Trial Sept 17, 2012 @ 3pm City of NLV

usmcmustang · Sep 10, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
you generally can record a traffic case .. just ask the judge, he should have no objections....file a request to record .. if the judge turns you down, then plead not guilty and ask for a continuance to get a lawyer (then show w/o a lawyer next time and request again).

Also, most helmet laws have been found unconstitutional. Unlike the goofy notion that seatbelts (courts have ruled because they aid in control of the vehicle -- helmets dont do anything in this regard) are constitutional.

The cops was looking for illegal stuff in your purse, well beyond his authority ... you should have objected .. but you already knew that I think ..

Also, check state law .... a ticket may be required to be replaced with an information, upon demand to the DA. If so, do it!

The cop wasn't too bad .... IMO

Not in North Las Vegas Municipal Court. By the order of the Judges who sit on the bench in that court, NO ELECTRONIC devices of any kind may be brought into the BUILDING... not just the courtroom... the BUILDING. TL has already once been threatened with arrest by a City Marshal for attempting to do just that.

Pretty much over TL's dead body.

No, most helmet laws have been upheld AS constitutional in most of the states that have them... Nevada being one. Any "fight" using those grounds is a loser.

TL ain't lookin' to get her ticket "replaced"... she's lookin' to fight the damn thing and air her grievance and the grievances of all riders who believe being "lawed" into wearing a helmet is a violation of her/their personal freedoms. Further, that the means by which law enforcement attempts to enforce the helmet law IS unconstitutional, violating the 4th and 14th Amendments.

usmcmustang · Sep 10, 2012

jdholmes said:
I really don't see that...

I also don't see why you thought you could plead the fifth on some of the things legally required of you...

...or why you put up a fuss about consenting to him looking at your VIN...he doesn't need consent to look at something in plain view, same as looking at your helmet from outside the case..."I don't even consent to you looking at it?". Funny...

... you are welcome to your opinion of course, everyone is.

One doesn't CONSENT to anything a cop "asks" you. Cops are trained to "ask" for a whole bunch of $hit, no matter if one is "required" by law to consent. But once consent is given, it puts a big smile on their face and you're screwed. Best to always affirmatively NOT consent and then exercise 5th and demand an attorney if $hit gets really intense. And the thing about the VIN on a motorcycle... I've seen a lot of motorcycles and the VIN certainly ain't in plain view. Sometimes one needs a road map to find it and then a big magnifying glass to read it.

MAC702 · Sep 10, 2012

I just checked my calendar. I will be attending a class at Front Sight. Not that I need it, but it was free from a fellow sponsor of the Nevada Shooters forum, so I helped fill out the class. I'm actually looking forward to a few drills. But if I was going to be in town, I would have been there. Damn. Sorry.

TigerLily · Sep 11, 2012

sharkey said:
Why are you pleading the 5th and license and registration?

Yes, that was dumb on my part. Since I have a habit of talking too much I went too far the other way, at least initially.

TigerLily · Sep 11, 2012

jdholmes said:
I really don't see that...

I also don't see why you thought you could plead the fifth on some of the things legally required of you...

...or why you put up a fuss about consenting to him looking at your VIN...he doesn't need consent to look at something in plain view, same as looking at your helmet from outside the case..."I don't even consent to you looking at it?". Funny...

... you are welcome to your opinion of course, everyone is.

I'll have to exercise every bit of discipline NOT to disclose my poker hand.

TigerLily · Sep 11, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
The cop wasn't too bad .... IMO

If you mean cops that lie, bully, and break their oaths to the constitution are not "too bad," then okay.

FallonJeeper · Sep 11, 2012

I saw a couple instances where officer friendly was trying to bond and share. He's also a biker, and doesn't wear a helmet in Arizona, and he liked your holster.

Nice try officer friendly.

TigerLily · Sep 11, 2012

FallonJeeper said:
I saw a couple instances where officer friendly was trying to bond and share. He's also a biker, and doesn't wear a helmet in Arizona, and he liked your holster.

