Way back in 1992, the
Helmet Law Defense League started throwing around a catchy phrase. "No
List, No Law".
Relying on the vagueness of the helmet statutes in the various
states, and knowing that vagueness equals unconstitutional in courts
of law, HLDL invited BOLT to a summit meeting in Los Angeles. The
fruit of that meeting was a pledge by the attendees to make a
concerted, unified effort to inform the motorcycle community that the
helmet law could be taken out if challenged properly in court. A funny
thing happened on the way to the local MRO meetings. We were met with
skepticism, ridicule and accusation. Some leaders even stated that we
would never take out the helmet laws in court. The only way was
through the legislature.
Time has proven that to be a grave error on their part. But
luckily, some less controversial individuals picked up on what was
being said, and some interestingly enough, figured it out for
themselves. Case after case was brought to various venues, and some
actually were successful. For the most part, these were lower court
rulings, and again were met with skepticism. One case which went to
county court in Florida was Florida vs. Yasko. Chico had
independently taken on the battle with not much help, but a lot of
criticism, in Florida. Even though he won his case, the result was
minimized by his local ABATE chapter as only a county court
case ruling. They just didn't get it. Probably because of personality
problems with Chico, or whatever, but they couldn't find it in their
minds or hearts to realize and appreciate what had happened here.
Now over a year later, again in Florida, another insignificant
county court case has taken place. But this time, because the players
are different, it's being viewed in a completely different manner.
The Suncoast Chapter of ABATE of Florida has pursued the
fact that the helmet law is unconstitutionally vague, since there is
no list, or any way a person of ordinary intelligence could know what
helmets met the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218. Borrowing
language from now famous cases in Washington State and California, the
battle cry is precisely that which was brought to everyone's attention
by HLDL and BOLT.
On December 8, 1995, in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida,
County Court Judge Blackwood held the Florida mandatory motorcycle
helmet law unconstitutional. In dismissing the case against David
Raynal, the judge ruled that "Section 316.211, Florida Statutes,
is unconstitutional." He went on to rule that "the statute
is overly vague and fails to give the average citizen sufficient
notice of prohibited conduct."
The state's response was to appeal the decision. Since Judge
Blackwell noted that it was impossible for a person to understand how
to comply with the standard, a memo was sent out to all patrol
operations bureau personnel in Pinellas County, by Major Sam Lynn. In
the memo, he instructed deputies to continue to enforce 316.211 to the
extent that a motorcyclist is required to wear protective headgear
securely fastened upon his head. The part which followed about
complying with standards established by the department was to be
ignored. He states, "if the rider and passenger are wearing some
sort of protective headgear, it need not be D.O.T. approved."
First of all, the D.O.T. does not approve any helmets. Second,
going back to vagueness, what in the hell is "protective
headgear"? Protection from what? The cold? Bugs? The sun? Come on
Major, get a grip. Judge Blackwood ruled that the entire statute was
unconstitutionally vague. An attorney representing Frank Landry
interpreted the ruling as meaning no helmet was required to be worn,
pending the outcome of the appeal. On May 8, 1996, just such a case
came up before County Judge Radford Smith, County Court of the Sixth
Judicial Circuit. Guess what, Judge Smith dismissed the charge against
Mr. Landry, based upon the reliance of the Court's ruling in State
v. Raynal.
What this means is the helmet law in Pinellas County is
unenforceable. And this could happen statewide if pursued in court as
HLDL and BOLT had suggested, and Chico had proven. Let's not quibble
about who gets the credit, that's not important. The thing that is
important is that good advice has been given, examples have shown the
way, and yet due to petty personality differences, it takes twice as
long to get the job done, if it indeed gets done at all.
Pity some people can't swallow a little pride and remember what
we're all here for. I thank Chico in Florida for sticking with his
cause at great personal sacrifice and humiliation. I thank Attorney Ed
Alden for figuring this out for himself, taking it to court and
winning in Washington State, then becoming an HLDL Director for that
state. I thank Skip Raring for taking the Easyriders case to fruition
in California under the same premises. And most of all I thank Steve
Bianco and Richard Quigley for showing the way to do this all, despite
tremendous pressure from various quarters of the motorcycle community
in California. Especially Richard Quigley. He's arrogant,
cantankerous, obnoxious, objectionable, irritable, unfriendly, unruly,
and absolutely right about just about everything, especially about not
bowing down to the absurd 21-and-under modification language on helmet
laws. That is an HLDL and BOLT belief and opinion, not shared by other
MRO's, but certainly shared by a number of individual motorcyclists.
I personally have assisted some states in trying to get their
21-and-under modification bills passed, but went on record as
personally opposing this sort of thing. To me, it's like saying,
"I'm an artist and I need my arms, so shoot me in the foot. Not
really what I want you to do, but I can accept it." Maybe you,
but not me. Let's hang tough and go for the golden ring. Stop bargaining
with things that shouldn't be up for barter.
Pan