bhilden@druxj.UUCP (10/08/84)
Sorry for being so late with the full update, I'm trying to break the 100 hour work week. Recap of the Incident: I was travelling on a city street, riding on the white line that marked the LEFT edge of a new, in construction bike lane. As there were cars parked in the bike lane, I was taking my legal 4 feet from the right side of the roadway (i.e. from the left edge of the cars) (a city of Boulder,Colorado ordinance) when I was pulled over by a policeman for "not riding enough to the right of the roadway", in effect he said I was impeding car traffic. The officer never gave me a chance to give my side of the story, he just wrote me up. As he rushed back to his car, I asked if he knew about the 4 foot to the right rule I was using to avoid the parked cars, he replied that that was not a Boulder city law(see above!!!) and did not apply. As I left I said that I would see him in court. Pre trial notes: I made measurements of the street and as usual, if I take my 4 feet from the right, plus my 2 feet wide person on the bike, plus if the car trying to pass gives my legal 3 feet of leeway, a standard 6 to 7 foot wide car cannot pass and stay in the traffic lane. So, if I impeded traffic, I was doing it legally...try telling that to your normal "no patience, I'm ten minutes late" car driver. I attempted to talk to the Boulder city attorney and not have the case go to court but he said he had more important cases to discuss like "drunk drvers and speeders who are likely to lose their license if found guilty"---glad to see we are spending so much time putting these people back out onto the streets. I enlisted the help of the City of Boulder Bicycle Safety coordinator who agreed to testify if necessary. Luckily I had a witness, a friend who was riding behind me, so armed with my rather niave(in hindsight) conception of justice, I went to court. The Trial: The trial was held in front of a judge, not a jury, the DA brought the arresting officer, I represented myself(a mistake) and brought my witness and the bicycle safety coordinator. The prosecution called the officer who stated that my witness and I were riding 2 abreast and talking freely, I was riding just outside the white line that marked the bike lane. He also added that when I rode off I stated "I'm going to beat this rap, I'll see you in court". I'm beginning to wonder what's going on, in cross examination I pointed out that the officer was ignorant of the law. The prosecution now rests. I, The defense, call my witness who states that we were not riding 2 abreast, and that I was four feet from the roadway. This testimony directly conflicts with the officer's. The officer leans over to the DA and the DA asks to recall the officer. The officer recounts the incident with new awareness to details. He now states that I was 2 to 3 feet to the left of the left edge of the bike lane(earlier he had said that I was just left) and that I was swerving and weaving all over the roadway going 15 mph. He also now remembered that a car came up behind me and honked repeatedly before I moved over. By, now I am wondering if I'm in the right court room. I take the stand in my own defense. I point out to the judge that I was president of a large bike club in Madison, WI and have appeared on TV, radio, newspapers and magazines for the last 5 years regarding the issues of safe legal cycling. I also point out that going to court has cost me at least ten times the amount of the fine so I'm concerned about this. I point out that I have a bicycle computer and at the time of my arrest was going 19mph in a 25mph zone. Does this constitute impeding traffic. I repeatedly stated that I was four feet from the right side of the road way because of the parked cars in the bike lane. I also, do not remember a carwith a horn, something most cylist don't miss!! OK-- so the judge gives his verdict. He compliments me on my case preparation then tells the officer that he testified that he followed us for one and a half block starting at the 1800 block, but that the citation was issued for the 2200 block of the street. So, his stories didn't jive and guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. I am AQUITTED by a technicality. Reflections NOTE: many of the following points are probably obvious to the well experienced type, I am adding them to help any novices like myself. 1)When receiveing the ticket I should have just said "yes sir", "no sir" and not made the remark "I will see you in court". The officer's ego was at stake here and he went to the limit of lying to protect it. 2)any evidence(i.e. drawings , etc.) pertaining to the case should depict the exact location of the incident on the ticket. My drawings were of generic bike lanes on the whole street, taken from an average measurement of widths, lengths for the 1800-2600 blocks of the street. The drawings should have just been of the 2200 block. 3)get a lawyer. It probably would have been too expensive for a $20 dollar ticket, but, I missed enough legal points and mumbo jumbo that it would have been worth it if the stakes had been higher. 4)Police Officers will do anything to make their arrests stick. This includes lying about the events if they think they can get away with it. Boy was I amazed!!!! 5)Principle is nice, reality is more practical. I probably wont fight another such ticket, just too much hassle and with the integrity of Boulder Police officers, I could lose. I would very much like to make a big stink about this but, the bottom line is that life is much easier when you have a low profile. There are probaly a few other points I missed but, I have to run. If anybody would like to discuss it further mail or call. Bruce Hildenbrand ihnp4!druxj!bhilden (303)538-4687
dmt@hocsl.UUCP (10/08/84)
REFERENCE: <873@druxj.UUCP> > OK-- so the judge gives his verdict. He compliments me on my > case preparation then tells the officer that he testified that > he followed us for one and a half block starting at the > 1800 block, but that the citation was issued for the 2200 > block of the street. So, his stories didn't jive and guilt > was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. I am AQUITTED > by a technicality. Granted, I wasn't there, and you were. But from your account, your acquittal wasn't on a "technicality". Your story and the officer's were in violent disagreement as to the facts. The judge, to render ANY VERDICT, had to decide whom to believe. Since the officer's story had inconsistencies (factual, not technical) the judge decided to believe you. (If my interpretation is correct, it is even possible that the judge gave the officer a private dressing down after the trial. At least, I can hope so.) Dave Tutelman