Advocacy & Safety - BTW, this just in...

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/98/2008/2008-Ohio-7142.pdf

The Ohio case, in which a Law Officer felt he was impeded by a pair of side by side cyclists, and pulled them over and charged them with various traffic offenses, has been dismissed by the presiding judge, who also happens to be a cyclist.

You can read the history, the charges and the judges decision in the summary above.

Now if only every driver on every road fully understood this... Sigh.

I'M LOVIN' IT!

First the California Ripper, now Deputy Dawg; might things be STARTING to turn our way JUST A LITTLE?

If things go the way most of us think they should in Ontario, we'd have a hat trick!

That is actually kind of old news, not just in. Bob Mionske talks about that case at http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s1-3-583-19000-1,00.html

The bad thing is that this happened after Trotwood vs. Selz and the cop didn't know the law. Then after the cop is taught the law by a prosecutor, he still gets it wrong! From the above mentioned article, the cop says:
"Before this case I was not very familiar with bicycles and just the controversy between the bicycle situation and the thing and I've researched it and stuff and, you know, from what I can gather, as long as they are traveling the speed limit and they're not impeding traffic, there's not traffic behind them, then they wouldn't be impeding traffic or if the cars can safely pass them, then they wouldn't be impeding traffic, and in the case of up north of Troutwood [sic] it actually goes to the point that the judge is the one to determine who was-whether or not a bicycle was impeding traffic. So I guess it's a-you would normally just write a ticket and the judge would decide if they was impeding traffic. I don't know." And Mionske's response:


It's important at this point to note that even at the hearing, after he had done his legal research, the Deputy STILL had the law wrong. In Ohio, it doesn't matter if cyclists "are traveling the speed limit," or "if they're not impeding traffic," or "if the cars can safely pass them." Not one of those conditions the Deputy addressed is the law in Ohio-in fact, the entire point of the Trotwood v. Selz case, and subsequent changes to the Ohio code, is that the conditions the Deputy cites have no bearing in any case of a cyclist or cyclists impeding traffic. The only legal metric is whether the rider(s) is/are traveling at a reasonable speed for a cyclist.
Kind of makes me want to take a bike ride down south and have some fun.

Deputy Dawg was just trying to make this new information fit in with his pre-conceived notions; after all, he's already a cop, he knows the law -- don't confuse him with the truth!

Chances are, he was cussing the judge and the prosecutor under his breath the whole time. *How DARE they disagree with him?*

I like how the cop says if the cyclists aren't impeding traffic, then they aren't! Wow, really? So, before the "learned" the law, he thought cyclists were impeding traffic even if there was no traffic, lol. That's just too funny.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/98/2008/2008-Ohio-7142.pdf

The Ohio case, in which a Law Officer felt he was impeded by a pair of side by side cyclists, and pulled them over and charged them with various traffic offenses, has been dismissed by the presiding judge, who also happens to be a cyclist.

You can read the history, the charges and the judges decision in the summary above.

Now if only every driver on every road fully understood this... Sigh.

One thing I found interesting in that brief, and I realize probably doesn't carry much weight is that the cruiser that the Deputy was driving didn't have a functioning speedometer. So how was he able to (I know his years of experience as LEO he can guesstimate how fast the defendant was going) know how fast the defendant was going? Also given that it had taken 4-hours for him to respond to a robbery that was called in earlier, why wasn't another officer dispatched to that call?

I am glad to hear that all charges against the adult defendant were dropped, what about the minor defendant?

That is actually kind of old news, not just in. Bob Mionske talks about that case at http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s1-3-583-19000-1,00.html

The bad thing is that this happened after Trotwood vs. Selz and the cop didn't know the law. Then after the cop is taught the law by a prosecutor, he still gets it wrong! From the above mentioned article, the cop says: And Mionske's response:
Kind of makes me want to take a bike ride down south and have some fun.

Makes one wonder how many other laws Deputy Dawag has gotten wrong.

