I am going to spread some information about cycling tickets over a few posts here, but I want to get this one out to let you all know that I had a favorable result on my two recent biking tickets.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=21968

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=21791

I got two tickets - one for bike on a sidewalk (long story) and one for "splitting lanes" (not a long story). I felt that I would prevail on both (for many reasons that I did not discuss here because they were part of the <sarcasm>brilliant</sarcasm> defense that I had conjured up) and here we are many months later. I am done.

I learned a lot in this process. First is that there is a lot of misinformation out there about the process and the law. Second, that the prosecutor and the judge did not know the law as well as I had expected (and that the ticketing officer did not know the law at all).

As a licensed attorney who does not practice, I was frustrated by the experience but I am optimistic that we cyclists can win our cases if we fight them. I have read a lot of threads on this forum about people who have been ticketed for some wacky shit and I am offering my legal services free of charge to any Bike Lovers who want to talk about and challenge their tickets. Standard disclaimers apply, but mostly know that I am not creating an attorney client relationship with anyone until that relationship is formalized and memorialized in writing, back-channel, not in the public back and forth of this forum.

I cannot promise anyone a particular result, but I will sit down with you and discuss the facts and the law with you. From there we will decide the next steps.

Congrats!

I look forward to hearing about the experience.

Thanks. One of your comments on one of the ticket threads encouraged me to take up the "splitting lanes" question. It seems to be a law that is not firmly established - meaning a court has not published an opinion defining the statute.

It's confusing because the broad driving statute is a bit different from the rule in 222 and it's not guaranteed that you will get a judge out of "driving world" (169.18 in my case) in into 222 world. But if you (we) can get the judge into 222 world the chances of success increase.

That's a very generous offer!

I'm sure much of it is common sense, but would you have any advice for people who find themselves in a situation that will make it easier for (you/themselves/someone else) to make a good defense?

Did the judge tell those losers to go find a parking ramp when they respond to calls for thugs beating down cyclists, robbing stores, mugging people, medical emergencies... so they wouldn't leave any major imaginary inconveniences in the way?

I don't know about the lane splitting. Didn't read that. It did seem that you deserved the riding on the sidewalk ticket though. You did admit to it.

Legal advice for people? Hmmm .....


Amy Sensor needs to a good story teller.

Here is what I did which I think helped (being careful not to give legal advice as to any specific case).

I try to know the laws and I make a habit of obeying them. I stop when I am supposed to. I signal my turns (when I am able). I try to be careful.

I did not talk to the cop while he was giving me my ticket. I did not argue about what he was charging me with. If I had spoken to him and told him that he was wrong about the law he says I broke, he might have spent some more time looking at his statutes and come up with something else. As it was, he charged me under a statute which did not "fit the crime."

While I was sitting there I took note of my surroundings. What was the weather like. Was traffic busy. Was the road wet. Were there a lot of pedestrians. Is the cop alone. What is his partner doing? I could have done even better by taking specific measurements as to the width of the road, the width of the shoulder, the specific signs on the side of the road (because, you know, bike paths and bike routes are different things).

And one mistake I made - I suggest that you do not do this: I talked to the prosecutor before my trial. I should not have. It gave him time to read 222 and compare it to the statute that I was charged under. I was hoping to convince the prosecutor to dismiss the charges, but instead I showed part of my hand and it was used against me (although not successfully). You need to find the balance here.

Here is the deal on the sidewalk - I have very compelling reasoning to argue that the spot I was biking on was not a business district. Business District has a very specific definition under that statute and 1st Ave in Front of Butler Square is NOT a business district according to the statute.

Now, statutory interpretation will come into play of course, and the whole "300 ft" and "50%" thing is unsettled law in MN. Other jurisdictions have defined the law in court cases (establishing that you count BOTH sides of the street when calculating 50%, or indicating that you start measuring from the direction the person was traveling when defining the 300 ft). Between arguing for a uniform interpretation under MN's uniform statute law and my constitutional rights under the doctrine of lenity, I was confident that I could get out of the sidewalk ticket.

The sidewalk in front of Butler Square, IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT:

169.011 DEFINITIONS Subd. 13.Business district. "Business district" means the territory contiguous to and including a highway when 50 percent or more of the frontage thereon for a distance of 300 feet or more is occupied by buildings in use for business.