Nice try officer friendly.

LOL. Obvious officer tactics in a lame attempt to get their victim to "open up."

I'm thinking Mr. McBeth would appreciate the fine-feeling lube before getting the proverbial.... you know what.

Yard Sale · Sep 11, 2012

If one of these guys ever hands me one of those electronic devices, I'm going to take it and say, "Gee thanks, I'll bet I can get a few bucks for this at the pawn shop!"

mbogo470 · Sep 11, 2012

Was that a-hole browsing through the entire NRS and NLV codes & ordinances looking for something else to ticket you for?

mbogo

TigerLily · Sep 11, 2012

mbogo470 said:
Was that a-hole browsing through the entire NRS and NLV codes & ordinances looking for something else to ticket you for?

mbogo

Yes, he was a piglet. In the future I will demand a search warrant if a cop fears my weapon and is too chicken to let me go through my own purse to get my DL out. He made it clear he had up to one hour to keep me there. I made it clear I had four hours worth of video. Can I get an "oink?"

jpa · Sep 16, 2012

TigerLily said:
No such thing as "DOT-approved" in any state.

It's not approved by the state DOT but by the federal DOT. They have this logo on the back

NRS 486.231 Protective headgear and glasses: Standards; when use required.
1. The Department shall adopt standards for protective headgear and protective glasses, goggles or face shields to be worn by the drivers and passengers of motorcycles and transparent windscreens for motorcycles.
2. Except as provided in this section, when any motorcycle, except a trimobile or moped, is being driven on a highway, the driver and passenger shall wear protective headgear securely fastened on the head and protective glasses, goggles or face shields meeting those standards. Drivers and passengers of trimobiles shall wear protective glasses, goggles or face shields which meet those standards.
3. When a motorcycle or a trimobile is equipped with a transparent windscreen meeting those standards, the driver and passenger are not required to wear glasses, goggles or face shields.
4. When a motorcycle is being driven in a parade authorized by a local authority, the driver and passenger are not required to wear the protective devices provided for in this section.
5. When a three-wheel motorcycle on which the driver and passengers ride within an enclosed cab is being driven on a highway, the driver and passengers are not required to wear the protective devices required by this section.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 1469; A 1973, 1194; 1975, 1083; 1979, 857; 1985, 1959)
NRS 486.241 Protective headgear and glasses: Sale or distribution.
1. A person shall not sell, offer for sale or distribute any protective headgear, glasses, goggles or face shields for use by any drivers or passengers of motorcycles or transparent windscreens for motorcycles unless the equipment is of a type and specification meeting the standards therefor adopted by the Department.
2. The provisions of this section do not prohibit the sale of protective headgear, glasses, goggles or face shields which comply with the rules and regulations adopted by the United States Department of Transportation.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 1469; A 1985, 1960)

Since the law requires the DMV to adopt standards (by administrative rulemaking in the Nevada Administrative Code) you can find this in NAC chapter 486.

CHAPTER 486 - MOTORCYCLES AND SIMILAR VEHICLES

486.015 Helmets: Adoption by reference of provisions of Code of Federal Regulations.
NAC 486.015 Helmets: Adoption by reference of provisions of Code of Federal Regulations. (NRS 486.231) The Department hereby adopts by reference the regulations contained in 49 C.F.R. § 571.218, as those regulations existed on January 1, 1994. The volume containing this section is available by mail from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, Missouri 63197-9000, or by toll-free telephone at (866) 512-1800, at the price of $20.
(Added to NAC by Dep’t of Motor Veh. & Pub. Safety, eff. 3-30-94)

Looking at the 49 CFRs at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=571.218 this particular rule is the standards for motorcycle helmets. I'm not going to paste the standards here because this post is entirely long enough as it is, but there IS such a thing as "DOT approved."

