JonnyHK 

I agree with not just rolling over for the cops, but I also see merit in just letting them do it so that they are happy - it's not like they were going to find anything.

How about this: "Officer, I normally would not consent to a search, but since I've got nothing to hide I will waive my rights just so that you don't get all upset and so that I can get on my way quicker."

Blue Order

I hear what you're saying about it being easier to just consent and then go on your way. Who wants to be detained long by the cops as a form of coercion to get your consent?

But the problem with saying "since I've got nothing to hide" is it reinforces the notion that people who have nothing to hide consent to unwarranted police searches, and people who have something to hide do not consent. So if most people consent to warrantless (and unwarranted) police searches, and only (smart) criminals do not consent, do we live in a free society, or do we live in a de facto police state?

Is the happiness of some cop worth the loss of the last vestiges of our personal liberty?

ItsJustMe

I don't know if it's totally applicable in CA (check with a lawyer familiar with bicycle law if this looks like it'll get ugly), but make sure you read about this case, it's considered relevant in most of these cases.

https://www.cincinnaticycleclub.org/e...trotwoodvselz/

I'm pretty sure this won't go anywhere, but be careful anyway.

prathmann

That just encourages the officer to try the same intimidation techniques on the next guy. Constitutional protections aren't of much value if not used, so I appreciate the OP not consenting to a search.

EatMyA**

Really? I guess so because they dont have refrigerators? They last less though no? I didn't think about that.

About refusing to be searched. That has been covered here on the forum a lot. I felt the exact same way you do. I thought somebody must be stupid to refuse a search. But then I read the opposing debate on this forum and went to look for myself. I went online to read and watched some videos. But that was kinda confusing and not very clear at all. So I talked to attorneys and talked with police (not sheriffs), and talked with one judge. In the end it was a RUDE awakening. I made up my mind to never allow them to search me again. None of those people I talked to would ever allow a search. Not one.

You have NOTHING to gain and a lot to loose, by letting them search you. Even if you have "nothing to hide". They know the laws and how to work them a million times better than me so why give them the chance? Why allow them to ruin my life because I dont want to be contrary? This didnt even ruin my whole day. It wasn't that bad. They seemed to more pissed than me.

I'd do it again, but thats just me. You want to be searched, then thats cool too. Thats why its pretty awsome here.

Cyclist0383

Did they ask to search you before you told them you don't consent, or did you offer this up before they asked?

Blue Order

Can you elaborate?

jeph

+1 on this. Since 9/11 it seems that the police state has gotten more extreme. Certainly the trashing of civil liberties has allowed this action. From my view, the profession of law enforcement has lost a great deal of integrity. I don't think they shoudl be allowed to get away w/ this and standing up (non violently) is one way to try to "win" back our rights.

JonnyHK 

I do agree, but sometimes the practicalities just make it easier to take the "path of least resistance" just to get on your way.

I guess you have to make the decision based on the situation. How aggressive is the cop being? Will you get a ride to the police station (or a ride on a taser) for fighting for your rights? Is the guy just calling your bluff? Every situation is different.

In my past I have told plenty of cops that they were dreaming and that the answer was "no". However, Australian cops are very different to the US - you can laugh at an Aussie cop and say "seriously sunshine, I'm too old to fall for that one". I like to call the bluff sometimes and have even suggested to one really annoying cop that I would cause him more paperwork in complaints proceedures than the situation was worth - his choice.

Airport security is one area where you do what The Man says. We all know that 95% of what we have to do in airports is BS ('theatre') but we have to play along with out complaint - even if you are within your rights, the couple of hours in the back room while they 'confirm your story' or 'check your record' before letting you go with a smile is enough to make you miss your connecting flight etc.

Question the cop? Yes.
Make him justify himself? Yes.
Make a political stand that costs you at the time, even if you are technically right? Not always.

CB HI

Quite possible the cops thought they were going to get a drug bust out of the stop. They made the stop, did the search, did not find any drugs and then realized the stop was improper.

That is when they needed something to cite you with, just to cover their asses.

chipcom 

I always suspected that you were a commie, drug-running terrorist...bout time the law caught up to you, dirt bag.

Seriously, I don't know all the circumstances, but from what you have said, a decent lawyer will put this to bed fairly easily...but unfortunately not so easy on your wallet, this is America, where we have the best legal system money can buy. No money, no honey.

Ya gotta watch out for sheriff's deputies...in way too many cases they are idiots appointed via political patronage. It looks like these bozos didn't know the law very well and were pretty much trying to intimidate you into doing something they could get their little pea brains around that might stick.

In discovery, your lawyer should be able to find out who made the call that got you busted...betcha it was some connected mucky-muck...otherwise I doubt there would have been any response at all.

If you have any contacts on the job or in the DA's office, you might be able to get this thing taken care of without ever going to trial. There is a time in place to use your contacts, this may be one of them.

Good luck, Dillinger!

Square & Compas

That is not at all uncommon. He was not under arrest and was probably in the front passanger seat. In Iowa when a state trooper pulls you over for speeding they put you in the squad car when they write the ticket and to show you the recorded speed they clocked you at. I think this may be more for safety reasons then anything else. Iowa State Troppers also approach your car on the passenger side as well, again I think for safety reasons.

Square & Compas

While this is probably true, they do not have to cite you when they stop you. They can simply let you go on your way.

