Calif. Court OKs Traffic Arrests{California Supreme Court }

http://www.abcnews.go.com ^ | March 4 2002 | AP

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

S A N   F R A N C I S C O, March 4 —

The California Supreme Court on Monday upheld the arrest of a bicyclist for not having identification when he was pulled over for pedaling in the wrong direction on a one-way street.

The ruling upheld a state law allowing officers to arrest and search vehicle-code offenders who do not have identification. The infraction is punishable by a $100 fine.

The decision "is probably the price we're paying for 9-11," said Richard Fitzer, attorney for defendant Conrad McKay, referring to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The justices, ruling 6-1, also said the methamphetamine an officer found on McKay after his arrest in Los Angeles County could be used against him in court. McKay was sentenced to nearly three years after pleading guilty to a drug charge.

The high court followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April that validated a Texas motorist's arrest for not being buckled up, a 5-4 ruling that said police can arrest and handcuff people for minor traffic offenses.

"We conclude, in accordance with the United States Supreme Court precedent, that custodial arrests for fine-only offenses do not violate the Fourth Amendment," Justice Marvin R. Baxter wrote for the majority.

[Terridan]

Not to mention, that these idiots on bikes go out of their way to cut in front of your vehicle, run people down, and win lawsuits against you for hitting their stupid a##es! Ban them from the cities!!!!!!!!!!!!! I saw one lose against a city bus though....incredible, but really they think here in San Francisco, that the traffic laws do not apply to them, so that's why I lose it, sorry ;)

[Demidog]

I think sadly some of us do. I know for a while I did. He might even be on our side given the cartoonish posts he makes and the outrage he's instilling. He's doing a pretty good job of winning converts to our way of thinking. If he IS serious I hope he posts alot more. I keep hearing from those I argue with that there just aren't people like him. I hope he gets tons of exposure.

[VA Advogado]

The search was predicated upon his inability to present ID, not upon riding the wrong way on a one way street.

You can't possibly be this stupid.

[VA Advogado]

LOL. You are a cartoon. I hope you don't expect people to take you seriously.

Sorry dog. I got a court, a LEO and the constitution behind me. Show me your cards?

[hoosierham]

Well summed.

[willyone]

I think it was two or so years ago that they tried to give a guy on horseback a DUI. I think it was thrown out because the judge said that the horse was sober and that was what mattered. There may be a new law dealing with events like this. Real concern drunk horseriding. Our masters have too much free time on their hands.

[Demidog]

You most certainly don't have the constitution behind you. And I suppose that when the Supreme Court ruled that blacks in America were not citizens and therefore didn't have any human rights you agreed with that too eh? LOL.

And if the court were to say today that all Jews can be gassed, you'd claim you had the constitution and the courts behind you as well right?

Avacado you are so easy to refute. You are a cartoon. You can't possibly be serious.

[Navy Patriot]

Being a FReeper means never having to say your sorry. You hit dead on in every point of your post.

I guess we'll just have to live with SF bicycle behaviour, but there is one comforting thought: No matter how much these bicyclists sue, the judge can't take away their Darwin awards.

[VA Advogado]

My first statement "At the time he was stopped he was in the process of committing a violation of law (riding the wrong way on a one way street)."

My second statement "You can't possibly be this stupid"

You never answered my second question.

[VA Advogado]

Show me your cards Dog. You bring NOTHING to the table in this debate. Put up or shut up.

[Demidog]

I'm too much for you Wile E Coyote. meeep meep.

[Demidog]

You never answered my second question.

That wasn't a question. It was a statement. Didn't do well in English eh? Better or worse than you did in Civics?

[Ajnin]

LOL

[GregoryFul]

Or a pack of cigarettes that goes for $30? Well, the rights we have lost in the war on drugs can make all of this happen.

Shortly, we will see a new War -- on smuggling cigarettes, don'cha know. Government at work, creating the "problems" that it will then "solve", by massive new initiatives costing massive $, and imposing even greater control over the sheeple.

How come we are not on to the game?

It is a small jump from having a bicyclist carry "papers" to having a stroller carry "papers" -- same justification.

In California, do they arrest tricyclists for not wearing a helmet yet? Do they beat them over the head for carrying on in such a reckless fashion?

Do they shoot smokers yet?

[krb]

I am more than willing to pay tax dollars to see these druggies taken out one at a time.

It's good that being a fool is not illegal, because I know you mean well.

[rockfish59]

most of the bicyclists there are a bunch of @$$holes anyway.
ever see their antics on 'critical mass' fridays?