There are countless stories about bikers in the various states being subjected to the abuse of truth, power and process which has come to be known as "helmet laws" — the term used to describe mandatory wearing of something the government is unwilling to describe, but nonetheless insist that motorcyclists wear. This page is just one of those stories.

   This presentation is devoted to telling the tale of one of the charter members of BOLT of California — California's most street-active motorcyclist rights organization — me, Richard Quigley, from 1998 through the present, against those forces. This is not an ego piece. Quite to the contrary. Throughout this presentation, there are literally scores of places where if ego were at issue, I would not go. The point is, rather, to document my on-the-street fight with the police and the courts, in an effort to expose the defects in the helmet law, and bring about, or help bring about, its demise . . . to serve as either a model, or bad example, of how to fight for Freedom against helmet laws, on the streets and in the courts — either way, a learning tool.

   As of July 14, 2006, the score is 25 wins and 9 losses. Interestingly, those 34 citations were the result of well over 100 traffic stops . . . over half the cops understood my position and went on about their way. Countless "sightings" passed without incident — most officers finding something else to look at, some smiling and waving, and every once in a great while, A SALUTE!

   The flow of citations virtually stopped for a while in 2000, when the California Highway Patrol seemed to have finally figured it all out. Oh, there were a few from Deputy Thurber who was intent on breaking me in the beginning, but eventually realized that the law didn't support his efforts — especially given his, albeit correct, seemingly unique understanding that helmet tickets in California constitute correctable equipment violations. (In spite of the tenor of the discussions we had as he issued the tickets, Thurber turned out to be a better than average cop.)

   In fact, it seemed everything was under control by mid-2000, and the police were content to enforce laws that were at least written such that they could be understood, until Sergeant Dane Lobb of the California Highway Patrol decided in April 2004 that HE was going to be the one to fix me (as if I needed fixing).

   I expect that by the time the book — The Rise and Fall of California's Helmet Law — is written, Lobb will be shown to have been the one in need of fixing. But that comes later . . .

   I have put the various stories here, starting with the first tickets and working through the end. There is a LOT of infomation about the closing days that will be put up near the end when the tickets tried in 2004 have finally settled and the dust clears. In the meantime, what follows is a fairly complete story of all that happened before, with updates as time allows for the most recent activity:

THE FIRST 3 CONVICTIONS IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

   The first three convictions were an abomination, and can be checked out here. The mere fact that both judges participating in the appellate decision — Judge Arthur Danner (yeah, I wondered about his both taking this appeal, and at the same time presiding over the other cases) and Judge Robert Atack — signed the opinion I wrote for them, belies belief, but they did. Be sure to read that opinion. I still don't believe they signed it. I was frankly not surprised the 6th Appellate court didn't deal with the certified issues . . . they are among the worst of the California appellate courts, with little more to do than rubber stamp everything that comes out of Santa Cruz County. You can click here to review at all that I have in the way of a record of the traffic stops, trial and appeal of these three tickets.

SAN BENITO COUNTY FOLLOWED THE LAW AND DISMISSED

   On July 7th, 2001, I was stopped on my way into Hollister, California, by a San Benito County Sheriff's deputy. He read the code and sent me on my way. The cop downtown wasn't so clear on what the law requires, and issued a citation (properly indicating it was "correctable"). Just two months later, the court agreed the citation was correctable and by October, 2001, had dismissed the ticket. It's amazing what can happen when the law is applied impartially to a situation, eh? The whole story, transcripts and recordings, are availble by clicking here.

6 CONVICTIONS IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

   The six convictions back in Santa Cruz County were the result of a three-and-a-half year judicial circus, or travesty, depending how whether you credit the courts' (Judge Arthur Danner's) inability to follow the law to ignorance or malice.