Deputy Dawg was just trying to make this new information fit in with his pre-conceived notions; after all, he's already a cop, he knows the law -- don't confuse him with the truth!

Chances are, he was cussing the judge and the prosecutor under his breath the whole time. *How DARE they disagree with him?*

I was thinking the same thing, and to quote from the movie Convoy:

Sheriff Lyle Wallace aka Cottonmouth (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000308/): I am the law. Don't you understand, I represent the law.

I like how the cop says if the cyclists aren't impeding traffic, then they aren't! Wow, really? So, before the "learned" the law, he thought cyclists were impeding traffic even if there was no traffic, lol. That's just too funny.

Yep, and considering that at first that he was the only other traffic on the road why didn't he just safely pass them? I mean he was in a "hurry" to respond to a call from 4 hours to his being on the road.

Did the LEO get issued a defective equipment citation? functional speedometers are required equipment in a car, right?

Somehow, in order to teach Deputy Dawg a lesson, over a year's worth of time, thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours were spent by the defendants. As I said in a prior thread on this incident, I would have stopped sooner, and not let this incident get this far out of hand, regardless if it was going to teach someone a lesson or not. I learned long ago on when and where to fight my battles.

Somehow, in order to teach Deputy Dawg a lesson, over a year's worth of time, thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours were spent by the defendants. As I said in a prior thread on this incident, I would have stopped sooner, and not let this incident get this far out of hand, regardless if it was going to teach someone a lesson or not. I learned long ago on when and where to fight my battles.

Yup. And this was a battle worth fighting.

Yup. And this was a battle worth fighting.Yup.
Dynodonn, why do you think it was over a year's worth of time? The incident happened in August of 2008 and dismissed in December of 2008. That's just four months. Sounds reasonable to me.

Somehow, in order to teach Deputy Dawg a lesson, over a year's worth of time, thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours were spent by the defendants. As I said in a prior thread on this incident, I would have stopped sooner, and not let this incident get this far out of hand, regardless if it was going to teach someone a lesson or not. I learned long ago on when and where to fight my battles.And you could have convinced Deputy Dawg the proper meaning of the law by talking to him; RIGHT! And after you convinced him, Deputy Dawg would leave legal cyclist alone; RIGHT!:roflmao2:

At least now, Deputy Dawg will run and hide next time he sees a cyclist.:thumb:

Yup.
Dynodonn, why do you think it was over a year's worth of time? The incident happened in August of 2008 and dismissed in December of 2008. That's just four months. Sounds reasonable to me.

Ya got me on that one, misread the date. There's a lot of other things I've could have done in that four months besides rubbing shoulders with a lawyer.

And you could have convinced Deputy Dawg the proper meaning of the law by talking to him; RIGHT! And after you convinced him, Deputy Dawg would leave legal cyclist alone; RIGHT!:roflmao2:

At least now, Deputy Dawg will run and hide next time he sees a cyclist.:thumb:

I doubt that he's going to run and hide from a cyclist, maybe think twice before he pulls one over again.

"He was the first vehicle behind the two bicyclists. The speedometer in
his cruiser was not functioning and was reading zero. Deputy Hammonds was on his way
to investigate a burglary that had been called in approximately four hours earlier. He had
been unable to respond earlier to the burglary call because of problems with his regular
cruiser. He eventually obtained the vehicle he was using as a replacement at the time of
this incident."

This is where I started laughing. I stopped laughing when I read that the cop used his taser on the cyclist for not stopping.

I doubt that he's going to run and hide from a cyclist, maybe think twice before he pulls one over again.Believe me, after the crap he is getting in the cop shop for getting it handed to him by two f*g cyclist and still facing a civil suit that could cost the city big bucks for false arrest, assault, etc.; he is turning and running every time he sees a cyclist on the road.

