NomadRip
04-03-2008, 12:14 PM
SB-802 GENERAL BILL by Garcia (Compare HB-137)
"Motorcycles or Mopeds/Reckless Driving [EPCC]; Provides that if a person is operating or is in actual physical control of a motorcycle while driving recklessly, a law enforcement officer shall arrest the person, take him or her into custody, and seize the motorcycle. Requires that a person riding on a motorcyle or moped must ride while sitting astride the seat with one leg on each side and with both wheels on the ground at all times, etc."
http://tinyurl.com/yuzl2r
***
Fellow Freedom Fighters:
Big Brother's right to seize your motorcycle has come one step closer to becoming a reality in Florida and a nightmarish precedent for statehouses nationwide. Yesterday, HB-137's companion bill SB-802 passed unanimously through the Florida State Senate Transportation Committee. Here is a verbatim report from Dara "Sam" McLain, who along with fellow bikers' rights advocate Robert "RC" Conroy attended the meeting and spoke out against the bill:
Greetings All,
Below is the summary, as I saw it, at the Hearing for SB 802, companion bill to HB 137. This comes late because I was busy doing work (ya, I have a day job) this afternoon that I should have been doing this morning while I was at the Senate building with RC attending the hearing.
In a room about 3/4 full, there were THREE bikers present to support our position opposing this bill. THREE BIKERS; Florida Abate President, RC and myself. The Abate President arrives with a companion, but it is not known if she is a biker or not. Either way, not one Sport Biker stepped forward to state his or her position. There were none in the room that I could see. From my perspective, it appears Sport Bikers are just not concerned about having their bikes confiscated, and their licenses taken from them for ten years. As a rider of 30+ years, I find that very distasteful. My bike has two wheels, so does yours. How dare you diminish my right to ride free by your apathy.
As most of you know, this bill started out discriminatory against all bikers, outlined a severe penalty for infractions, and is largely redundant, given the laws on the books already for reckless driving.
And as things progressed, amendments were made to HB 137 and text was changed to include all drivers. However, HB 137 still called out motorcycles specifically, and defines somewhat specifically what constitutes non-stunt riding; i.e. two wheels on the ground at all times, one leg on both sides of the bike, etc.
Legislators are adamant that those who pull wheelies at high speeds, weave in and out of traffic at high speeds, or simply ride their bikes at high speed, will pay the consequences. Even if they didn't add the text to [lamely] exclude those of us who ride motorcycles that won't perform these types of stunts, I'd still know they meant Sport Bike riders. Legislators were VERY specific about who is targeted by this bill. My fear, and that of others, is law enforcement won't bother to distinguish between the two.
At the first hearing, I and others, protested that, among other things, this bill is one-sided. Their aim, they said, is to prevent senseless death of these Sport Bike riders. While we pointed out they were ignoring the senseless death of many more riders that happen daily at the hands of distracted drivers who go unpunished.
So, late last night, an amendment was added to SB 802, to stiffen the penalties of drivers who cause death or injury to another through a traffic violation. For whatever reason - a dangling carrot, an honest concern, whatever - it was added to this bill. However, and far more importantly, SEIZURE is still very much alive in this bill. Fine me $1000, give me jail time, take away my endorsement for a period of time, but the government does not have the right to confiscate my motorcycle. Period. The Forfeiture law was enacted to prevent the continuation of drug manufacture and sale after the dealer was convicted. Confiscating cars and/or motorcycles for driving violations is out of those bounds and unconstitutional.
Sadly, many Senators who are fairly new to this bill, are so focused on the Sport Bike issue that they immediately shot down this amendment that might have done some good. So once again, we are back at square one, and this bill is still very much alive! And again, where the hell was the support?? Where are all the Sport Bike riders who oppose this bill? I can almost understand the biker community who does not ride the sport bikes not having a concern, but this bill seriously targets Sport bikers. Do you not care? Or are you merely waiting for those of us who are willing to fight for our freedom to do it for you?
