After receiving a ticket for a beanie styled helmet along with my friend Mario Pikus, I explained to the Beverly Hills Court at arraignment that my helmet was DOT stickered at time of purchase and that it was my understanding that the helmet was in compliance. The case was properly dismissed right there at arraignment.

I filed a complaint against the issuing deputy, Deputy Porche, with his superiors at the West Hollywood Sheriff's Station with the help of Mike Osborn, PAC Chairman - ABATE. The complaint stated that Deputy Porche was enforcing the helmet law prejudicially and improperly thus violating civil rights on the basis that he was not abiding by the Buhl, Bianco and Easyriders court decisions and that he did not have "actual knowledge" that we were in non-compliance of the helmet law. Further, Deputy Porche never even touched or inspected our helmets and only saw them from across a busy 4 way street (not that roadside inspection can determine compliance, see Roadside Inpsection - Debuncted.)

Since Deputy Porche has a local reputation of writing many helmet tickets and had written 2 previously to Mario, which had been dismissed, Oz explained to the Sheriff's Legal Department that they could comply with the Easyriders Injunction voluntarily or that a similar law suit could be brought a court near them real soon...

We were right. The Law was on our side. We knew it; they knew it. Logic prevailed...

The result of the complaint was "Indexed Briefing 96-2", which was issued county-wide (see below):

DATE: November 7, 1996

FROM: LEE C. McCOWN, CAPTAIN
Risk Management Bureau

TO: STATION COMMANDERS
FIELD OPERATIONS REGIONS

ATTENTION: TRAFFIC SUPERVISORS

SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SERVICES DETAIL - INDEXED BRIEFING 96 -2

RE: MOTORCYCLE HELMENT Law 27803 (B) - VC ENFORCEMENT

A recent decision by the California Court of Appeals provided a clarification in the enforcement of Vehicle Code section 27803 (b) pertaining to traffic stops and citing of riders for helmet law violations.

In Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. vs. Maurice Hannigan August 19, 1996, the issue was addressed regarding the California Highway Patrol's violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights against improper search for helmet DOT safety standards compliance. The court held that an officer making an investigatory stop does not need reasonable suspicion of the rider's actual knowledge of helmet non-compliance providign other factors, including helmet appearance, establish sufficient reasonable suspicion. However, if the officer discovers helmet non- compliance but does not have articulable objective, and reasonable inferences to support a suspicion that the motorcyclist actually knows of the non-compliance the motorcyclist may not be cited. A written warning that the helmet does nor comply is appropriate.

TSD 96-2
LCM:PSR