"Justice needs Lawyers
like True Love needs a pimp."
Travus T. Hipp
Look Twice - Save A Life
Motorcycles Are
This website deserves a look.  Great bumperstickers are
available for a small amount of money.  Put one on your car
Biker Friendly
Bikers Of Lesser Tolerance
BOLT of CA        

The ultimate in lightweight, low wind resistance, low profile design helmets.  
Pictured above are a few of the people who have become helmet manufacturers
and made sure the headgear is legal to wear in California by certifying it.
clearly stated in the California motorcycle helmet law and federal regulations,

Motorcycle Helmet Manufacturing Workshops
have been conducted in Sacramento, California, hosted by
Bikers Of Lesser Tolerance.

The Workshops are one of the many ways to help pay for the cost of litigating to
insure your Rights are not violated in every traffic stop.   The 2008 Civil case was
filed against the California Highway Patrol for refusing to have clear objective
standards, or a list of legal helmets a consumer can use to guarantee he is buying a
helmet the CHP will not claim is illegal. The Helmet Manufacturing Workshop was
one tool to help fund that lawsuit.

For more information on conducting a helmet manufacturing
workshop for your club or riding group, contact us
Letter to Quigley
from BOLT National Founder, Tony Sanfelipo.
Pictures taken at the Quigmas Benefit, Aptos CA, on December 29, 2006.  Richard
Quigley's Birthday was December 25.  This party was in honor of Quig's birthday, and to
recognize his achievement and progress in stopping the California helmet law, and
preserving Bikers' Rights in many states.
Some helmet manufacturers and their helmets they wear.  
You are
not required to buy the helmet you wear.  
If you were, you could read the requirement in the actual law.
Have you made your own motorcycle helmet?
Here is the press release of what went on at the Quigmas party
December 29, 2006 in Aptos, CA.  
Read the written account of the people at the party, and what was said
about the past and the future of motorcycle Rights in the United States.  

The Deputy State Director
of BOLT of California,
Don Blanscet
Legal Details
Nuts & Bolts
Q & A
Hall of Fame
The State Director of BOLT
of California, Steve Bianco.
California road checkpoints must follow strict criteria
set forth by the California Supreme Court

Written by: George Fredrick Mueller
Attorney licensed in California

If the police do not follow these constitutional requirements outlined in Ingersoll, the checkpoint is
not lawful. That means any evidence gathered during a California DUI arrest may not be
admissible in California Superior Court nor relied upon to suspend at a California DMV hearing.
1 California Supreme Court uses 8 Guidelines that minimize the intrusiveness on an individual,
while balancing needs to keep drunk drivers off the road
The initial establishment and location of California DUI sobriety checkpoints must be decided by
supervisory police officers, not officers in the field. This requirement is important to reduce the
potential for arbitrary and random enforcement. drivers at California DUI checkpoints. California
DUI police must use a neutral mathematical formula, such as every driver, or every third, fifth, or
tenth driver to determine who to stop. This requirement takes away the discretion of the
individual officer to choose to stop individual drivers without any legitimate basis. California DUI
police also must give primary consideration to maintaining safety for motorists and officers. In
order to minimize the risk of danger to motorists and police, proper lighting, warning signs and
signals, and clearly identifiable official vehicles and personnel are required. The California Drunk
Driving checkpoint should only be operated when the traffic volume allows the operation to be
conducted safely.

2 Locations of California DUI roadblocks are regulated - Supervisory officer must choose a
location that will be most effective in stopping DUI Drivers
Effective locations include roads which have a high incidence of alcohol-related accidents and
California DUI arrests. The time and duration of California DUI sobriety checkpoints are of key
importance. Police are expected to exercise good judgment in setting times and durations, with
an eye to effectiveness of the operation, and with the safety of motorists in mind. As long as these
considerations are in effect, there are no hard and fast rules as to the timing or duration of the
California Drunk Driving roadblock. California sobriety checkpoints also must be established
with high visibility so that drivers can easily see the nature of the roadblock. The features that
promote high visibility include flashing warning lights, adequate lighting, police vehicles, and the
presence of uniformed officers. Not only are such factors important for safety reasons, but
advance warning will reassure motorists that the stop is duly authorized. Advance notice &
escape routes are also required.

3 California DUI Defense Attorneys can determine whether a California DUI sobriety
checkpoint was conducted lawfully
Although the Supreme Court’s Ingersoll decision legitimized California Drunk Driving
checkpoints, it established strict guidelines under which the roadblocks must be operated. If
California DUI law enforcement do not follow the factors set out by the California Supreme
Court, the evidence gained as a result of the roadblock may be suppressed as a violation of the
Fourth Amendment rights of the motorist and may not be the basis to support a finding of a
lawful arrest at a California DMV license suspension hearing.

Additional Resources
A sign or device should be placed to provide advance warning stating why motorists are being
stopped. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that visible signs of the officers’ authority generate
less concern and fright on the part of lawful travelers, and is therefore less of a subjective
intrusion (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 643 [1976]).


The court ruled that sobriety checkpoints must be planned and organized by supervisory police
officers, not police in the field. This requirement is designed to minimize the potential for
arbitrary and random enforcement.

The court also dictated that police must use a neutral mathematical formula to determine who to
stop, such as every fourth, fifth, or tenth driver. This reduces the potential of individual officers
stopping cars based solely on the appearance of the driver, the passengers, or the vehicle.

The sobriety checkpoint must be planned with safety for drivers and police as a primary concern.
Adequate lighting, proper warning signs and signals, and clearly identifiable official vehicles and
personnel must be used to minimize the risk to both police and the public. The sobriety
checkpoint can only be operated when traffic volume allows for a safe operation.
“We must emphasize that we do not hold that a suspect may be detained and searched merely
because he either refused to identify himself or refused to produce proof of identification.”
People v. Loudermilk, 241 Cal.Rptr. 208 (1987);

“The defendants’ refusal to furnish identification–which they were entitled to do...[in] a Terry stop...”
U.S. v. Brown, 731 F.2d 1491, at 1494 (1984);

“Probable cause is not established by failing to present identification upon request by a law
enforcement officer, . . .”
Moya v. United States , 761 F.2d 322, at 325-326 (Sept. 21, 1984).

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal
government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."
Schachtman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a
common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which would abrogate them."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
What should you say when a police officer asks to look inside your saddlebags?

Are you under arrest?

Maybe that question would be a good response to his question.
Ask if you are under arrest.
If you are under arrest, he would not have to
ask to look in your belongings.
If the officer says you are not under arrest, then ask if you are free to go.
A friend of BOLT in Nevada shows how this is done in
Part 1 and part 2
This video is one of the most informative on why you should not answer questions if you are
being questioned by a police officer.

You should, obviously, never answer questions if you ARE under arrest without your lawyer
present. But many people feel they have nothing to hide, so why not answer questions?
I could be a good guy and HELP the police.

You may do more damage to yourself by answering questions.
You could do immeasurable harm to yourself by allowing an officer to search you, just
because you think you have nothing to hide.

It applies to your bags,
your home, and your pockets.
The much discussed Vacaville California Rights violation caught on video in 2009.
You can still leave a text message on the youtube site.

Notice how many of the comments that are agreeable to what the cop does, and are
completely ignorant of constitutional Rights. Astounding.