Febs

EatMyA**, this thread has some good discussion and analysis that may be directly relevant to your situation:

https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/503873-damn-cops.html

Also, in post 87 of that thread, there is a link to joejack's thread about a similar situation that he experienced in Delaware. While the Delaware situation is not directly relevant because the law is different, there is some useful information regarding how to contest a ticket.

kombiguy

If the police put you in their car, and you don't feel free to leave, it may very well be an "arrest." Not all arrests are accompanied by searches, handcuffs and Miranda warnings. Some are just "sit there and shut up!"

I do agree with never consenting to a search, though. Never make an officer's life easier. BTW, I am a lawyer, but not in CA or IA.

I-Like-To-Bike

I never give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who names himself "EatMyA**".

Is that the name you gave the police?

sggoodri

This is important: Your legal defense strategy should address the specific charge - impeding traffic - and not how far right you should or should not operate, unless you were also charged for not riding far enough right. These are two separate issues.

An impeding traffic charge is bogus because nonmotorized vehicles and slow motorized vehicles are exempt from the law. Period. Slow vehicles like yours are allowed to use the roadways. Some states may require you to pull over where it is safe to do so if several cars back up behind you but that doesn't apply here.

If you haven't been charged with not operating far enough right, then don't bring it up. The truth is that there are plenty of roads where drivers must slow down no matter how far right the cyclist tries to operate. The issue at hand is whether an impeding traffic charge is legal at all.

If the prosecutor instead decides to change the charge to not operating far enough right, that will require a different legal strategy. Meanwhile just focus on the actual charge.

Village Idiot

Hold on, hold. I haven't made it to the second page yet, but I know the answer to this one...

Because he has the right not to? I think that's it.

Yessir search me whenever you want.

Village Idiot

You should see all the terrorist forums I frequent and how much our community gets hassled by the police.

Did I say terrorist? I'm sorry, I meant photographers...

Square & Compas

In answer to your questions here is what I would do;
1. Digitally scan the citation.
2. Look up the traffic code for this particular circumstance, violation, etc. You need to find out what your allowed to do under the law. Especially if you think the cops were in the wrong. Make sure you're clear on this. You do not want to challenge this with out being armed with all the facts.
3. Once you have all the info. you need post about it on a blog. Get the word out on the internet about this injustice toward yourself and cyclists in general. Plaster it on every internet site you can think of. Facebook, blogger, MySpace, forums like this one, etc. Get the word out.
4. Depending on what your options and rights are to challenge this you may need an attorney. If you think you can and are allowed to fight this in court on your own do so. But go in armed with a copy of the law that says what you're allowed to do while riding on the roadways. Otherwise get the help of an attorney if you can afford one. There may even be free or discounted attorney services in your area that can help you.
5. contact your local and state bicycle advocacy organizations. Also contact the LAB about this.
6. Fight it, legally and through proper channels until you win.

Square & Compas

Ok, but if you do not consent to a search can't they still arrest you for suspicion of something? Sure it's your right to not consent to a search, but if you say no they can very well make your life harder as well. BTW the few times I have been pulled over for speeding on Iowa's interstates and was asked to accompony the officer to his car and sit in the fron passenger seat I asked if I was under arrest and was always told no.

Are you a defense attorney? What type of law do you practice?

sggoodri

Some, or most in my personal experience, police officers are more interested in public service than pursuit of confrontation.

It is possible to convert police officers to the point of view that they should serve and protect bicyclists' safe and legal use of the public roadways. However, this requires a less adversarial approach - one that keeps the disagreement friendly and allows the police officer to change his thinking without losing face. Showing respect for the police officer's motivations to uphold public safety needs to be part of the strategy. Frame the debate in terms of how the officer might best accomplish his or her goals.

Rollfast

He could've had scrambled eggs.

Let me try and make something more clear. When you operate any vehicle, bike, car or a 1965 Murray tricycle on public roadways you are subject to search or anything else required by those who operate with a LICENSE. Even if you ride a bike you are expected to follow the laws of the state you ride in. Using any manner of transportation while committing a crime leaves you open to search with a probable cause. Refusing a search is exactly what got you in this mess and cooperating would've had you home and making egg salad in a heartbeat. It isn't what you DID, it's what you REFUSED to do.

When you refuse to consent the officer(s) must then assume that there is a probable cause to search. This is not a warrant situation and if you are certain you have no reason to face trouble in the first place then why are you giving them flak? The city/county/state agents serve the interest of the community and the community expects laws for public safety to be enforced for the good of all. I can dig if somebody really was being a jerk and called the cops to harass you, possibly but get this straight.

Cops respond to reports of disorder. They are not prosecutors nor judges. You have to deal with a court now and not to prove the cops acted badly but that the charges are not valid and that the behavior of the cops had something to do with it. You refused a search that was likely reasonable and even if it WASN'T it wasn't refusable and you have to prove it wasn't reasonable in court...

To close, refusing a search is wrong. You CAN refuse but you forfeit rights you would've had otherwise. You would've been home if you hadn't tried to play lawyer with cops. Cops don't do anything but assess a charge based on their knowledge of the law. What you are actually tried for can be different or dismissed when the prosecutor or judge look the charges over.

The law does not change for your special condition unless there is a law that does so. You must do what they say and those requests can be question in a court or with an ombudsman perhaps.

I'm not going to judge you either way but it's true that you burdened yourself needlessly if everything you state is true. There is good reason for others to feel suspicious from your admitted omissions, however.

I-Like-To-Bike

Unfortunately for your plan and the OP, the "Word" and "all the info" in the only place that counts, traffic court, will include the other side of the story which may conflict with the OP and Blogosphere's "word."

High Roller

A recent similar case here in Idaho:

https://www.biketreasurevalley.org/node/391