MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – Aug 2012

Welcome, Pledge of Allegiance

Fallen Local Brothers/Riders: MOMENT OF SILENCE

  • None

Monthly MMA Membership, Announcements and Events

  • Sat, Aug 18: 2012 Protect Our Rights Rally
  • October 28: Division 1 Poker Run
  • November 24: Toy Run Pre-Party, Sacramento
  • November 25: Annual Toy Run, Sacramento
  • December 9: Swap Meet

Next Confederation of Clubs Meeting

  • North Valley - Saturday, August 11
  • Far North - Sunday, August 12

Guest Speakers / Handouts

  • TBD

Calls to Action - Last 30 days

  • US Defenders California - 7/18. Any and all motorcycle riders are encouraged to join us protesting the LA Calendar Motorcycle Show at the Calabasas Inn on Sunday, 7/22.

Confederation of Clubs - Topics of discussion

  • LA Calendar Motorcycle Show (Calabasas) Protest, Reasons to support it and implications to legislative relief.
  • Dress policies and codes of conduct issued at Santa Cruz Boardwalk and Thunder Valley Casino, calling out Motorcycle Clubs by name andcondemningtheir behavior. The establishments have cross the line into defamation of character and slander and the MBCOC will be looking at civil responses to these policies.
  • "Wearing and displaying clothing and/or accessories with gang insignias, monikers or identifications - including a specific combination of colors or symbols common of gangs as defined by the California Department of Justice - is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, vests, jackets, shirts, hats, jewelry, pants, shoes, socks, shorts or other clothing accessories or clothing strictly prohibited to the extent of containing any logo, insignia, moniker or writing associated with the Hells Angels, Mongols, Vagos, Top Hatters, Ghost Mountain Riders, Nortenos, Surenos, as well as any criminal street gang or identified associate club"
  • The Henchmen MC (Sacramento Chapter) has filed a new civil lawsuit on the Sacramento PD for harassment. An article on this in printed the July hardcopy issue of the Thunder Press
  • All the major casino/hotels in Reno have announced a "no colors" policy during Street Vibrations in Sept. Don't know if Sparks, Virginia City, etc is doing the same thing, but the idea right now is to Boycott Street Vibes complete this year.
  • Biker Lawyers claiming to work for our rights, yet sponsor 'No Colors' events here in California
  • Russ Brown - LA Calendar Motorcycle Show, Calabasas
  • Law Tigers - Born Free Motorcycle Show, Silverado
  • No updates yet on NCOM's National "End Motorcycle Profiling Act of 2013"
  • SB 435. EPA can regulate ONLY to manufacturers (title 30, sec 205 > pipes)
  • **** Section 1983 ****
  • Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code is part of the civil rights act of 1871. This provision was formerly enacted as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 and was originally designed to combat post-Civil War racial violence in the Southern states. Reenacted as part of the Civil Rights Act, section 1983 is as of the early 2000s the primary means of enforcing all constitutional rights in order to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. It effectively creates a Fourteenth Amendment action for damages (and for injunctive relief) against “Every person,” acting under color of state or local law, who deprives a person of his or her Fourteenth Amendment rights and thereby causes damage. As it turns out in Supreme Court case law, “Every person” includes state and local government officials as well as local governments themselves (but not states).
  • In real world terms, this means that whenever a state or local law enforcement officer makes an arrest, conducts a search or uses force in alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment, section 1983 is potentially implicated.

International News

NOVELTY HELMETS OUTLAWED IN CANADA

A new provincial law announced by the Ministry of Justice requires motorcyclists in British Columbia to wear helmets that show proper industry certification, such as Snell or a U.S. Dept. of Transportation sticker.

The law takes effect in July on Canada Day, and until now motorcyclists could wear anything that was sold as a motorcycle helmet, including so-called “novelty” models that are smaller, lighter and lack protective inner padding. “Many members of biker gangs and their followers wore such helmets,” noted the Maple Ridge News in announcing the policy change.

EUROPEAN UNION PROPOSES MOTORCYCLE SAFETY INSPECTIONS

The European Commission proposes to include all types of powered two wheelers into a regulation on periodic roadworthiness tests and calls for annual inspection intervals for all vehicles more than six years old, according to the Federation of European Motorcyclists’ Associations (FEMA). The measure would cost riders over 1.2 Billion Euros extra per year, with no clear benefits for anyone, says FEMA in criticizing the proposal as unnecessary and ineffective and calls for its withdrawal.

On Friday, July 13th, the European Commission published a proposal for a "Regulation on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers". In comparison to the previous regulation (Directive 2009/40/EC) powered two wheelers (PTWs) are now also included (motorcycles, scooters and mopeds) and the Commission proposes to increase the testing frequency to four years after the date on which the vehicle was first registered, then two years and thereafter annually for all vehicles.

