The appeal follows the defendant's conviction of a violation of Vehicle Code Section 27803 (unapproved motorcycle helmet). Appellant asserts that the People did not meet their burden of proof and that the judgment of the trial court was in error since violations of Vehicle Code Section 27803 are dismissible pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 40610(b) because no disqualifying conditions exist.

We affirm. On appeal the reviewing court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence, i.e., evidence which is reasonable, credible and of solid value such that a reasonable triar of fact could determine the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557.

We find in this case that there is such evidence. The officer testified that the Department of Transportation sticker on the back of the helmet was a quarter inch in height, in violation of Section 218 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which required it to be three-eights of an inch in height. As such, it clearly violated those provisions.

As to the assertion that the fine imposed on appellant was in error since the violation was curable, the appellant cites no authority for that principle and this court cannot find any. The judgment is affirmed.

ALLAN L. STEELE, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, Appellate Department

JAMES M. McNALLEY, Judge of the Superior Court, Appellate Department

CHARLES W. CAMPBELL, JR., Judge of the Superior Court, Appellate Department

Dated: March 14, 1994

OK, now what can we learn from this?

In essence, Mr. Brown was convicted of violating California's Helmet Law by wearing a helmet (a ludicrous charge just "made up" by the California Highway Patrol) that bore a DOT sticker, because the letters on the DOT sticker were one sixteenth of an inch smaller than the post-1988 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS218) requires. (Prior to 1988, the requirement was five sixteenths of an inch in height. Does that mean all helmets manufacture prior to 1988 are illegal in California?)

Does it matter that Mr. Brown was wearing a helmet? No.

Does it matter that Mr. Brown was wearing the helmet in a good faith effort to comply with California's helmet law? No.

Does it matter that Mr. Brown's helmet bore a DOT sticker -- the "certification of compliance" called for by the California Appellate Court in Buhl v. Hannigan as the "only" criteria called on for compliance? No.

Does it matter that "Section 218 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard" is not a criminal statute of any kind; and if it were, it would only apply to manufacturers who have certified their product complies with that standard? No.

Does it matter that the charge itself -- that of wearing an "unapproved motorcycle helmet" -- exists nowhere in the statutes? No.

What does matter, then?

What matters is that Mr. Brown is a "biker" (one who rides a Harley Davidson motorcycle) and the citing officer is a member of the California Highway Patrol.

What matters is that the three judges who signed this decision are bigots. There is no other way that this decision could have been made except and unless the Judges making the decision had already decided to uphold the conviction of a "biker" to insure the imposition of a fine; and that they were committed to that end over the ends of Justice.

What is the cure to this kind of bigotry?

Well, we're not sure. But we don't believe that schmoozing the California Legislature is going to have any impact on this mentality one way or another.

Bigots will continue to do their bigot thing until they are dragged out into the light of public opinion. And there, (here,) if enough people see the bigotry, and react, then maybe bikers will be allowed to choose to sit in any seat on the bus.

quig