings, there were major steps forward achieved at the trial that will serve us on appeal or in the next trial we bring to overturn California's helmet law. For one, we obtained the unrehearsed and apparently unprepared testimony of Sergeant Valdez, whom the CHP designated as its employee "most knowledgeable" about CHP helmet law enforcement policy. Appallingly, Sergeant Valdez testified that he was unaware of the published California appellate decisions which severely restricted the CHP's constitutional leeway to issue helmet law citations. Sergeant Valdez also stated that he was unaware of the federal injunction restraining the CHP from issuing helmet tickets in violation of these California constitutional restrictions.
As discussed in previous BIKER magazine BOLT columns, the two published California constitutional cases and federal injunction held that the CHP must not consider helmet fabrication and must have “probable cause” to believe that the rider has “actual knowledge” that his helmet has been recalled or determined by NHTSA to be noncompliant with FMVSS 218. Sergeant Valdez testimony that he was unaware of the foregoing case law is an insult to the Courts which issued those decisions, and makes plain that the CHP has no intention to comply with the constitutional restrictions on its authority to enforce the helmet law. Sergeant Valdez also made this plain when he testified that the officers decide to ticket a biker solely on basis of their subjective determination whether particular headgear "looks like a helmet" or not. This "if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck" testimony plainly violates the prohibition on consideration of qualities of helmet fabrication. The CHP policy also plainly violates the federal court injunction, under which a rider can only be ticketed the officer has probable cause to believe that the rider has actual knowledge that his headgear has been recalled or determined noncompliant with FMVSS 218.
The Plaintiffs trial attorney, Ms. Lascher, is considering, among other things, whether the Valdez testimony is sufficient evidence upon which to mount an appeal from the defense judgment, weighing also the fact that the Judge prevented the Plaintiffs from presenting the biker testimony which would have established in fact, just as we did in the Easyriders case, that the CHP had issued hundreds of illegal helmet tickets in the dozen years following the above referenced California and federal decisions.
While we "lost" the trial, we have taken a big step forward in obtaining this testimony of Sergeant Valdez, and there is nothing in this result that dissuades us from our convictions about the validity of the constitutional positions central to BOLT's attack on the California helmet law. The Plaintffs may or may not appeal the result in this case given the judicial limitations upon our introduction of our strongest evidence. But there is one thing about which all may be certain, and that is that BOLT will never give up the fight. We will not stop until we prevail. We will not stop until all California riders are accorded the ordinary dignity to make their own decisions about what to wear when they ride.
Ray Henke is a California motorcycle accident lawyer, former Governor of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association and LATLA's nominee for the "Trial Lawyer of the Year" Award. Mr. Henke also co-moderates Bruce & Ray's Biker Forum.
ArticleSource: ArticlesAlley.com
Number of ratings: 0
Rating: 0
Rating: 0