MJH2

Well, that's only part of it. The 2nd District Illinois Appellate Court (which is the district that presides over cases out of the collar counties) just upheld a police officers ability to arrest a cyclist for violating a municipal ordinance. In this case, the cyclist was arrested for riding on the sidewalk and riding without a head lamp. The court ruled that violations of even these minor infractions was enough to fully arrest somebody and take them to jail pending the posting of bond (similar to domestic battery or DUI).

Synopsis of case:

"Trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence seized after police officer stopped defendant for driving a bicycle on sidewalk at night without a headlamp, defendant indicated that he had neither a driver's license nor money to post as bond, police officer discovered drug pipe on defendant's person when he searched him incident to arrest, and booking officer discovered bag of controlled substance when defendant pulled his socks down at police station. There is no requirement that police officer actually issue citation to defendant in order to conduct proper search incident to arrest or take defendant into custody; and procedure complies with SCR 526(a)."

Full text of opinion:
https://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...ry/2060798.pdf

Looks to me like if Barrinton Hills really wants to rid their town of cyclists, it won't be hard.

pacificaslim

The point of that isn't that cops will be out there arresting and charging people for bicycle violations. It's that when they see suspicious people on bikes, they can "arrest" them for violations in order to thereby have the legal right to search the person and find their drugs. They don't really care about the bike violation - they are fishing for more serious stuff.

Of course I'm all for personal rights and don't like this ploy to gain search access. But normal looking cyclists shouldn't fear getting searched because of this new ruling. I don't think it changes things for anyone except people in high crime areas who might be profiled as drug offenders.

MJH2

Actually, no. The point is that they can arrest cyclists (if they choose) for MUNICIPAL cycling ordinances and then do a search pursuant to arrest.

It has nothing to do with high crime or not high crime. It has everything to do with giving the police the discretion to use this authority in any manner they see fit. If, for instance, Barrington Hills wanted to "discourage" cyclists from riding there, it can force the issue by arresting cyclists and forcing them to either be jailed or post bond.

I ride dressed up by both a "normal" looking cyclist and a not-normal looking cyclist. I've ridden in "low crime" and "high crime" areas (including through the same city- Aurora- where the stop in that case took place). Under your reading of the case, I should or should not care?

devildogmech

Ok, wait.....

On these boards, people are usually "screaming" for the right to "take the lane" and to be considered a vehicle just the same as a car. This knucklehead was NOT taking the lane, riding like a bike ninja and was probably endangering pedestrians by riding on the sidewalk..... Sidewalks are for WALKING, right?

Is it bogus that he was arrested for this? Yep.... but if you don't do stupid/ illegal stuff, you shouldn't have a problem. I bet if that had been me (A very clean cut, well spoken white type person) I doubt I would have gotten anymore than a "get off the sidewalk!" from the cops.... The cops probably had a feeling about this guy (seems they were right) and used the law to their advantage..... I don't see the problem.

JMHO

CyLowe97

so now it's driving a bicycle?

So was there some sort of operating a vehicle under the influence thing at work here, as well?

Only if they find ColorChange's dime bag when searching his jersey pockets...

Psimet2001 

Last I knew he had it hidden under his man boobs.

Wanderer

I live reasonably close to here, and was born and raised in Aurora. I ride in Aurora, a lot.

Funny thing is: the only place it is illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk, in Aurora, is the downtown area, by ordinance. This is a residential neighborhood, in a bad part of town.

I have seen the bike police ride on the sidewalk downtown, to avoid riding the wrong way on a one way street, just cruising, side by side.

Since he wasn't breakng any laws, and wasn't in the street, where a light would be required, I'm puzzled by the ruling........

Am I glad another gang banger is being hassled, you bet.

I'm just puzzled that the perps lawyer didn't bring that up........

ColorChange

Brutal! ... BRUTAL!

I only carry paper money ... dimes weigh too much.



OK OK,
I have a special storage area in my aero downtube ... why else do you think I went with Cervelo

baron von trail 

Seems to me that the problem was two-fold. One, the cyclist violated municipal code by riding on sidewalk, plus no headlight. And, more importantly: He had no ID or cash bond with him.

I am no fan of the Gestapo, trust me there. But, what is a cop to do if he cannot verify the identity of the person to whom he is issuing a citation. Also, the court ruling reads as though the defendant may have been in the clear if only he had the cash bond with him.

The question to ask is, given exact same circumstance, could the officer have legally arrested someone who had proper ID or cash bond?

Here in Ohio we do not get arrested for minor drug offenses such as the possession of marijuana and or drug paraphernalia. We would only be issued a ticket. However, proper ID is required for almost all encouters with law enforcement, if one wishes to avoid being detained and searched.

"Free Country" does not really apply in our current reality.

MJH2

The answer to that question is: Absolutely.

The ability to do a "search incident to arrest" is independant of one's ability to post bond. Even when a person posts bond, they're subject to a search incident to arrest, or an inventory search (even, sometimes, if they aren't formally arrested and booked). Failure to carry ID doesn't really matter as far as justifying the search, as it's not against the law to wander about without an ID.