"He was the first vehicle behind the two bicyclists. The speedometer in
his cruiser was not functioning and was reading zero. Deputy Hammonds was on his way
to investigate a burglary that had been called in approximately four hours earlier. He had
been unable to respond earlier to the burglary call because of problems with his regular
cruiser. He eventually obtained the vehicle he was using as a replacement at the time of
this incident."

This is where I started laughing. I stopped laughing when I read that the cop used his taser on the cyclist for not stopping.

Agree it was both funny and serious.

Here's a good question. Considering that his regular cruiser was down, and the cruiser he took out had a busted speedometer AND he was responding to a call that came in 4hours earlier. Why didn't they either send another unit or give him a different unit with all of it's equipment working?

Agree it was both funny and serious.

Here's a good question. Considering that his regular cruiser was down, and the cruiser he took out had a busted speedometer AND he was responding to a call that came in 4hours earlier. Why didn't they either send another unit or give him a different unit with all of it's equipment working?

Yeah, it may have been a cold burglary, but it was still a burglary and by the cop's own admission, he only wanted to talk the cyclists. He got his power challenged when they ignored him, then argued with him and what followed flowed from a bleeding ego.

Any experienced judge knows, or should, that 'disorderly conduct' = 'contempt of cop.'

Believe me, after the crap he is getting in the cop shop for getting it handed to him by two f*g cyclist and still facing a civil suit that could cost the city big bucks for false arrest, assault, etc.; he is turning and running every time he sees a cyclist on the road.

That's how you see it, and maybe many others here on BF, but I see an even more of an undercurrent of animosity toward cyclists brewing.

Believe me, after the crap he is getting in the cop shop for getting it handed to him by two f*g cyclist and still facing a civil suit that could cost the city big bucks for false arrest, assault, etc.; he is turning and running every time he sees a cyclist on the road.

One would hope that he could learn from his mistakes, but given that he is still misquoting the law do you really think that he has learned anything? If anything he may be under orders as it were from his C.O. to avoid cyclists.

That's how you see it, and maybe many others here on BF, but I see an even more of an undercurrent of animosity toward cyclists brewing.That is why the second step (the civil suit) is important. Nothing chills the cop force out, like the city getting sued. Cities tend to look towards firing cops that cost them money in lawsuits.

Especially cities that cannot afford a fully functional cop car.

That's how you see it, and maybe many others here on BF, but I see an even more of an undercurrent of animosity toward cyclists brewing.

I can diffidently see the last part being true, and hopefully as I said he is now under orders from his C.O. to avoid cyclists.

Ya got me on that one, misread the date. There's a lot of other things I've could have done in that four months besides rubbing shoulders with a lawyer.Well, I kind of doubt if that is all he did for four months. Tell the lawyer what happened and let him do the work. I would rather more people would stand up for their rights instead of letting cops and others tell them what to do even though they are being legal.

That is why the second step (the civil suit) is important. Nothing chills the cop force out, like the city getting sued. Cities tend to look towards firing cops that cost them money in lawsuits.

Especially cities that cannot afford a fully functional cop car.

And given that we know that this particular police department has at least two vehicles on the disabled list. That doesn't speak well of their maintenance department.

Here's another good question would it have taken so long to find a cruiser that was in full working if he was reporting to a more serious crime (and I'm not trying to say or suggest that burglary isn't a serious crime)?

Well, I kind of doubt if that is all he did for four months. Tell the lawyer what happened and let him do the work. I would rather more people would stand up for their rights instead of letting cops and others tell them what to do even though they are being legal.

Yep, and from reading about both this case and the Selz v Tortwood case. It sounds like both LEO's also suffered from mama/papa knows best and was imposing their view/interpretation of the law and hoping that their badge would cause their orders to be followed without question. And they are/were ill prepared to deal with someone who questioned their interprepataion of the law.

Genec, sorry for getting into the mix before thanking for linking to the actual court document. I always find that more interesting and informative than an article interpretation.

Well, I kind of doubt if that is all he did for four months. Tell the lawyer what happened and let him do the work. I would rather more people would stand up for their rights instead of letting cops and others tell them what to do even though they are being legal.