Although the Commission claims that “8 % of all motorcycle accidents are linked to technical defects," FEMA doubts the accuracy of such figures and cites in-depth studies showing technical failures only account for 0.3% of all primary accident contributing factors. “In addition the countries in Europe with periodic testing regimes for PTWs do not show improved accident figures,” according to FEMA.

"This is nothing less than a tax on poverty for those who cannot afford a new vehicle every three years" says FEMA General Secretary Aline Delhaye. "In terms of time and money, the cost for citizens is going to be astronomical, with no benefits in return.”

National News

Under a policy announced last week, Austin police will have to obtain written permission before searching a vehicle. Officers now ask verbal permission before conducting a search. Drivers can refuse, but a police officer who suspects illegal contents in a car may detain the vehicle until a warrant is obtained.

Under a policy announced last week, Austin police will have to obtain written permission before searching a vehicle. Officers now ask verbal permission before conducting a search.
Drivers can refuse, but a police officer who suspects illegal contents in a car may detain the vehicle until a warrant is obtained.
As Margo Frasier, the Austin police monitor, noted at a news conference last week, "The public often doesn't understand you do not have to consent to a search. If an officer has probable cause, that officer will search you, but you have the right to refuse" otherwise.
The new policy takes effect next month. Drivers will be presented with a form available in both English and Spanish to sign before a search can be performed on their vehicles. Officers will be instructed to read the form to people who can't read it for themselves.

WASH, DC police chief announces shockingly reasonable cell camera policy

Washington DC - DC police chief announces shockingly reasonable cell camera policy She bans DC cops from confiscating cell cameras or harassing their owners. by Timothy B. Lee - July 24 2012, 2:34pm EDT
We've written a number of stories about police officers interfering with citizens who are trying to record the actions of police in public places. In some cases, cops have arrested citizens for making recordings in public. In others, they've seized cell phones and deleted the recordings.
The courts and the Obama administration have both said that these activities violate the Constitution. And at least one police department has gotten the message loud and clear.
In a new legal directive first noticed by DCist, Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier explains the constitutional rights of DC citizens and gives her officers detailed instructions for respecting them. She addresses a number of scenarios that have led to controversy in recent years. Don't interfere with recordings
"A bystander has the same right to take photographs or make recordings as a member of the media," Chief Lanier writes. The First Amendment protects the right to record the activities of police officers, not only in public places such as parks and sidewalks, but also in "an individual's home or business, common areas of public and private facilities and buildings, and any other public or private facility at which the individual has a legal right to be present."
Lanier says that if an officer sees an individual recording his or her actions, the officer may not use that as a basis to ask the citizen for ID, demand an explanation for the recording, deliberately obstruct the camera, or arrest the citizen. And she stresses that under no circumstances should the citizen be asked to stop recording.
That applies even in cases where the citizen is recording "from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties." In that situation, she says, the officer may ask the person to move out of the way, but the officer "shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording."
She also notes that "a person has the right to express criticism of the police activity being observed." No seizing cameras or deleting recordings
Lanier's directive addresses another scenario that is becoming increasingly common: a civilian takes a photograph or recording that a police officer believes could constitute evidence of a crime. Under Lanier's directive, an individual cop cannot take a recording device away from a citizen without his or her consent.
"Consent to take possession of a recording device or medium must be given voluntarily," she writes.
In the event that the cop believes the recording is needed for evidence but its owner isn't willing to part with it, the officer is required to call his supervisor. The device or recording media can be seized only if the supervisor is present, only if "there is probable cause to believe that the property holds contraband or evidence of a crime," and only if "the exigencies of the circumstances demand it or some other recognized exception to the warrant requirement is present."
In non-emergency situations, Lanier directs her subordinates to obtain a search warrant before accessing any information on a seized device. And, she writes, "photographs or recordings that have been seized as evidence and are not directly related to the exigent purpose shall not be reviewed" by the police.
Finally, she emphasizes that police officers "shall not, under any circumstances, erase or delete, or instruct or require any other person to erase or delete, any recorded images or sounds from any camera or other recording device. [Officers] shall maintain cameras and other recording devices that are in Department custody so that they can be returned to the owner intact with all images or recordings undisturbed."
If Chief Lanier's subordinates follow her instructions, it will not only help to avoid the expensive lawsuits that other cities have faced, it will also make for a more accountable police force. We hope that police chiefs around the country follow Chief Lanier's excellent example.
Update: The order was part of a settlement with Jerome Vorus, who sued the city after he was told to stop taking pictures of a traffic stop in Georgetown two years ago. The lawsuit was filed with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Local News

