WASHINGTON ENJOINED FROM HARASSING BIKERS

WASHINGTON ENJOINED FROM HARASSING BIKERS
After being stopped numerous times by police for bogus reasons, masking for intelligence gathering on local motorcycle clubs, a Washington biker turned to A.I.M. (Aid to Injured Motorcyclists) Attorney Martin Fox, legal counsel for the Confederation of Clubs of Washington, for advice and legal assistance. Following is Marty's report on this situation;

To the Motorcycle Community: I am sending this to update you on what is happening with our lawsuit against the Washington State Patrol, the Washington Department of Licensing, and Trooper Kenneth DePretto. We sued the State and officer DePretto for a number of claims including injunctive relief, a violation of the national Civil Rights Act section 1983, a violation of the Washington State Constitution Article One Section 7, and common-law claims of false imprisonment and false arrest. The case was scheduled to go to trial on April 15, 2002. The State made a motion for dismissal of all claims by summary judgment scheduled for hearing on March 29, 2002.

At the hearing the court made a number of rulings and struck the trial date to be continued to a later time. The court granted our motion for injunctive relief and enjoined the State of Washington and Trooper DePretto from using "Biker 101" in stopping motorcyclists and in particular motorcycle club members. The court found that any fair reading of the document indicated that the procedures recommended in the outline were for intelligence purposes and harassment of bikers. The court dismissed the civil rights claims under section 1983 and under the Washington State Constitution. The 1983 civil rights claims were dismissed because of a case called Whren vs. United States which found that pretextual stops were permitted as long as the arresting officer had some traffic violation or other reason to stop the motorists that he could fall back on.

Pretextual stops are not permitted in the State of Washington under the Ladson case as a violation of the Washington State Constitution. However, a recent December 24, 2001 case called Blinka vs. W.S.B.A. found that a claim for damages is not authorized for a violation of rights granted under the Washington State Constitution. The tort claims for false arrest and imprisonment were dismissed because the judge determined that a biker could be stopped for a helmet, exhaust, or handlebar violation and that those arrests allowed the officer to check our client's driving record for violations. In our case, after the biker was stopped, the officer determined from a license check that the computer records demonstrated that his license was suspended because of violations in Oregon which, according to the court, allowed him to be arrested. The court found that the officer does not have to go beyond the computer records to verify them.

The action against the Washington State Department of licensing is still moving forward. The issue of whether or not our client's license was suspended when he was arrested still may go to trial. I am going to attempt to get a ruling from the court which will determine whether or not Oregon can impose motorcycle insurance on Washington residents as a result of a violation of Oregon law.

Obviously, this case would have been appealed sooner or later. However, it seems as if it will be appealed sooner depending on the wishes of my clients. I think we have an excellent record to go up on appeal, perhaps, even a superior record to a trial because there are no extraneous issues that could obfuscate the constitutional questions here.

This is simply a case of a motorcyclist wearing club identification who is consistently stopped by the State patrol for bogus helmet, exhaust, and handlebar violations because the officer is gathering intelligence and wants to harass clubs. The court in its oral ruling declared that he knew this was the case destined for the Washington State Supreme Court up the street from his courtroom. I believe given the current climate in the state and the fiscal issues existing in Olympia, the judge probably took the easiest way out and made a ruling that would save the state money, but he still gave us our injunction because I believe he realized how terrible Ed was treated and wanted to stop the practice. To be continued?