Posted on 09/25/2026 9:32:53 AM PDT by Red Badger
An 11-year-old’s ride to a fishing spot in Oviedo, Florida, ended with police stopping him, fingerprinting him, towing his electric dirt bike, and ordering him to appear in court.
Cade Kirchner, a sixth grader, was riding toward a nearby pond with his fishing pole on Labor Day, September 7.
His father, Chris Kirchner, said Cade was about 300 feet from home and traveling on the road’s shoulder.
The family says the bike was limited to 20 miles per hour. FOX 35 Orlando reported that police classified it as a motorcycle under Florida law.
They say the 4,500-watt machine has pegs instead of pedals, so Florida law classifies it as a motorcycle, not an e-bike, meaning it needs registration, insurance, a motorcycle endorsement, and a licensed adult rider.
The citation was issued under Florida Statute 320.02 for an unregistered vehicle, which requires a court appearance.
Because Cade had no driver’s license, they put his fingerprint on the ticket to satisfy ID rules. The bike was towed because it “is not legally allowed on the roadway.”
Oviedo Mayor Megan Sladek called Cade a “good kid” but said officers’ hands were tied by state definitions. Police added they could have piled on more citations and chose only one.
"The State of Florida regulates motorcycle use, and the definition of what counts as a motorcycle and what counts as an e-bike," Mayor Sladek said.
"Even if it has two wheels, if it doesn't have pedals, the State of Florida will classify that as a motorcycle and not as an e-bike."
Body-camera footage shows an officer warning Cade that he had to appear in court or “they’re going to put out a warrant.”
The hearing is scheduled for a school day, meaning the sixth grader will have to miss class. ClickOrlando reported that his father plans to ask prosecutors to dismiss the case.
According to the news outlet, Cade got his e-bike after raising $900 through his summer business selling squirrel tables.
Video via Fox35 Orlando:
VIDEO AT LINK.................
I think this qualifies me to comment on the illegal and reckless activity I've personally witnessed in my own part of town without the need for "reasonable doubt." What say you?
No sale.
That's exactly the point I'm making. The law exists for a purpose. When the law becomes its own end, it fails that purpose.
During the 60s in So Cal our bikes (pedals) had to have a permit sticker. Cost about $2 or so.
Several young children have been killed riding these things, in Texas.
How horrific for the person driving the car that couldn’t stop in time.
Hopefully, Texas laws/rider and parents’ consequences will change, soon.
There is more to the story. This part of a city-wide crack-down on illegal and reckless riding. See below.
Instead of taking responsibility, the dad is whining like a little b***h because he has to take a day off work to take his kid to court, pay a fine as well as towing and impound fees.
The city tried the carrot. The parents ignored it. Now the city is using the stick.
Dangerous riding: 'Reckless' e-bike usage leads to multiple citations for Oviedo teens
Police said teens are using these devices to travel the wrong way on major roads, using them recklessly at pedestrians, riding them into impending traffic, dodging vehicles dangerously and conducting meetups – where large groups take over roadways.
Oviedo Police's Lieutenant Adam Egert says e-bikes and e-scooters have become an increasing problem, saying, "Kids are playing chicken with cars."
‘We’re done with warnings'
On Tuesday, January 6, Oviedo Police officers issued around one dozen citations to students outside Jackson Heights Middle School. Officers monitored the teens arriving at the middle school after receiving complaints about students speeding and riding recklessly to school.
Several months prior, the department said it attempted to educate riders about using e-bikes safely by posting information online and on social media pages. However, following Christmas break, Egert said they’ve seen an uptick not only in electric scooters and bikes, but also an uptick in children driving them dangerously.
"We’ve tried education, now we’re at the enforcement level," he said. "I’d rather have a good interaction with a kid than a negative interaction with the whole family."
It could have been worse
"Many of the citations issued were written with discretion and provided less severe violations," the department said in a statement.
Each citation comes with a $116 fine, according to Egert, but the lieutenant said officers went easy on the young offenders.
"They could have handed out moving violations – as well as criminal citations for operating a motor vehicle," he said.
One of the kids officers stopped had a device capable of reaching around 50 miles per hour, Egert said. Several of the bikes stopped on Thursday didn't have pedals, the department said.