Motorcycle Accident Victim Received $31.5 Million in Lawsuit Against State of Ca

Following one of several serious injury motorcycle accidents occurring on California State Route 138, a jury recently awarded one victim $31.5 million in a verdict against California’s state agency responsible for rail, bridge, and highway transportation construction, planning, and maintenance (Caltrans). Case number CIVVS1002497, Superior Court of the State of California for the county of San Bernardino California (PRWEB) July 28, 2012
Following one of several serious injury motorcycle accidents occurring on California State Route 138, a jury recently awarded one victim $31.5 million in a verdict against California’s state agency responsible for rail, bridge, and highway transportation construction, planning, and maintenance (Caltrans).
Caltrans was held responsible for what was determined to be a dangerous roadway condition. On April 29, 2009, David Evans was riding his motorcycle when he collided with an oncoming vehicle. The collision left Mr. Evans with severe spinal cord and brain injuries that will require around-the-clock nursing assistance for the remainder of his life.
California Highway Patrol (CHP) documents showed that ten previous accidents had occurred at this location. The handling attorneys were able to convince the jury that Caltrans failed to provide sufficient protection for their client in an area that had been flagged for being especially dangerous.
According to the 2009 California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 232,777 people were injured and 3,076 suffered fatal injuries in California auto collisions. Of those injured, 13,083 were pedestrians, 12,043 were bicyclists, and 10,479 were traveling on motorcycles.

CA - DNA Collection Law Will Go Before Full 9th Circuit

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - The 9th Circuit agreed Thursday to grant an en banc rehearing over a California law that lets police collect DNA from any adult who is arrested for a felony.
In February, a divided three-judge panel found no constitutional problem with the law.
"We agree that the California DNA Act would be unconstitutional if it allowed police officers to collect DNA samples from random citizens on the street without any probable cause to believe that they committed a crime," Judge Milan Smith Jr. wrote for the majority. "In reality, however, the police cannot collect DNA without first determining that there is probable cause that the individual committed a felony."
That decision can no longer be cited as precedent now that the court has granted rehearing.
The latest two-page order notes that Judges Jacqueline Hong-Ngoc Nguyen, Paul Watford and Andrew Hurwitz did not participate in the deliberations or vote as to the rehearing.
A class of sampling subjects sued the state in 2009, claiming the collection of DNA samples constituted an illegal seizure of their genetic information and violated their due process rights. Lead plaintiff Elizabeth Haskell was arrested in March 2009 at a peace rally. She claims police told her she would be charged with a separate misdemeanor when she refused to let authorities swab the inside of her cheek, the typical method officers use to collect DNA.
Representing Haskell, the American Civil Liberties Union claimed the swab method constituted an unconstitutional search.
After certifying a proposed class, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer refused to enter an injunction in 2009. The federal appeals court's February ruling affirmed that decision, noting that "even critics of mandatory DNA sampling concede that a felony arrestee has a significantly diminished expectation of privacy."
The panel found that buccal swabs are also far less invasive than the blood tests of the past. "Moreover, California law enforcement officers typically allow arrestees to perform the buccal swab collection on themselves, further minimizing the physical privacy intrusion," Smith wrote.
The ACLU failed to persuade the court that California's DNA database is intrusive.
"Although plaintiffs use the phrase 'DNA profile' to evoke images of an oppressive 'Big Brother' cataloging our most intimate traits, the reality is far less troubling," Smith wrote. "A DNA profile contains only thirteen 'junk DNA' markers that are not linked to any genetic or physical trait. They are used only to identify the individual."
Judge William Fletcher penned the dissent, which said DNA swabs are as intrusive as the taking of fingerprints.
"The Supreme Court has twice held that fingerprints may not be taken unless there is consent, a warrant, or probable cause," Fletcher wrote. "I would apply to DNA the law that we already apply to fingerprints."
"We have never allowed the compulsory taking of DNA samples from mere arrestees," he added. "We should not begin now."

California Legislation

2012 Agenda

  • Lane Sharing Bill - See White Paper by Steve Guderian, Safety Officer, ABATE of California
  • AB 1047 - Motorcycle Only Checkpoints:Senate amendments were voted on by the Assembly on July 2nd and passed unanimously 77-0
  • The Bill was enrolled and presented to the Governor who signed it into law (beginning January, 2013).
  • AB 1890 - Toll transponders for motorcycles.

Some toll authorities are requiring motorcycle riders to have their transponders out and visible creating a safety issue. This bill will allow riders to just have them on bikers, displayed or not.

Some of the display options...

  • Rider's pocket
  • Inside a cycle net that drapes over the gas tank
  • Mount on license plate devices provide by the toll operator
  • Senate amendments were voted on by the Assembly on June 25th and passed unanimously 78-0.The Bill was enrolled and presented to the Governor who signed it into law (beginning January, 2013).
  • AB2128 - Extending longer yellow warning times at intersections that use red light cameras.

California Assembly Committee Votes for Longer Yellow Times
Legislative committee in California passes bill increasing yellow time by one second at red light camera intersections.
The California Assembly's Transportation Committee yesterday voted unanimously to lengthen yellow warning times at intersections that use red light cameras. The same legislation also reduces the cost of a rolling-right turn automated fine from $500 to $250.