Once the new amendment was read, the only opposing comment from the Transportation Committee was how much of a fiscal "burden" it might be for the state to fork up room and board (jail time) for a driver who kills in the process of a traffic violation! This was Senator Paula Dockery I believe. (Without a seating chart and "name tags" I can't be sure.) From my point of view, she didn't care one iota whether bikers died on the road at the hands of incompetent drivers. She couldn't get this amendment killed fast enough. In fact, I didn't get the impression that she, or several others, cared one bit about any death of a motorcyclist. (Senator Dockery goes up on the political candidate do-not-vote-for Wall-of-Shame). And this leads me to believe that the motive for this bill and HB 137, from the beginning, is not to stop any deaths, but to catch the culprits and make some money from it. I'll be writing to Senator Dockery to express my distaste over her obvious lack of concern for!
those who die at the hands of distracted and incompetent drivers.
It should be noted that Senator Baker spoke very much in favor of the stiffer penalty amendment, as did Senator Garcia. They both seem to "get it" about ROWV causing so many motorcycle deaths. The Florida Abate President spoke in support of the amendment and expressed disappointment in this action to strike. RC and I declined to speak on behalf of the amendment, stating we would speak on the bill itself.
The bill was brought to the table and Senator Garcia, the sponsor of the bill, declined to speak until all were heard. Again, the Florida Abate president informed the committee that his organization opposed the bill in it's entirety. He testified that confiscation of property costs the state money.
Next was RC, who covered several points; penalties covered in this bill for stunt riding far exceed those of incompetent auto drivers who kill and maim
riders, the redundancy of the bill to existing laws, and discrimination of motorcyclists.
I was last to speak, as no others stepped forward. I expressed extreme disappointment in the attitude of the committee of placing a fiscal value on the death of another and refusing to entertain the amendment put forth by Senator Garcia. I also spoke of the unconstitutionality of property seizure, and that civil seizure does not provide for Due Process; that 80% of forfeitures are seized from those who are never charged with a crime.
Senator Alex Villalobos challenged my comments on forfeiture, and I pointed out that the bill is littered with text that says the officer "shall arrest the perpetrator, throw him in jail, and seize the property", and that a court "official" shall determine the outcome. That sounded to me like the officer can make the decision of guilt on the fly, and your property seized without proof of the crime. Only one line in the bill said that forfeiture would occur "if" convicted.
For those who are unaware of what Civil Forfeiture might mean to you, here's a few highlights. You are NOT entitled to a trial by jury. You are NOT entitled to an Attorney (except if you want to pay a $10k retainer yourself to regain $4000 worth of personal property). You are guilty until proven innocent and the burden of proving your innocence is on YOU, at your expense. Even if you are acquitted or found not guilty of any charges, THEY CAN STILL KEEP YOUR MOTORCYCLE.
It goes without saying that once motorcycles are targeted in any way for confiscation, by law, law enforcement will add that to their list of revenue generation. This happens daily already. Bikers are pulled over and cited for minor infractions, such as handlebar height, and their bikes are confiscated. Even if the citation is invalid and proven so, the owner must still pay very high fees to release his/her property from impoundment. If the process takes too long, the property may be sold, and the owner will never recover the property at all, or the money it was sold for.
John L. Worrall, Department of Criminal Justice, California State University at San Bernardino, said it very aptly, "A conflict of interest between effective crime control and creative fiscal management will persist so long as law enforcement agencies remain dependent on civil asset forfeiture."
Furthermore, 80% of property forfeited to US government agencies in the last decade was seized from owners who were never charged with a crime! Over $7 Billion has been forfeited to the government since 1985. Florida is about to add motorcycles to that equation.
Senator Garcia presented the same video that was shown at the first hearing on HB 137. And again, it elicited gasps and outrage from the committee members, and many in the audience.
Following the video, Senator Larcenia Bullard spoke on the attributes of motorcyclists. She said she used to think we were all bad people. Then she discovered that we are people just like anyone else, and she learned of the charities we contribute to, and the selfless acts of kindness bikers are known for.