"If it has no pedals, you have to have a driver’s license. That’s bottom line," Egert said. "If it’s over 750 watts, or it can travel over 28 miles an hour, it’s not legal on the road without a driver’s license."
For some, it's a real complicated issue.
Does it have pedals?
Does it have a headlight?
Does it have a tail/brake light?
Does it have turn signals
Does it have a license plate?
Is it registered?
Is it insured?
If the answer to the above questions are "No," and stay with me here, then it can't legally be operated on the street.
It doesn't take a Clarence Darrow to determine whether a motor vehicle is street-legal or not.
Florida cops are usually smarter than that.
HATE the rage-baiting.
Cops were heavy-handed, but maybe not the first encounter, but that’s not info included in the story.
This is being framed all over the right-o-sphere as a “Bad Blue” moment full of ludicrous injustice. These writers can burn in hell with all their equally-deceptive CNN counterparts.
Parents let the kid buy an e-moto.
It’s off-road ONLY unless it’s
- registered
- operated by a licensed driver
- driver has a Motorcycle endorsement
- insured
Confusion across the country between e-bikes and e-motos is EPIDEMIC in proportion. Kids are riding both all over the place. Parents are either IGNORANT of the differences and the vastly different requirements for each, OR they’re COMPLICIT in their kids pooh-poohing the Law.
The establishment GOP studiously ignoring the ascendant far left and queer Marxists have burned my whole supply of f*^s so I’ll be giving none, here.
Kid knew the deal.
Kid coulda walked his e-moto 300ft down the road.
Copettes didn’t need to be ice bitches, but — then again — maybe this ain’t the first, uhhh... “discussion” in this series.
Either way, GP fronting the article as rage bait is just indicative of how low they’ve sunk; their credibility is in the crapper so far as I’m concerned.
Peace out.
Thanks for the extra info!
Much appreciated.
Do these cops take a stupid test to get hired?
The “more to the story” is there’s a plague of confusion all over the country as to the vast difference in legal definition as to which of these machines are “bikes” and which are “motorcycles.”
More likely than kids going too slow on the road riding speed-limited e-bikes, they’re coping with kids going too fast, ignoring traffic laws, darting through traffic on e-motos and getting themselves killed.
Had two boys on e-motos cut diagonally through an intersection in utter disregard for the traffic signal and laws of the road. If I hadn’t been turning left they’d have been picked outta my grille in pieces.
I wonder how many comments blame the cops rather than the people who wrote and passed the law…
If the answer to the above questions are "No," and stay with me here, then it can't legally be operated on the street.
Nobody is arguing that the "bike" he was riding was not legally a motorcycle, as much as you'd like it to be to satisfy your condescending tripe. Nobody is arguing that the cop shouldn't have stopped him. What is being argued is if the kid deserved to be booked as a common criminal.
This is why discretion is part of law enforcement, and always has been. Accusing a minor of "breaking the law" implies intent to do so. Was the purchaser, as a minor, guilty of infraction or was the seller by not so informing him? "Should he have known," at 11 years old? Your "case" is not much more than guilt by association. You just want the thrill of visiting punishment, when the seller of that equipment should have refused the sale. If there is anyone in this chain who, "should have known," it was that dealership. All it would have taken to establish guilt would then be if the seller had produced a signed document that a responsible adult had read and understood it on the purchaser's behalf. Frankly and in my opinion, it was an illegal sale.
Reading is fundamental.
Once again, the police tried education.
Once again, the police tried giving warnings to both the kids and their parents.
Once again, neither one worked.
Once again, it's clear that in your mind, the police should turn a blind eye to illegal and reckless behavior, just because the kid is 11 years old.
Once again, the parents and kids riding illegally thought the law didn't apply to them and the parents allowed the kids to keep riding illegally.
So now, the kid's dad found out that the police will no longer tolerate this blatant, flagrant, law-breaking.
This is why discretion is part of law enforcement, and always has been.
Once again, the police exercised discretion when they tried education.
Once again, the police exercised discretion when they gave out warnings.
Once again, neither one worked. Now, they've forced to move onto enforcing the law.
as the purchaser, as a minor, guilty of infraction or was the seller by not so informing him?
Once again, of course not. It's not the seller's responsibility to make sure the buyer knows the law or is going to be using the vehicle in a safe or legal manner. Duh!