So the DMV took the "shortcut" of adopting the DOT approval standards. As a matter of fact if you do a google search for that code "49 cfr 571.218" you will see references to it in Washington, Tennessee, Utah, Maryland, Kentucky, Vermont, Michigan and California vehicle codes. So basically yes, Nevada law requires a FEDERAL DOT approved helmet as do all these other states.

usmcmustang said:
One doesn't CONSENT to anything a cop "asks" you. Cops are trained to "ask" for a whole bunch of $hit, no matter if one is "required" by law to consent. But once consent is given, it puts a big smile on their face and you're screwed. Best to always affirmatively NOT consent and then exercise 5th and demand an attorney if $hit gets really intense. And the thing about the VIN on a motorcycle... I've seen a lot of motorcycles and the VIN certainly ain't in plain view. Sometimes one needs a road map to find it and then a big magnifying glass to read it.

The VIN of every street-legal motorcycle I've ever seen is on the right side of the fork. It's in plain view and you don't even have to move the handlebars to see it when the bike is on its side stand. NRS also requires you to produce a drivers license on demand of a peace officer when operating a motor vehicle on a public road. Neither is protected by the 5th amendment or the 4th.

TigerLily said:
I'll have to exercise every bit of discipline NOT to disclose my poker hand.

I would recommend you stop reading this thread until you go to court. Go for a bike ride (ha ha

), go shooting, go see a movie. Anything to get your mind off this thread until after court.

TigerLily said:
Yes, he was a piglet. In the future I will demand a search warrant if a cop fears my weapon and is too chicken to let me go through my own purse to get my DL out. He made it clear he had up to one hour to keep me there. I made it clear I had four hours worth of video. Can I get an "oink?"

I wasn't quite sure why you let him retrieve your DL. This was a backdoor way of getting consent to poke around in your purse while "looking" for your DL.

I wish you the best of luck. I agree with your position that we should be allowed the personal choice of whether to wear a helmet or not. However, until the law is changed, I'm going to choose to continue complying with it.

mohawk001 · Sep 16, 2012

jpa said:
It's not approved by the state DOT but by the federal DOT. They have this logo on the back

Since the law requires the DMV to adopt standards (by administrative rulemaking in the Nevada Administrative Code) you can find this in NAC chapter 486.

Looking at the 49 CFRs at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=571.218 this particular rule is the standards for motorcycle helmets. I'm not going to paste the standards here because this post is entirely long enough as it is, but there IS such a thing as "DOT approved."

So the DMV took the "shortcut" of adopting the DOT approval standards. As a matter of fact if you do a google search for that code "49 cfr 571.218" you will see references to it in Washington, Tennessee, Utah, Maryland, Kentucky, Vermont, Michigan and California vehicle codes. So basically yes, Nevada law requires a FEDERAL DOT approved helmet as do all these other states.

The VIN of every street-legal motorcycle I've ever seen is on the right side of the fork. It's in plain view and you don't even have to move the handlebars to see it when the bike is on its side stand. NRS also requires you to produce a drivers license on demand of a peace officer when operating a motor vehicle on a public road. Neither is protected by the 5th amendment or the 4th.

I would recommend you stop reading this thread until you go to court. Go for a bike ride (ha ha ), go shooting, go see a movie. Anything to get your mind off this thread until after court.

I wasn't quite sure why you let him retrieve your DL. This was a backdoor way of getting consent to poke around in your purse while "looking" for your DL.

I wish you the best of luck. I agree with your position that we should be allowed the personal choice of whether to wear a helmet or not. However, until the law is changed, I'm going to choose to continue complying with it.