"Motorcycles or Mopeds/Reckless Driving [EPCC]; Provides that if a person is operating or is in actual physical control of a motorcycle while driving recklessly, a law enforcement officer shall arrest the person, take him or her into custody, and seize the motorcycle. Requires that a person riding on a motorcyle or moped must ride while sitting astride the seat with one leg on each side and with both wheels on the ground at all times, etc."
http://tinyurl.com/yuzl2r
***
Fellow Freedom Fighters:
Big Brother's right to seize your motorcycle has come one step closer to becoming a reality in Florida and a nightmarish precedent for statehouses nationwide. Yesterday, HB-137's companion bill SB-802 passed unanimously through the Florida State Senate Transportation Committee. Here is a verbatim report from Dara "Sam" McLain, who along with fellow bikers' rights advocate Robert "RC" Conroy attended the meeting and spoke out against the bill:
Greetings All,
Below is the summary, as I saw it, at the Hearing for SB 802, companion bill to HB 137. This comes late because I was busy doing work (ya, I have a day job) this afternoon that I should have been doing this morning while I was at the Senate building with RC attending the hearing.
In a room about 3/4 full, there were THREE bikers present to support our position opposing this bill. THREE BIKERS; Florida Abate President, RC and myself. The Abate President arrives with a companion, but it is not known if she is a biker or not. Either way, not one Sport Biker stepped forward to state his or her position. There were none in the room that I could see. From my perspective, it appears Sport Bikers are just not concerned about having their bikes confiscated, and their licenses taken from them for ten years. As a rider of 30+ years, I find that very distasteful. My bike has two wheels, so does yours. How dare you diminish my right to ride free by your apathy.
As most of you know, this bill started out discriminatory against all bikers, outlined a severe penalty for infractions, and is largely redundant, given the laws on the books already for reckless driving.
And as things progressed, amendments were made to HB 137 and text was changed to include all drivers. However, HB 137 still called out motorcycles specifically, and defines somewhat specifically what constitutes non-stunt riding; i.e. two wheels on the ground at all times, one leg on both sides of the bike, etc.
Legislators are adamant that those who pull wheelies at high speeds, weave in and out of traffic at high speeds, or simply ride their bikes at high speed, will pay the consequences. Even if they didn't add the text to [lamely] exclude those of us who ride motorcycles that won't perform these types of stunts, I'd still know they meant Sport Bike riders. Legislators were VERY specific about who is targeted by this bill. My fear, and that of others, is law enforcement won't bother to distinguish between the two.
At the first hearing, I and others, protested that, among other things, this bill is one-sided. Their aim, they said, is to prevent senseless death of these Sport Bike riders. While we pointed out they were ignoring the senseless death of many more riders that happen daily at the hands of distracted drivers who go unpunished.
So, late last night, an amendment was added to SB 802, to stiffen the penalties of drivers who cause death or injury to another through a traffic violation. For whatever reason - a dangling carrot, an honest concern, whatever - it was added to this bill. However, and far more importantly, SEIZURE is still very much alive in this bill. Fine me $1000, give me jail time, take away my endorsement for a period of time, but the government does not have the right to confiscate my motorcycle. Period. The Forfeiture law was enacted to prevent the continuation of drug manufacture and sale after the dealer was convicted. Confiscating cars and/or motorcycles for driving violations is out of those bounds and unconstitutional.
Sadly, many Senators who are fairly new to this bill, are so focused on the Sport Bike issue that they immediately shot down this amendment that might have done some good. So once again, we are back at square one, and this bill is still very much alive! And again, where the hell was the support?? Where are all the Sport Bike riders who oppose this bill? I can almost understand the biker community who does not ride the sport bikes not having a concern, but this bill seriously targets Sport bikers. Do you not care? Or are you merely waiting for those of us who are willing to fight for our freedom to do it for you?
