So I suppose the real question to be asked about the CHP is: Do they act like bigots because they're stupid, or do they act stupid because they're bigots?
For nearly four years, motorcyclists have been living with the unfounded enforcement practices of the California Highway Patrol -- their obsession with citing motorcyclists for violating the helmet law by wearing helmets they and their officers didn't like -- as defined in CHP Bulletin #34.
During that period, two California Appellate Courts have made rulings which made it clear that these enforcement policies were contrary to the law, both as written and as interpreted by these two courts. Did that cause them to rescind Bulletin #34? No.
(It is interesting to note that the DMV was dragged into the fray in late 1992, when the CHP convinced them to issue a memo to the courts which was virtually identical to CHP Bulletin #34, same pictures and everything. One big difference however: When the DMV was questioned as to the foundation for their reasoning, they immediately rescinded their memo less than 30 days after the inquiry. That's blinding speed for a government agency, but then, they weren't acting like bigots.)
In any case, then the court in the Easyriders case spelled out the terms of the two existing State court decisions -- Buhl and Bianco -- in the form of an injunction which virtually forbid the enforcement practices defined in Bulletin #34, did that cause them to rescind Bulletin #34? No.
Now, nearly nine months after the Easyriders injunction; finally, they have gotten around to "superseding" the bogus Bulletin #34, replacing it with CHP Bulletin #59.
Now, here's where it gets interesting.
Any responsible agency (like the DMV three years earlier) would have rescinded Bulletin #34 years ago, and gone back to the California Legislature for language to a helmet law that they could enforce without the problems they have been having all along. But, NO! Why should they do that?
The fact that they had been responsible for tens of thousands of violations of the Constitutional Rights of California motorcyclists with their bogus policy (if you count the CHP's impact Nationally, the figure gets into the high hundreds of thousands) didn't slow them down a bit. Even the injunction from the Federal Courts (which afforded them even less of a grace period than they gave bikers to get used to the helmet law, which was none) didn't get them to move in any meaningful way for over nine months.
However, Praise the Lord and pass the collection plate, the CHP has finally "superseded" CHP Bulletin #34, replacing it as the guiding light of helmet law enforcement with CHP Bulletin #59.
Does this new bulletin comply with either the law or the court injunction? Of Course not. They are the CHP, and they don't have to do a damned thing they don't want to do, and they do not want to stop harassing bikers! (Assholes!)
So, don't you want to know what they did this time? Well, here it is . . .
We (the HLDL) wrote to them when this "admonish" thing showed up as a part of the instructions being given to their officers months after the injunction issued. Read the letter for yourself. If they can't "stop" or "cite" a biker because they don't like his helmet, what they Hell makes them think they can "admonish" him?
Besides, what the Hell does "admonish" mean? I'm virtually certain that there is still at least one or two cops in L.A. that will insist that that's all they were trying to do to Rodney King! (How do you feel about standing along side the road having some CHP officer "admonishing" you over his opinion of your helmet? I don't know about you, but I don't take well to being "admonished", by the CHP or anyone else. I won't stand for it for a minute! . . . and don't recommend that you do.)
But the real rip in their act is their "outline" of the injunction. Did you catch what they are trying to do?
Now, suddenly, without warning, motorcyclists are going to be held responsible for maintaining a DOT sticker on their helmet. For over four years, the CHP enforcement policy has accustomed bikers to knowing that maintenance of the DOT sticker is not required in California (or anywhere else). Now, here they come and start down that road, in a memo that, except for here, bikers have no way to know about! (The return of the "stealth 'we'll tell you with the ticket' statute"!)
The Federal Court didn't say motorcyclists had to maintain their DOT stickers. Look at the decision and look at the CHP's "outline". (In fact, the CHP policy of not requiring the DOT sticker goes back to December of 1991.) If you read only the CHP's current version of the injunction, you would think the court actually said "(does not have a DOT sticker affixed)"; but, the court didn't say that, or anything like it. The CHP's just making stuff up again!
Finally, will you please advise us if you know of any other CHP Information Bulletin that instructs officers to become informed about the intimate details of three major court decisions as a condition of enforcing a vehicle code statute? And just name one that instructs officers to "admonish" anyone . . . other than motorcyclists, of course.
For over four years, the Helmet Law Defense League has been hammering the point that this whole problem with the harassment of bikers is underpinned by the discriminatory enforcement practices of bigots with badges. Finally, here, is should become obvious to even the most sceptical of our position that the problem with helmet law enforcement practices in California resides in the ignorance and/or bigotry of the California Highway Patrol.
end