Actually, all you've shown is that the helmet follows standards as set by the DOT. However, the DOT has NOT actually approved any helmets. Show me where the DOT has actually said they have approved a single helmet. It's a technicality that have tried to use, but I have yet to hear of anyone getting away with it because the few cases I have heard of the judge said that the law may not be worded quite correctly, but the meaning behind it was apparent enough or something close to that.

jdholmes · Sep 16, 2012

mohawk001 said:
Actually, all you've shown is that the helmet follows standards as set by the DOT. However, the DOT has NOT actually approved any helmets. Show me where the DOT has actually said they have approved a single helmet. It's a technicality that have tried to use, but I have yet to hear of anyone getting away with it because the few cases I have heard of the judge said that the law may not be worded quite correctly, but the meaning behind it was apparent enough or something close to that.

If the DOT sets forth standards for manufacturers to follow and those manufacturers in turn follow that list of standards, the DOT has in effect approved that helmet as it has been manufactured to reflect standards set forth by them....

There is a reason no one has got away with it - playing the semantics game doesn't excuse blatant disregard for what is, wether fortunate or unfortunate, law.

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Sep 16, 2012

jpa said:
It's not approved by the state DOT but by the federal DOT. They have this logo on the back

Since the law requires the DMV to adopt standards (by administrative rulemaking in the Nevada Administrative Code) you can find this in NAC chapter 486.

Looking at the 49 CFRs at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=571.218 this particular rule is the standards for motorcycle helmets. I'm not going to paste the standards here because this post is entirely long enough as it is, but there IS such a thing as "DOT approved."

So the DMV took the "shortcut" of adopting the DOT approval standards. As a matter of fact if you do a google search for that code "49 cfr 571.218" you will see references to it in Washington, Tennessee, Utah, Maryland, Kentucky, Vermont, Michigan and California vehicle codes. So basically yes, Nevada law requires a FEDERAL DOT approved helmet as do all these other states.

The VIN of every street-legal motorcycle I've ever seen is on the right side of the fork. It's in plain view and you don't even have to move the handlebars to see it when the bike is on its side stand. NRS also requires you to produce a drivers license on demand of a peace officer when operating a motor vehicle on a public road. Neither is protected by the 5th amendment or the 4th.

I would recommend you stop reading this thread until you go to court. Go for a bike ride (ha ha ), go shooting, go see a movie. Anything to get your mind off this thread until after court.

I wasn't quite sure why you let him retrieve your DL. This was a backdoor way of getting consent to poke around in your purse while "looking" for your DL.

I wish you the best of luck. I agree with your position that we should be allowed the personal choice of whether to wear a helmet or not. However, until the law is changed, I'm going to choose to continue complying with it.

The problem is this: Since Nevada adopted the 49 CFR 571.218 standard, that is the only standard that can be enforced. Notice how there is no mention of what a helmet must consist of or what ist has to cover or protect. No mention of a chin strap or anything else that the police are :"concerned about"
Alsofederal preemption precludes a state from making its own federal safety standard:
49USC Sec. 30103. Relationship to other laws
a. UNIFORMITY OF REGULATIONS The Secretary of Transportation may not prescribe a safety regulation related to a motor vehicle subject to subchapter II of chapter 105 of this title that differs from a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the Secretary may prescribe, for a motor vehicle operated by a carrier subject to subchapter II of chapter 105, a safety regulation that imposes a higher standard of performance after manufacture than that required by an applicable standard in effect at the time of manufacture.
b. PREEMPTION
1. When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter.
2. A State may enforce a standard that is identical to a standard prescribed under this chapter.

There is stuff relevant to Helmets all the way up to 301123 It also talks about how the individual if Not for hire can modify his or her own safety equip. not introduced into the stream of commerce

jpa · Sep 16, 2012

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
The problem is this: Since Nevada adopted the 49 CFR 571.218 standard, that is the only standard that can be enforced. Notice how there is no mention of what a helmet must consist of or what ist has to cover or protect. No mention of a chin strap or anything else that the police are :"concerned about"
Alsofederal preemption precludes a state from making its own federal safety standard:
49USC Sec. 30103. Relationship to other laws
a. UNIFORMITY OF REGULATIONS The Secretary of Transportation may not prescribe a safety regulation related to a motor vehicle subject to subchapter II of chapter 105 of this title that differs from a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the Secretary may prescribe, for a motor vehicle operated by a carrier subject to subchapter II of chapter 105, a safety regulation that imposes a higher standard of performance after manufacture than that required by an applicable standard in effect at the time of manufacture.
b. PREEMPTION
1. When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter.
2. A State may enforce a standard that is identical to a standard prescribed under this chapter.