Once the new amendment was read, the only opposing comment from the Transportation Committee was how much of a fiscal "burden" it might be for the state to fork up room and board (jail time) for a driver who kills in the process of a traffic violation! This was Senator Paula Dockery I believe. (Without a seating chart and "name tags" I can't be sure.) From my point of view, she didn't care one iota whether bikers died on the road at the hands of incompetent drivers. She couldn't get this amendment killed fast enough. In fact, I didn't get the impression that she, or several others, cared one bit about any death of a motorcyclist. (Senator Dockery goes up on the political candidate do-not-vote-for Wall-of-Shame). And this leads me to believe that the motive for this bill and HB 137, from the beginning, is not to stop any deaths, but to catch the culprits and make some money from it. I'll be writing to Senator Dockery to express my distaste over her obvious lack of concern for!
those who die at the hands of distracted and incompetent drivers.
It should be noted that Senator Baker spoke very much in favor of the stiffer penalty amendment, as did Senator Garcia. They both seem to "get it" about ROWV causing so many motorcycle deaths. The Florida Abate President spoke in support of the amendment and expressed disappointment in this action to strike. RC and I declined to speak on behalf of the amendment, stating we would speak on the bill itself.
The bill was brought to the table and Senator Garcia, the sponsor of the bill, declined to speak until all were heard. Again, the Florida Abate president informed the committee that his organization opposed the bill in it's entirety. He testified that confiscation of property costs the state money.
Next was RC, who covered several points; penalties covered in this bill for stunt riding far exceed those of incompetent auto drivers who kill and maim
riders, the redundancy of the bill to existing laws, and discrimination of motorcyclists.
I was last to speak, as no others stepped forward. I expressed extreme disappointment in the attitude of the committee of placing a fiscal value on the death of another and refusing to entertain the amendment put forth by Senator Garcia. I also spoke of the unconstitutionality of property seizure, and that civil seizure does not provide for Due Process; that 80% of forfeitures are seized from those who are never charged with a crime.
Senator Alex Villalobos challenged my comments on forfeiture, and I pointed out that the bill is littered with text that says the officer "shall arrest the perpetrator, throw him in jail, and seize the property", and that a court "official" shall determine the outcome. That sounded to me like the officer can make the decision of guilt on the fly, and your property seized without proof of the crime. Only one line in the bill said that forfeiture would occur "if" convicted.
For those who are unaware of what Civil Forfeiture might mean to you, here's a few highlights. You are NOT entitled to a trial by jury. You are NOT entitled to an Attorney (except if you want to pay a $10k retainer yourself to regain $4000 worth of personal property). You are guilty until proven innocent and the burden of proving your innocence is on YOU, at your expense. Even if you are acquitted or found not guilty of any charges, THEY CAN STILL KEEP YOUR MOTORCYCLE.
It goes without saying that once motorcycles are targeted in any way for confiscation, by law, law enforcement will add that to their list of revenue generation. This happens daily already. Bikers are pulled over and cited for minor infractions, such as handlebar height, and their bikes are confiscated. Even if the citation is invalid and proven so, the owner must still pay very high fees to release his/her property from impoundment. If the process takes too long, the property may be sold, and the owner will never recover the property at all, or the money it was sold for.
John L. Worrall, Department of Criminal Justice, California State University at San Bernardino, said it very aptly, "A conflict of interest between effective crime control and creative fiscal management will persist so long as law enforcement agencies remain dependent on civil asset forfeiture."
Furthermore, 80% of property forfeited to US government agencies in the last decade was seized from owners who were never charged with a crime! Over $7 Billion has been forfeited to the government since 1985. Florida is about to add motorcycles to that equation.
Senator Garcia presented the same video that was shown at the first hearing on HB 137. And again, it elicited gasps and outrage from the committee members, and many in the audience.
Following the video, Senator Larcenia Bullard spoke on the attributes of motorcyclists. She said she used to think we were all bad people. Then she discovered that we are people just like anyone else, and she learned of the charities we contribute to, and the selfless acts of kindness bikers are known for.