Advocacy & Safety - He's not obstructing traffic, he IS traffic (ing).

From today's Buffalo News...

A 38-year-old man accused of obstructing traffic and riding his bicycle in front of a Buffalo police car later was arrested and accused of possessing a loaded handgun, some crack cocaine and marijuana, Central District police reported.

Police said Jose G. Olds was riding his bike west on Bryant Street at about 9:40 p. m. Wednesday, creating a public annoyance by disrupting traffic and riding in front of the patrol car. Officers arrested him on nearby Norwood Avenue, where they said they recovered an automatic handgun, 12 small plastic bags of crack cocaine and some marijuana.

Officers Brian Britzzalaro and Robert Eloff and Lt. Robert Rosenswie charged Olds with weapons possession, criminal possession of a controlled substance, marijuana possession and disorderly conduct, according to police.

I'd bet that the "obstructing traffic" was much bigger than simply riding his bicycle. You can obstruct traffic while driving a car. While I completely agree that bicycles ARE traffic, this is not a case worthy of being an example.

I'd bet that the "obstructing traffic" was much bigger than simply riding his bicycle. You can obstruct traffic while driving a car. While I completely agree that bicycles ARE traffic, this is not a case worthy of being an example.

Agree that this is not a cause that we should jump on, and the excerpt does not give many details, but were I Mr. Olds's lawyer, I would be questioning the stop that resulted in the discovery of the weapon and drugs. If he was simply 'riding down the middle of the road', there is a good chance that he was not violating any law, which means that there was no probable cause to stop him. The case in Ohio (Link here (http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/98/2008/2008-Ohio-7142.pdf) ) had a similar case where a cyclist was told to pull over by a police cruiser since he was 'impeding traffic' the cyclist did not pull over, and eventually the police officer forcibly stopped him, used a taser on him, and charged him with a whole variety of things including resisting arrest, disorderly conduct etc. The court threw out everything since the judge determined that the officer had no right to ask the cyclist to stop in the first place, so anything that happened after that as a consequence of the illegal stop was supressed.

... The case in Ohio (Link here (http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/98/2008/2008-Ohio-7142.pdf) ) had a similar case where a cyclist was told to pull over by a police cruiser since he was 'impeding traffic' the cyclist did not pull over, and eventually the police officer forcibly stopped him, used a taser on him, and charged him with a whole variety of things including resisting arrest, disorderly conduct etc. The court threw out everything since the judge determined that the officer had no right to ask the cyclist to stop in the first place, so anything that happened after that as a consequence of the illegal stop was supressed.

I remember this case (I think)

There was a thread discussing it and a link was given (http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s1-3-583-19000-1-P,00.html) that described it. (if this is the same story)

I HATE the new search function because I can't find the thread I was taking part in discussing this incident. We stopped discussing the issue because everyone agreed what happened would, in due time, be revealed. It was pointless to discuss what we thought happened. Now that we have the courts findings, it'd be interesting to read what we thought and compared it to what the court found.

It seems as though the cyclists version of the story was accepted by the court.

Does anyone have the link to the thread where we discussed this?