There is stuff relevant to Helmets all the way up to 301123 It also talks about how the individual if Not for hire can modify his or her own safety equip. not introduced into the stream of commerce

The state doesn't create their own standard, they adopted the federal standard "by reference." In essence the state is doing exactly what they're allowed to do under the PREEMPTION section of the code you quoted. If you take the time to click the link I included in my original post, you'll see that the federal standard does include requirements for a retention device (chin strap) and various design and labeling requirements. The DOT label on the back is the manufacturer's certification that the helmet meets the federal DOT standard. Trying to skirt the law by nit-picking wording and harping on technicalities is a good way to a) piss off the judge and b) lose your case. Judges rule on "legislative intent" all the time. If the law is worded that your helmet must be DOT approved and the helmet is actually DOT compliant or DOT certified, you're going to lose.

While the FMVSS you mention may allow an individual to modify his/her own safety equipment, that's not part of the standard adopted by the state so it won't apply. The state standard is that it must meet the requirements of 49 CFR 571.218, period.

usmcmustang · Sep 16, 2012

Here are quotes from the General Counsel's office of the NHTSA...

"A DOT symbol appearing on an item of … equipment represents its manufacturer’s certification of compliance with U.S. Federal requirements. It does not represent any "approval" by DOT. We have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" vehicles or equipment."

"… Federal law (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. Neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation approves motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the law establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards."

"The term “DOT Approved”… has no basis in either fact or law. We (NHTSA) have no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment. If a “DOT” symbol appears on an item of equipment or its container, the “DOT” is the equipment manufacturer’s certification that the equipment conforms to all applicable FMVSS."

"… NHTSA neither approves, disapproves, endorses, tests, nor grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market. "

Oh, and let's talk about "testing"... annually NHTSA purchases a select number of helmets from retail outlets that have been certified by the manufacturers to be “DOT” compliant and they contract with an independent lab to test these helmets to the FMVSS standard. According to compliance testing results, helmet standard compliance tests show a failure rate of 64% of all helmets tested between 1994 and 2008 (the last reported year of testing).

usmcmustang · Sep 16, 2012

usmcmustang said:
Oh, and let's talk about "testing"... annually NHTSA purchases a select number of helmets from retail outlets that have been certified by the manufacturers to be “DOT” compliant and they contract with an independent lab to test these helmets to the FMVSS standard. According to compliance testing results, helmet standard compliance tests show a failure rate of 64% of all helmets tested between 1994 and 2008 (the last reported year of testing).

I was able to find that over the past 9 years [2000 to 2008 (the last year any testing was reported)], such recent testing reveals that of the 360 helmets tested over the reported 9 years, 44% failed testing; that is, 44% were found to be noncompliant with the FMVSS No.218standard. See http://icsw.nhtsa.gov/cars/testing/comply/fmvss218/ Taking that governmental analysis to its logical conclusion it would appear that more than 4 in l 0 helmets worn by motorcycle riders in those states requiring such compliance (Nevada included) , may, in fact, be "outside" of the law. Just how law enforcement may be able to "police" such unlawful conduct by those motorcycle riders wearing these noncompliant helmets is certainly perplexing.

FallonJeeper · Sep 19, 2012

So, how did it go?

usmcmustang · Sep 19, 2012

FallonJeeper said:
So, how did it go?

She was found guilty... of course. Appeal filed and district court trial de novo in the works. Stay tuned.

Trial Sept 17, 2012 @ 3pm City of NLV

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member