(I have photos, maps, and measurements which bear this out)

That's true, but I believe the reason for the ban in business districts has more to do with doors opening directly onto the sidewalk, rather than having the much improved sightlines of a walkway between the door and sidewalk.

So that is interesting. I do not know why we have the law. Why we have the law is important. 645.16 says

When the words of a law are not explicit, the intention of the legislature may be ascertained by
(1) the occasion and necessity for the law;
(2) the circumstances under which it was enacted;
(3) the mischief to be remedied;
(4) the object to be attained;
(5) the former law, if any, including other laws upon the same or similar subjects;
(6) the consequences of a particular interpretation;
(7) the contemporaneous legislative history; and
(8) legislative and administrative interpretations of the statute

Now, the only way the court is going to start talking about legislative intent if the words are not "clear and free from all ambiguity." I am not convinced that is the case here.

If the intent had to do with doors, the statute could state that - don't ride on sidewalks with opening doors. Then it gets tricky because Butler Square has doors at the top of stairs, right?

I do not know if we can find out points number two through three (above) because I think MN probably copy and pasted the law from another state. There is more work to do, that is for sure. It will take a specific case to test the statute, and mine fit the bill, but oh well. Maybe next time.

The ironic thing is that what you did is exactly what you feel the cops did wrong.

So eat that Mr. responding to a call.

I've got some legal advice. Don't spend eight months using a 6 year education to fight a $150 ticket. Sorry, that's just the part of me that has thoughts taking over.

(I have no idea what a sidewalk ticket costs but it can't be more than that I think. Ask your lawyer what it costs. )

I gotta agree with jitterjepp here, but my time is worth WAY more than my money. I understand that if you don't fight it that it just adds more merit to future tickets by those officers in the same fashion, but that isn't enough to convince me unless the act of being found guilty has some bad consequences for this zombie.

That all aside. Good job on defending yourself and showing them that they need to get their statutes defined a bit more.

I'm not a doctor. Law school is three years. And while I appreciate the advice, please do not accuse me of being reasonable; I have never made that claim. In fact, let me dispel you of that notion right now.

The points that you and zombie make are taken - time is valuable. However, I think that my offer to help other cyclists with their tickets demonstrates that I am willing to give the time necessary. I understand that priorities differ.

Both of these tickets were petty misdemeanors. I did not want a petty misdemeanor on my record. That is a bad enough consequence for me to try to push back. Now, I understand that those things go away after a while, but I did not want it sitting on my record as some sort of data point for the next time I come in a try to fight a stupid ticket. I think that makes sense.

One thing the prosecutor will likely offer, and they offered me, is a CWOP or CFD. (Continued Without Prosecution or Continued For Dismissal) You pay the fine, and as long as you do not get charged with a similar offense in six months or a year the conviction does not show up on your record. I did not want another arbitrary ticket to bring me back in court as a two-time loser.

Right? Let's say I get a CWOP on the legal lane violation. Then I get pulled over for the same non-offense. How do you think the judge is going to like that? Best to just resolve the first one.

As for "So eat that Mr. responding to a call" - my justification in confronting the cops was hashed out pretty well in the original thread. I never updated that thread once I got the police report because I do not want to beat a dead horse (cue dead horse gif). Suffice it to say, the cops lied in their reports about what happened. Both of them. I believe that is part of why they did not show up in court.

The having a petty misdemeanor on your record is an interesting thing.

Some years ago, I got a petty misdemeanor for trespassing during a non-violent protest.

It was interesting a bit after that, when trying to enter Canada for a consulting gig, having to explain the record to the officials at the border.

I was fine with having to do it for a cause I agreed with but certainly can see not wanting the hassle, especially given the time and aggravation of dealing with full border searches

I have sent in the fine for traffic violations I felt I could fight but I did not want to spend the time. I did go and fight (successfully) the ones that would have resulted in a petty mis. for exactly that reason. I didn't want it on my record. I've had the prosecution decide that THEY were the ones who didn't want to waste their time on ME and drop the charges when it became clear that I wasn't going to plead guilty to anything. So my hat's off to you in this matter.