I all for more people standing up for their rights, but one generally has better results in a court of law than trying to convince an LEO on the side of the road like this incident has shown.

Wow. Great read.

It's remarkable that the police thought this guy was impeding traffic when only 2 or 3 cars were being held up, and those were likely waiting just because of the police car.

If the police was serious about enforcing an obstructing traffic offense, he should have pulled ahead and waited to see if 10 or 12 cars would have been obstructed by the cyclists. They wouldn't have been, of course, which makes my point.

Too many police are into their power. I pray the defendant sues the city for the taser shot and the local law enforcement learns something.

Sad thing is, I bet this guy was the dad of the other rider, who was a youth, and was taking the lane just to shield his son or daughter from the fast moving traffic. To have to deal with the police like that, in front of your kid, is disappointing to say the least.

Somehow, in order to teach Deputy Dawg a lesson, over a year's worth of time, thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours were spent by the defendants. As I said in a prior thread on this incident, I would have stopped sooner, and not let this incident get this far out of hand, regardless if it was going to teach someone a lesson or not. I learned long ago on when and where to fight my battles.

It's not just about teaching one cop a lesson. This case sets precedence. Every case with a good outcome makes it easier for the next. Another case exactly like this one may be thrown out either out of hand or after only a trivial presentation of the facts and precedent by the defence.

I all for more people standing up for their rights, but one generally has better results in a court of law than trying to convince an LEO on the side of the road like this incident has shown.Well, a day in court is best but did you read what the defendant had to say? The cop just told him to get off the road, never giving him a chance to pull over. The cop was just being a bully. There was nothing that the cyclist could do.


Too many police are into their power. I pray the defendant sues the city for the taser shot and the local law enforcement learns something.

Sad thing is, I bet this guy was the dad of the other rider, who was a youth, and was taking the lane just to shield his son or daughter from the fast moving traffic. To have to deal with the police like that, in front of your kid, is disappointing to say the least.Yeah too many cops abuse their power. I hope the city is sued and the cop loses his job. Maybe if the city has to pay a lot of money, they will find it cheaper and better to train their cops and not to abuse their power.

The older cyclist is not the dad. They belong to the same racing club.

VERY interesting.

Thanks for sharing.

That is actually kind of old news, not just in. Bob Mionske talks about that case at http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s1-3-583-19000-1,00.html

The bad thing is that this happened after Trotwood vs. Selz and the cop didn't know the law. Then after the cop is taught the law by a prosecutor, he still gets it wrong! From the above mentioned article, the cop says: And Mionske's response:
Kind of makes me want to take a bike ride down south and have some fun.

Good point... indeed Bob Mionske does describe the case entirely.

I got the legal brief from a different source that said it was just making it's way on the chainguard list. I saw "December" in the brief and failed to see "2008."

So this is old news. At least to those that are aware of it. I knew of the case, but not the outcome.

On a somewhat related note the Mandeville Canyon doctor case is set to go to sentencing next week... the outcome of that should be interesting. NPR did a radio piece on it last night... all of this serves to heighten the driving public's awareness of cyclists' rights.

You can hear that here. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120457877

I all for more people standing up for their rights, but one generally has better results in a court of law than trying to convince an LEO on the side of the road like this incident has shown.

And for all the cyclist knew the LEO could have been trying to tell him/them that something had fallen off their bikes.

Wow. Great read.

It's remarkable that the police thought this guy was impeding traffic when only 2 or 3 cars were being held up, and those were likely waiting just because of the police car.

Good point, it sounds like the LEO was causing more of a problem (as is the case a lot of times) then the cyclists themselves.


If the police was serious about enforcing an obstructing traffic offense, he should have pulled ahead and waited to see if 10 or 12 cars would have been obstructed by the cyclists. They wouldn't have been, of course, which makes my point.

And the only one on that stretch of road that was causing any kind of traffic obstruction was the cop himself.


