Catch us live on BlogTalkRadio every



Tuesday & Thursday at 6pm P.S.T.




Tuesday, February 17, 2015

California's Motorcycle Anti-Profiling Bill. Introduced by Assembly Member Ken Cooley, Co-Authored by 5 Republicans and 3 Democrats



OFF THE WIRE

 Now, the work begins. Like, Share, Ask what YOU can do to get involved and help this bill pass.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/…/ab_334_bill_20150213_introduced…

California Legislature—2015–16 Regular Session

Assembly BillNo. 334


Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley

(Coauthors: Assembly Members Achadjian, Chávez, Gallagher, Gray, Olsen, Perea, and Wagner)

February 13, 2015


An act to add Section 13519.17 to the Penal Code, relating to the profiling of motorcycle riders.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 334, as introduced, Cooley. Peace officers: training: profiling of motorcycle riders.
Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training in the Department of Justice and requires the commission to adopt rules establishing minimum standards regarding the recruitment of peace officers. Existing law requires the commission to develop guidelines and implement courses of instruction regarding racial profiling, handling domestic violence, hate crimes, and human trafficking, among others.
This bill would require the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to ensure that the profiling of motorcycle riders is addressed in the course of basic law enforcement training and offered to law enforcement officers in conjunction with existing training regarding profiling. The bill would require all local law enforcement agencies to adopt a written policy designed to condemn and prevent the profiling of motorcycle riders and to review and audit any existing policies to ensure that those policies do not enable or foster the practice of profiling motorcycle riders. Because this bill would impose additional duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
P2    1

SECTION 1.  

The Legislature finds and declares all of the
2following:
3(a) Millions of Americans ride motorcycles. They may commute
4to work on a motorcycle or ride for pleasure after work and on
5weekends.
6(b) A prominent motorcycle organization, the American
7Motorcycle Association, has over 215,000 members. Their
8members are on average 46 years of age.
9(c) There are approximately 2,700 motorcycle schools across
10the United States recognized by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.
11Of these, 130 are located in California, where the Motorcycle
12Safety Foundation contracts with the California Highway Patrol
13to administer the California Motorcyclist Safety Program. The
14curriculum of motorcycle schools in California is typical, consisting
15of approximately three hours of online instruction, five hours of
16classroom instruction, and 10 hours of instruction on the
17motorcycle range. Fees for these schools range from $250 to $350,
18inclusive, and the failure rate is around 13 to 15 percent, inclusive.
19(d) Since its inception in 1987, Motorcycle Safety
20Foundation-authorized schools in California have educated 900,000
21Californians in motorcycle safety, including 62,000 in 2013.
22(e) A rising number of older Americans have begun riding
23motorcycles. For instance, a 2011 Wall Street Journal article,
24“When Heaven Is a Harley: The 50-plus crowd is having a belated
25romance with motorcycles” focuses on the increased interest in
26motorcycling among older Americans.
P3    1(f) According to the Department of Motor Vehicles, Californians
2over 50 years of age constitute 47 percent of the nearly 1.4 million
3Californians licensed to operate motorcycles. Nationally, the
4average age of motorcycle owners rose from 33 to 40 over the past
510 years.
6(g) One observer of the trend toward older beginner
7motorcyclists has said, “A lot of them say they were just too busy
8with careers and kids until now, and they’ve reached a point in
9life where they want to try something different.”
10(h) An older proponent of motorcycling has described
11motorcycling’s appeal as a “really good feeling similar to downhill
12skiing, effortlessly moving through the fresh air.”
13(i) Additionally, motorcycles are more fuel-efficient than cars
14and a shift to motorcycle commuting may potentially reduce traffic
15congestion and emissions, thereby aligning with California’s goals
16under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB
1732) to reduce the transportation sector’s carbon footprint.
18

SEC. 2.  

Section 13519.17 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
19

13519.17.  

(a) The Commission on Peace Officer Standards
20and Training shall ensure that the profiling of motorcycle riders
21is addressed in the course of basic law enforcement training and
22offered to law enforcement officers in conjunction with existing
23training regarding profiling.
24(b) Every local law enforcement agency shall adopt a written
25policy designed to condemn and prevent the profiling of motorcycle
26riders and shall review and audit existing procedures, practices,
27and training materials, to ensure that they do not enable or foster
28the practice of profiling motorcycle riders.
29(c) For purposes of this section, “profiling of motorcycle riders”
30means using the fact that a person rides a motorcycle or wears
31motorcycle paraphernalia as a factor, without any individualized
32suspicion of the particular person, in deciding to stop and question,
33take enforcement action, arrest, or search a person or vehicle, with
34or without legal basis under the California Constitution or the
35United States Constitution.
36

SEC. 3.  

If the Commission on State Mandates determines that
37this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
38local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
P4    1pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
24 of Title 2 of the Government Code.