Last week the Idaho
Senate rejected an anti-motorcycle profiling bill that had been
unanimously passed by the Idaho House of Representatives.
The entire bill read: “No state or local
law enforcement agent or law enforcement agency shall engage in
motorcycle profiling. For purposes of this section, ‘motorcycle
profiling’ means the arbitrary use of the fact that a person rides a
motorcycle or wears motorcycle-related paraphernalia as a factor in
deciding to stop and question, take enforcement action, arrest or search
a person or vehicle under the constitution of the United States or the
constitution of the state of Idaho.”
Motorcycle profiling is a new concept
based mostly on anecdotal rather than empirical evidence. It is
generally understood to describe situations in which police contrive
reasons to stop, unnecessarily detain, interrogate, photograph and
search motorcyclists, particularly members of motorcycle clubs. Police
may stop a biker or a pack for what a police officer will later describe
as a suspected traffic or safety violation. Motorcyclists are often not
cited for the alleged violations but they are harassed and
inconvenienced as either a blatant demonstration of police power or in
an attempt to gather “gang intelligence.”
Most members of motorcycle clubs have been victimized by the practice.Polished Script
Washington passed an anti-motorcycle
profiling in 2011 and Maryland enacted a similar law in 2016 but there
has been widespread opposition to such laws by both civil rights groups
and by police in other states. Police usually oppose such laws on the
grounds that they do not profile bikers. Civil rights groups oppose the
laws because states such as Minnesota, which defeated an anti-motorcycle
profiling bill last year, do not have laws on the books that
specifically forbid racial profiling.
A host of laws, beginning with the
Constitution, already outlaw profiling. Most police forces – New York
City is the most obvious example – profile certain groups as a matter of
unwritten policy in defiance of the law. So the Idaho Senate debate
followed a polished script.
Republican Senator Patti Anne Lodge
said, “I’m concerned about the need for this legislation when there are
no complaints filed in Idaho that I can find.”
Republican Senator Dan Foreman, a former
cop, argued, “We don’t need this bill…. We already have laws on the
books that tell police officers they cannot do what we’re saying they
are doing. We cannot pull someone over for no reason other than the fact
that they’re wearing a leather jacket or riding a Harley-Davidson.
That’s against the law.”
Republican Senator Steve Blair argued
that, “A person who is stopped for probable cause who is a motorcycle
gang member wearing colors is going to take us to court…We already have a
hard enough time…This piece of legislation will give those gang members
plausible defense.”
And Senator Grant Burgoyne, a Democrat,
opposed the anti-profiling law because it was “special rights
legislation. Why just motorcyclists? The standard that’s set out in the
legislation to protect motorcyclists should apply to everyone.”