Too many police are into their power. I pray the defendant sues the city for the taser shot and the local law enforcement learns something.

So do I, I hope that other's saw in the first reports on the case that the cops had left their two bicycles laying on the ground after they were arrested. And that luckily someone who knew the two took their bikes home so that they wouldn't be stolen. If they were stolen would the police be held responsible for their lose? Being as the cyclist was still on the bike when he was tased are the police responsible for any damage that might have been done to it?


Sad thing is, I bet this guy was the dad of the other rider, who was a youth, and was taking the lane just to shield his son or daughter from the fast moving traffic. To have to deal with the police like that, in front of your kid, is disappointing to say the least.

Nope, just club members who if I remember correctly had decided not to make the full ride, I think because of a ride that the two had gone on together the day before.

It's not just about teaching one cop a lesson. This case sets precedence. Every case with a good outcome makes it easier for the next. Another case exactly like this one may be thrown out either out of hand or after only a trivial presentation of the facts and precedent by the defense.

And hopefully the next LEO who tries this will be reprimanded for imposing his/her interpretation of the law.

Well, a day in court is best but did you read what the defendant had to say? The cop just told him to get off the road, never giving him a chance to pull over. The cop was just being a bully. There was nothing that the cyclist could do.

I think when I had an off-duty cop pull me over about a year ago was doing. As when he pulled me over the first words out of his mouth were "You and your bike clubs need to learn. . ." Then changed tact's and to tell me about a female cyclist with 80 or more moving violations on her bike in the last 7 or so years. He claimed that part of the reason that he pulled me over was because I was "in the middle of the lane" and that "cars couldn't pass me." Uh, we're talking a 4/5 lane road here, two in each direction and a center lane used for turning. So how could cars not pass me???


Yeah too many cops abuse their power. I hope the city is sued and the cop loses his job. Maybe if the city has to pay a lot of money, they will find it cheaper and better to train their cops and not to abuse their power.

If he doesn't get fired hopefully he'll be put on probation for a several months. And maybe having to actually research and really learn what the law is as well as having to work with local cyclists on how to ride safely?


The older cyclist is not the dad. They belong to the same racing club.

Yeah, I remember reading that in the original article myself.

I just read the magazine article. I had previously only read the judge's findings.

Makes me giggle in that the judge usually supports the police quite a bit, but here all he could force himself to say regarding the cyclist was that he was rude. The magazine makes the cop look like an idiot.

The composure of the cyclists impresses me and gives me hope they will collect a punative award from the city. The cop didn't testify to any threatening behavior or even bad language.

Interesting but sad thing is the tone of the police. They get overwhelmed with bad guys and extend that experience to everybody they deal with too often. I feel for them. Once they get away from their sworn duty of to protect and to serve, which they didn't do here, they look real bad.

"He was the first vehicle behind the two bicyclists. The speedometer in
his cruiser was not functioning and was reading zero. Deputy Hammonds was on his way
to investigate a burglary that had been called in approximately four hours earlier. He had
been unable to respond earlier to the burglary call because of problems with his regular
cruiser. He eventually obtained the vehicle he was using as a replacement at the time of
this incident."

This is where I started laughing. I stopped laughing when I read that the cop used his taser on the cyclist for not stopping.

It used to be that fleets like police, would replace vehicles every 3 years or so, considering that to fully outfit a cruiser these days is a heck of a lot more money then it used to be, and budgets are a lot tighter then they used to be, and a car can easily run for 10 years, you keep them on the road a lot longer. In most fleets, with extended life spans, they then have vehicles that are past their prime, but are still mostly functional and haven't reached their best before date. Instead it's assigned to spare vehicle status, and only used when there are no other vehicles available. The regular cruiser was out of commission, and Deputy Hammonds was assigned this particular spare.

Well, a day in court is best but did you read what the defendant had to say? The cop just told him to get off the road, never giving him a chance to pull over. The cop was just being a bully. There was nothing that the cyclist could do.