The interesting thing (to me, anyway) about this case is that they've upheld the goverment's ability to search you if you're being cited for a minor/municipal violation. How far does that extend? Arrested for not wearing a seat belt? Absolutely. Arrested for failure to keep your lawn at an appropriate height? Who knows.

The fun thing (in Illinois) is that we actually have a little known laws on how to turn left on your bicycle, and that your bike must have a seat. Seems nearly every cyclist could have been subject to arrest at one time or another.

Here:

§ 11-1510. Left Turns. (a) A person riding a bicycle or motorized pedalcycle intending to turn left shall follow a course described in Section 11-801 or in paragraph (b) of this Section.

(b) A person riding a bicycle or motorized pedalcycle intending to turn left shall approach the turn as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway. After proceeding across the intersecting roadway to the far corner of the curb or intersection of the roadway edges, the bicyclist or motorized pedalcycle driver shall stop, as much as practicable out of the way of traffic. After stopping the person shall yield to any traffic proceeding in either direction along the roadway such person had been using. After yielding, the bicycle or motorized pedalcycle driver shall comply with any official traffic control device or police officer regulating traffic on the highway along which he intends to proceed, and the bicyclist or motorized pedalcycle driver may proceed in the new direction.

(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Department and local authorities in their respective jurisdictions may cause official traffic-control devices to be placed and thereby require and direct that a specific course be traveled by turning bicycles and motorized pedalcycles, and when such devices are so placed, no person shall turn a bicycle or motorized pedalcycle other than as directed and required by such devices.

patester242002

Pretty sure that bicycle riding on sidewalks is illegal in all of Aurora unless you're 12 yrs. old and under. This is a very old ordinance dating back some 40 years. Not sure if they enforce it much outside of downtown area as i've ridden on the sidewalk especially along Odgen Ave., New York St., McCoy Dr. and others nearby Fox Valley Mall. As for the person who ended up arrested, he would of got off easy if he wasn't hiding drugs and hanging around in a bad area after dark.

cyclpsycho

Yeah, try to convince the yahoo in the pick-up truck of that one

liv_rong

Im almost positive this is a state law, but am unsure of the actual age requirements. The chances of you getting a ticket for it though is very low.

Sage23

I don't understand the concern here over this being a municipal matter. Up here in the land of Cheese and Beer arrests for municipal ordinance violations are common place. Admittedly, in a situation like the one described in the case you'd probably just get the ticket on the scene, but the office COULD arrest. The arrest decision would likely be based on how much of a d*ck the guy was being.

droobieinop

It did likely have a lot to do with his attitude, although I was being passive when I got popped like 12 yrs ago before going to college in ohio. all things considered, I had been drinking, but...

The thing that always gets me going is that there is a difference between a cyclist and a pedestrian with a bicycle. Most "cycling" deaths involve the latter, and activist groups are usually cyclists.

In this case it would seem that a pedestrian with a bike was trying to invoke the rights of a cyclist ala L.A.W., but was seen for what he likely was, (insert your choice of offense...a trouble maker, thug, dealer...). However, that does not mean that all people with bicycles won't now be targets.

CastIron

A little sense from the home of the Terry Stop.

Frankly it sounds like a bored suburban cop yanked the chain of some hippie sullying his burg. I'm not a fan of either side in those circumstances. The fact that the dude was on a bicycle means little to most of us.

And this is a surprise to anyone? SCOTUS has pretty much murdered personal freedom lately.

MJH2

Agreed. But the fact that it allows the local police to go through a full-on arrest for a municipal cycing violation should be of passing interest (at least) to those potentially affected by the new Barrington Hills laws.

Riding double file could now (potentially) earn a trip to lock-up if the Village wants, and the officers are willing to do all of the included paperwork.

MJH2

Yes, and your state is a lot more restrictive than most in that sense. Most states don't require you to pull out a credit card when you get a speeding ticket.

tzracer

Only for FIBs pulled over by state troopers

AFAIK county sheriffs don't take credit cards, just the state patrol. Anything in excess of 15 over the limit is an arrestable offense in beer and brat country.

CastIron

Life behind the cheese curtain. It is, odd as it may seem, one of the reasons I put very few tourism dollars over there. It's like driving to West Berlin back in the day: make no stops, cause no fuss, until you reach Chicagoland.

I have to wonder though: at what point does the average Joe decide he isn't going to go and has the ability to make it stick? That's the whole reason you don't up the ante on petty $hit.

timmyquest

My suggestion would to try not look like a crack head on a bike in the middle of the night.

black_box 

can the cops pull up your photo and info in their car if you happen to have your drivers license number memorized?

CastIron

They can look you up with just a name and get your DL pic and full data.

timmyquest

Which is why i've always wondered why it is still illegal to not have it on you when driving.

MJH2

Not all police departments have the fancy computers. Some of them are still writing reports with a pen.

And, it's only a petty offense to not have the physical license with you.