Did the 11 year old borrow/steal his dad's truck to pick up the e-motorcycle from the dealership, or does it stand to reason that his adult father there with him at the time of purchase?
"Should he have known," at 11 years old? Your "case" is not much more than guilt by association.
Once again, you're absolving the father for not knowing the law and rules of the road before turning his 11 year old son loose on a public road with an illegal motor vehicle.
You just want the thrill of visiting punishment, when the seller of that equipment should have refused the sale.
Once again, you're blaming the seller for not informing the buyer about traffic code. The adult father is responsible for knowing the traffic code before turning his 11 year old son loose on the road with an illegal motor vehicle.
If there is anyone in this chain who, "should have known," it was that dealership.
Once again, the dealership is not the legal guardian of the 11 year old boy and it's not their responsibility to make sure the boy operated the motor vehicle in a safe and legal manner.
All it would have taken to establish guilt would then be if the seller had produced a signed document that a responsible adult had read and understood it on the purchaser's behalf.
Once again, your argument here is utter nonsense. You want to blame the seller for not making sure the 11 year old buyer knew the law while absolving the father of all responsibility.
Please answer this one question. Who should the dealer explained the laws to, the 11 year old buyer or his adult father.
To be clear. The kid was not 'booked as a common criminal.'
He was not handcuffed, placed in the back seat of a patrol vehicle, taken to the county jail, fingerprinted, had booking photos taken of him and place in lock-up until he saw a judge.
The police fingerprinted him because they have the responsibility to be able to identify a suspect. Since the kid was only 11 years old and didn't have any form of ID on him at the time, a (single) fingerprint was taken so they could identify him a later time.
When cops carried nightsticks they’d give ppl a tuneup when necessary. Everything worked out. People learned, civilization advanced. Ppl were civil to one another. Self control was a common public virtue ...because, if it wasn’t....
BAM! BAM! Out go the lights!!!
If they fingerprinted him, they took him to the County jail. That kid was very likely terrified. Taking his bike and driving him home would have been enough to get his attention. This was excessive to the point that he'll hate the police. Is that what you want? Had the officer exercised his responsibility to act with discretion and taken him home, there would be no problem with identifying him later. They printed him without parental permission. IMHO, that's a violation of parental rights when the parent is legally (and morally) responsible for the child AND his acquisition of a "motorcycle." And this brings up the real cause of this mess.
Ultimately, the problem is with the State of Florida. A bike capable of running on public roads as "a motorcycle" should be required to have all the equipment, title, license, etc. as any other motorcycle. Else, either the sale was illegal or they shouldn't claim it is one. Hence, the State is putting the regulation of buying a motor vehicle on an 11yo kid. Hell, they don't do that with cars, do they? In fact, they punishing this kid for an instance in which their lack of oversight is culpable. Get a grip.
You're so full of s**t your eyes are a deep, dark, brown.
Please, please, provide an authoritative source that says the 11 year old was taken into custody and transported to the county jail for fingerprinting.
11-year-old Florida boy arrested, ordered to appear in court for electric dirt bike
The other side: A spokesperson for the City of Oviedo confirmed the boy was stopped, arrested, and cited for riding a dirt bike in the road, but clarified that the boy's bike was classified as a motorcycle under Florida law.
"The vehicle the 11-year-old was driving was a 4500-watt motorcycle without any pedals. In order for it to be legally allowed on the roadway, it would need to be registered and meet the D.O.T. requirements for motorcycles. The driver/rider would be required to have a driver’s license w/ motorcycle endorsement. There were multiple violations where citations could have been issued, but the officer only issued one.
The officer issued one citation under Fla. Stat. 320.02 for an unregistered vehicle. The statute requires a mandatory court appearance. Fla Statute 322.15 requires drivers’ identification when they are stopped. If they do not have proper identification. The rider did not have a driver’s license, so a fingerprint was placed on the citation to comply with statute. The electric motorcycle was towed since it is not legally allowed on the roadway.
Hence, the State is putting the regulation of buying a motor vehicle on an 11yo kid.
I see that you continue to absolve the parents of responsibility for the actions of their 11yo kid.
Did you miss that the 11 year old raised $900. building squirrel tables to purchase his whip? And he had his fishing pole to go fishing? I say he is a good young man who got on the wrong side of the long arm of the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.