|
|
|
P.O. Box 160223 Nashville, Tn 37216-0223 615 262-1119 - Office
|
HELMET LAW DEFENSE“Thanks to Bill Bish & NCOM for this Article”The following has been
developed to aid in your defense when you have been stopped and ticketed for
wearing an “unapproved” helmet. Read
the following to the judge as your defense and ask that the charges be
dismissed. This is not to be considered legal advice. YOUR
HONOR, I was wearing a motorcycle helmet acquired in a good faith attempt to
comply with the State’s Mandatory Helmet Law.
The helmet, at the time I acquired it, had a “DOT” sticker on the
back. Thus, I was improperly
ticketed and the case should be dismissed.
THERE ARE TWO ISSUES IN THIS CASE THAT THE STATE MUST PROVE BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT. (1) The
helmet I was wearing failed to comply with Federal Laws. (2) I
knew my helmet did not comply with Federal Law.
The State Mandatory Helmet Law has incorporated Federal Standards set
forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1996 and in the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (“FMVSS”) No. 218.
Section 1392(d) of the Safety Act states that once a federal standard is
adopted, that federal standard has supremacy…the states may enforce no
standards which are not identical the federal standards.
The “DOT” sticker, on the back of the helmet, raises the presumption
that the helmet meets Federal standards.
The Federal Law places a burden on the manufacturer and the seller of
certification and compliance with the standards set forth by Federal Law,
“FMVSS” 218, and not the user.
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Section
L397(a)(1)(A) (1) No
person shall- (A) manufacture
for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce
or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import in to the
United States, any motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under the
subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard. Under
section 1403, the evidence of certification with regards to helmets, is a
“DOT” sticker on the back of the helmet, FMVSS 218 section 5, 6 and 1 (e) Federal
law only requires the exercise of due care by the user at the time of
acquisition. National Safety Act of
1996, Section 1397(b). (2)
Paragraph (1)(A) subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to any person
who establishes that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care
that such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not in conformity with
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or to any person, who, prior
to such, first purchase, holds a certificate issued by the manufacturer or
importer of such motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, to the effect that
such vehicle or equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle
safety standards, unless such person knows that such vehicle equipment does not
so conform. Therefore,
Federal law only requires good faith compliance and the exercise of due care at
the time of acquisition of the helmet. The
“DOT” sticker raises the presumption of good faith compliance.
Federal law prohibits the Department of Transportation from establishing
a list of approved helmets. And, to my knowledge, there is no list of approved
helmets available to the general public published by anyone.
The absence, at the time of the issuing of the citation, of a sticker on
the back of the helmet is not evidence of lack of compliance because Federal Law
does not require the sticker remain on the helmet.
(See NTMVS Act of 1966 and MVSS 18) The state must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that my helmet does not meet FMVSS 218 and that I was aware of
this fact.
Proof that my helmet does not meet Federal standards requires expert
opinion and actual testing of this helmet.
A traffic officer lacks the personal knowledge of actual testing and
lacks special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education regarding
FNVSS 218 and testing procedures.
Expert opinion is not proper testimony unless me helmet was actually
tested. To my knowledge, there is
no case law in this state to support the use of expert opinion without actual
testing when a technical test is required by law to prove compliance with a
standard.
If the State proves the helmet did now comply with Federal standards,
they still must show I knew the helmet was not in compliance at the time I got
it. At the time I acquired the
helmet, it possessed a “DOT” sticker on the back and, therefore, I acted in
good faith and the State cannot prove otherwise.
Therefore, I respectfully request that this case be dismissed. WARNING!
BEFORE READING THESE ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT, BE SURE TO PLEAD NOT GUILTY! These
defenses will only work if you acquired the helmet with the “DOT” sticker on
the back or a label on the inside, which indicated that the helmet complied with
the “DOT” standards. If the
helmet had a label on the inside, everywhere in the argument that it says
“sticker on the back”, insert the words “label on the inside.” (The
very first way to get a dismissal that has been working so far is lack of
evidence.)
|
Send general questions and comments about CMT/ABATE to
.
|
