Bikers’ Claim Rejected Helmet Law Not Too Vague, State Supreme Court Rules

Washington’s law requiring motorcylists to wear helmets is constitutional, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday in rejecting a motorcylist’s challenge to the 1990 statute.

Voting unanimously, the court ruled that the law and the regulation permitting its enforcement were not “unconstitutionally vague” as asserted by John Spears.

Spears challenged the law after being cited for failing to wear a helmet on five occasions in 1995 in Kitsap County.

Spears’ challenge was upheld in Kitsap County District Court but overturned in Kitsap County Superior Court.

Spears did not challenge the fact that the state can require motorclists to wear helmets.

He instead argued that the regulation defining what is a proper helmet is too vague, and the law therefore violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It does so, Spears argued, because an officer issuing a citation for a substandard helmet has no probable cause to believe the helmet is, in fact, substandard.

“Mr. Spears insists that ordinary people cannot understand from reading the rule which helmet to wear. We disagree. Based upon the plain language of the regulation and on authority from other jurisdictions, we conclude the law is not unconstitutionally vague,” Justice Richard Guy wrote for the court.

Moreover, Guy wrote, “it is settled law that vagueness challenges to enactments which do not involve First Amendment rights are evaluated in light of the particular facts of each case.”

“Mr. Spears, in essence, argues that the Fourth Amendment may be violated in some cases because the rule implementing the helmet statute is vague so that officials would not be able to recognize a legal helmet,” Guy wrote.

“He (Spears) appears to be aruging that officers might stop riders who are wearing helmets which do not appear to comply with the law but are, in fact, legal helmets.

“Mr. Spears (who was wearing no helmet when stopped) does not have standing to raise this issue,” Guy wrote.

Moreover, Guy added, “Mr. Spears may not raise the rights of others when the officers who stopped him had probable cause to believe he was violating the traffic code.”