They say: "You know, a helmet, a motorcycle helmet. Just go get a helmet and wear it! You know what we mean!"
We have asked that question hundreds of times -- in writing, in court, and in every way imaginable -- and we have never gotten a clear clean answer. The reason is that the requirement to wear a helmet does not include a specific definition (or standard) to describe what a helmet is in language which a person of ordinary intelligence can understand. For example, a speed limit sign says exactly what is expected. "Speed limit 55". What if it said, "Speed Limit 'Safe'"? How would you comply with that? Well, you wouldn't have to, because that is what's known as a "vague" statute, and "vague" statutes violate or conflict with the protections of the constitution and are therefore void, which means they don't exist. If you can prove to a court that any statute is vague, the court will deem that statute void. Cases defining the criteria by which the courts decide what constitutes unconstitutional vagueness in a statute is found many places, but the landmark case came in the United States Supreme Court Decision in the matter of Kolender v. Lawson. In Lawson the point is most clearly made: "The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest." Ed Lawson was not a biker, but he was (and is) one of America's legendary Freedom Fighters. Lawson had repeatedly been arrested under California's Penal Code for not producing "credible and reliable" identification, in the opinion of some arresting officer (kinda like the problem many of us have had producing an "approved helmet" against the opinion of some "trained" cop). Lawson said, "What's 'credible'?" "What does 'reliable' mean?" "How can I comply, with certainty , with this law?" When they failed to answer that question, but continued to arrest him, he moved into the courts for Declaratory Relief. If you have a helmet law in your state and you want to be rid of it, what you need is a decision like the one from the courts in Washington that says: " . . . regulation regarding safety standards for protective motorcycle helmets, adopted pursuant to Head Injury Prevention Act, failed to provide fair notice or ascertainable standards of types of helmets which would comply with Act and, thus, portion of Act requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets was unconstitutionally vague where ordinary citizen of average intelligence would not have known how to locate federal standard for helmets adopted by state patrol regulation and even if ordinary citizen could have found federal regulation, he or she would not have understood what was required to comply with the Act." State v. Maxwell (1994) 74 Wash.App. 688, 878 P.2d 1220 Such a decision will take out any helmet law, and all you need to do is get into court, ask the right questions and get that response; then your state will be 100% helmet law free . . . too! The foregoing is provided as educational information only, not legal advice. Since we are not attorneys, therefore they insist that we are not allowed to give you legal advice. If you need MORE "information only", get in touch and we will be happy to provide it (court cases, etc.). There are a handful of lawyers out there who can handle these cases. If we find one, we will tell you who they are. But generally we will not give the most obscene, and most frequently given, legal advice -- "go talk to an attorney." Some things we just won't do. © Copyright 1996 HLDL. All Rights Reserved. Webmaster: quig Lyle Fleming for the illustrations.
|
We say: "No, we don't know what you mean. Would you please give us a definition we can understand?" In other words: "Do you have any suggestions as to how a motorcyclist can comply, with certainty , with the helmet law?" (In some states you will need to insert "18 years and younger", or 19 or 21 or whatever, in between "motorcyclist" and "can". You get the idea.)
