thenewspaper.com
New York - US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit backs
roadblocks for the purpose of issuing motorcycle helmet tickets.
Motorcycle roadblockThe Second Circuit US Court of Appeals last week upheld
the use of roadblocks designed to detain motorcyclists so they can be issued $85
tickets when wearing unapproved helmets. Some motorcyclists object to being
forced by law to wear helmets they believe reduce their awareness of
surroundings, with objectors turning to the use of "novelty" helmets as a form
of protest. New York is one of only 19 states that currently require all riders
to wear a DOT-approved helmet.
In 2007, the New York State Police began using federal taxpayer grant money to target these motorcyclists for the express purpose of generating citations. According to court documents, roadblocks for motorcycles would be set up with the stated objective "to detect motorcycle safety violations and ensure proper registration and operator compliance with New York State's motorcycle license requirements."
The first roadblock was set up on October 7, 2007 to hit participants returning from a motorcycle enthusiast rally nearby in Connecticut. Signs were posted on Interstate 84 ordering motorcycle riders to "exit ahead" while a uniformed police officer directed traffic into a rest area. From there, a total of 280 motorcyclists were detained and forced to undergo "full-blown inspections" that generated 104 traffic tickets. The most common citation was for improper helmet.
In 2008, a total of 17 roadblocks were held, detaining 2278 motorcyclists who were issued 600 tickets for infractions that had nothing to do with safety. Another 365 citations were issued for use of an unapproved helmet. Motorcyclist Sidney Alpaug sued the state police after he was detained 45 minutes at a June 13, 2008 roadblock targeting Friday the Thirteenth motorcycle rally participants. Motorcyclists Levi Ingersoll, Ken Fenwick and Michael Wagner were detained for 30 minutes while traveling to the Harley Rendezvous event a week later.
US District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe had rejected the motorcyclists' argument that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applied to this case. To get around the constitutional need for individualized suspicion of wrongdoing before a seizure, courts have created a "special needs" doctrine that allows roadblock programs serving a particular government need. Here, the state produced statistics that showed motorcycle fatalities dropped 17 percent in the same year that motorcycle helmet ticketing increased 2175 percent, and Judge Sharpe agreed this was proof that the roadblock's primary purpose was safety.
Courts then must balance whether the government need to enhance safety is greater than the interference with individual liberty. The appellate judges agreed with the lower court's analysis that it was.
"Applying this balancing test, we conclude that the well catalogued public interest in highway safety is well served by the safety checkpoint program and outweighs the interference with individual liberty in this case," the second circuit ruled in a brief, summary opinion. "Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that there was no constitutional violation."
A copy of the summary order is available in a 15k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: PDF File Wagner v. Sprague (US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 11/29/2012)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/In 2007, the New York State Police began using federal taxpayer grant money to target these motorcyclists for the express purpose of generating citations. According to court documents, roadblocks for motorcycles would be set up with the stated objective "to detect motorcycle safety violations and ensure proper registration and operator compliance with New York State's motorcycle license requirements."
The first roadblock was set up on October 7, 2007 to hit participants returning from a motorcycle enthusiast rally nearby in Connecticut. Signs were posted on Interstate 84 ordering motorcycle riders to "exit ahead" while a uniformed police officer directed traffic into a rest area. From there, a total of 280 motorcyclists were detained and forced to undergo "full-blown inspections" that generated 104 traffic tickets. The most common citation was for improper helmet.
In 2008, a total of 17 roadblocks were held, detaining 2278 motorcyclists who were issued 600 tickets for infractions that had nothing to do with safety. Another 365 citations were issued for use of an unapproved helmet. Motorcyclist Sidney Alpaug sued the state police after he was detained 45 minutes at a June 13, 2008 roadblock targeting Friday the Thirteenth motorcycle rally participants. Motorcyclists Levi Ingersoll, Ken Fenwick and Michael Wagner were detained for 30 minutes while traveling to the Harley Rendezvous event a week later.
US District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe had rejected the motorcyclists' argument that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applied to this case. To get around the constitutional need for individualized suspicion of wrongdoing before a seizure, courts have created a "special needs" doctrine that allows roadblock programs serving a particular government need. Here, the state produced statistics that showed motorcycle fatalities dropped 17 percent in the same year that motorcycle helmet ticketing increased 2175 percent, and Judge Sharpe agreed this was proof that the roadblock's primary purpose was safety.
Courts then must balance whether the government need to enhance safety is greater than the interference with individual liberty. The appellate judges agreed with the lower court's analysis that it was.
"Applying this balancing test, we conclude that the well catalogued public interest in highway safety is well served by the safety checkpoint program and outweighs the interference with individual liberty in this case," the second circuit ruled in a brief, summary opinion. "Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that there was no constitutional violation."
A copy of the summary order is available in a 15k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: PDF File Wagner v. Sprague (US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 11/29/2012)
You can comment on Cyril Huze site about the New York Appeals Court Decision.
http://cyrilhuzeblog.com/2012/
Since the appeals court has found that there was no violation of constitutional rights,
why do I still believe there was, and why do I feel like liberty has been denied for every American?
The fact is, this absolutely was a violation of constitutional rights, and the court wants to allow this kind of violation for public safety reasons, so the court errs when saying this was not a violation.
When the court says,
“We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment DE novo, construing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non moving party and drawing all reasonable
inferences in that party’s favor.”
it should be taken as a
warning that you better be planning your case before the cop pulls you
over. The New York case was a loser from the start because - and here's
where the court COULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT - it appears no riders resisted
search and objected to any violation of their Rights at the time of the
search. They consented.
If you give me permission
to look into your private stuff, you can't be pissed at me, later, when
I find what you didn't want me to see.