Reading the final report, it said that the cyclist had multiple opportunities to stop and address the LEO, but failed to do so. The cyclist was found by the court not legally required to stop since no violation had occurred to require a stop, but they also pointed out that the cyclist could have avoid the "ugly" situation if the cyclist had stopped sooner than he did.

Reading what final report? The one that the cop said or the account that the cyclist gave?

Reading what final report? The one that the cop said or the account that the cyclist gave?

The motion the judge granted.

It's not just about teaching one cop a lesson. This case sets precedence.Does it? I was under the impression that precedents were only set when cases went to trial and then were appealed (because it has to be a higher court.) In this case, I don't even think it went to a full trial (did it?)

Ok, wikipedia to the rescue. It wouldn't be a binding precedent (for the reasons I gave), but could be a persuasive precedent -- which isn't nearly as good, but it's certainly better than nothing.

Does it? I was under the impression that precedents were only set when cases went to trial and then were appealed (because it has to be a higher court.) In this case, I don't even think it went to a full trial (did it?)Much of the case law does come out of appeals, but so does a great deal of case law come from Motions like this even if the case never makes it to trial.

In this particular case, most of the law and case law in the decision was already well established. So, nothing earth shattering, but still a good brief to hold in front of new cops, and tell them not to be like this foolish cop.

The motion the judge granted.That's why. The defendants' side was not mentioned in that. It was dismissed just on the cop's story. The cop's story admitted that the cyclists were not breaking the law so the case was dismissed.

That's why. The defendants' side was not mentioned in that. It was dismissed just on the cop's story. The cop's story admitted that the cyclists were not breaking the law so the case was dismissed.

Yep, a case like that of the Selz v. Trotwood where the cop thought that because something was "unsafe" that it also had to be "illegal" and/or momma/father/big brother "knowing best." Or at least thinking that they know best.

What is it going to take for LEOs to learn and realize that not all "unsafe" behavior is "illegal" behavior? And that in most cases that the last one's that we cyclists need "protecting" from is ourselvs. And that they need to educate themselves and enforce the laws as they are written not as they think that mean.

Yep, a case like that of the Selz v. Trotwood where the cop thought that because something was "unsafe" that it also had to be "illegal" and/or momma/father/big brother "knowing best." Or at least thinking that they know best.

What is it going to take for LEOs to learn and realize that not all "unsafe" behavior is "illegal" behavior? And that in most cases that the last one's that we cyclists need "protecting" from is ourselvs. And that they need to educate themselves and enforce the laws as they are written not as they think that mean.

I don't believe this LEO thought the cyclists were being unsafe. I think his sole concern was that they were impeding traffic. He was clearly convinced that it was wrong to delay traffic and didn't know or still doesn't recognize that the bicyclist is traffic.

Had the cyclist pulled over at the LEO's initial request, what positive outcome for cyclists' rights would have come of it?

Does anyone really believe that this LEO would have learned the actual law on his own?

Would he have truly listened to and believed the cyclists when they explained it to him?

I imagine that most of us would not have had the stomach to go through that mess. There was risk involved in doing what he did. Maybe it was foolish, but the alternative is to continue being beaten down.

I still believe that most LEOs are generally good-intentioned individuals. The minority that aren't need to be taught lessons when they are in the wrong. If they can't learn them, they need to be fired. Why must we accept incompetance in law-enforcement?

That's why. The defendants' side was not mentioned in that. It was dismissed just on the cop's story. The cop's story admitted that the cyclists were not breaking the law so the case was dismissed.

Only because the cyclist chose not to present any witnesses or testimony. The judge and I tend to agree, that the cyclist could have done more to alleviate the end result. Personally, if LEO can stop and get out of his cruiser, I can at least stop and find out what he wants. I been stopped by LEO's several times, while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle, and the worst that came out of any of these meetings was a few minutes of my time, and the requirement of my signature.