   It took three years from the date of issuance of the first of the second batch of 6 tickets (two years from the issuance of the last) — from October 10, 1999 until October 17, 2002 — to get a final decision from the Santa Cruz County Courts (which, incidentally, according to them, did not violate the constitutionally protected right to a speedy resolution). Click here to review all the recordings, transcripts, evidence, briefs and other materials put before the court(s).

   Following the asinine (and bigoted) decision by the Danner court, affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, I was so pissed I rode the entire year of 2002 bare-headed — I only got stopped once. On July 19, 2002, I was stopped by an officer from the Santa Cruz (city) Police Department. The resulting ticket was ultimately dismissed as a result of a procedural error by the cop.

   In 2002, I actually felt like a Free and Natural person for the first time since passage of the helmet law 10 years earlier.

   But, problems arose.

   Toward the end of the riding season 2002, an officer I have known and respected for years ran into me at a local coffee shop. He pointed out that he would prefer that I wear something on my head when riding — that riding bareheaded was causing problems with members of the public who were starting to question why the police weren't doing their job. He indicated that as long as I had something I believed complied with the statute on my head, he could pass of their failure to stop and cite me off to the vagueness of the statute. The request was reasonable, so in the interest of maintaining a hard earned positive relationship with many of the the local police, I resumed wearing my helmet.

Santa Cruz Police Department — 2 More Tickets Gone, Problems Still Brewing . . .

   On Sunday, August 17th, 2003, Officer Martin of the Santa Cruz Police Department (with attitude flying) issued a citation (also from the Quik-Code) becasue I was not wearing a "DOT approved helmet."

   The very next day, Monday, August 18th, I rode down to the Santa Cruz Police station to have them tell me how to comply with the helmet law in the City of Santa Cruz — in the rest of the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County, neither the CHP or the Sheriff's Department take any exception to my helmet style.

   Anyway, unable to get anyone from the Santa Cruz Police Department to even discuss the matter with me, never mind answer my question — "Do you have any suggestions as to how a motorcyclist can comply, with certainty , with the provisions of CVC Section 27803(b)?"

   On my way to the courthouse to try to figure out what do to next, I was stopped by Officer Vasquez. During the course of issuance of his citation, we were joined by Officer Martin from the previous day, and the battle was on.

   They thought they could cite me without answering the question, and I believe they can't. Both citations were dismissed by the court less than a month later, but the door was open for me to have further discussion with the Santa Cruz Police Department.

   I'm not sure where the SCPD stands today, but it appears to me that they are willing to conceed that the statute is a problem the way it is written, and seem willing to help find a solution. As of this writing (03-05-04), we're working together on a solution, and no more tickets have been issued. That's probably the best news so far.

9 citations, 2-and-a-half years in court, over 30 appearances, and all 9 citations were dismissed — Judge Barton, of the Superior Court of California, in and for Santa Cruz County, found me "no guilty" on the grounds that the statute (the helmet law) was "unconstitutional as applied by the officers."

   The first of the nine citations was a citation issued on July 24, 2003, by Watsonville Police Officer Ridgway (not the "bad cop") — a motor officer — who, because he believed in the "DOT approved helmet" myth (transcript of traffic stop), cited me for not wearing one . . . using the Quik-Code book (by LawTech Publishing) as his reference.

   The subsequent 3 Watsonville citations (for a total of 4 from Watsonville) earned their own page . . . too long to tell here. To read about the most updated version of the story, click here.

   The other 5 of the 9 citations were issued by the California Highway Patrol. The entire story on what happened with the 4 Watsonville citations, and the 5 from the CHP is that they were dismissed by the court because the statute is "unconstitutional, as applied." Neither the District Attorney would appeal. To find out what is happening instead, go here.

WHAT's NEXT?

   All I know for sure is that as long as the fight continues, so does the possibility of victory. From all outward appearances, it's not going to stop until something breaks. It's them, or me.

I can deal with that.

quig



Back to Home Page


Last updated: April, 2004
© Copyright 2004 BOLT of California. All Rights Reserved.
Webmaster: quig