Bicyclists Without ID Can Be Searched, State High Court Says

Police may arrest and search bicyclists for riding on the wrong side of the street if the cyclist has no identification, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The state high court based its decision on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that upheld the arrest and jailing of a Texas mother who was taken into custody because she and her two children were not wearing their seat belts.

In the California case, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy stopped Conrad Richard McKay in 1999 for riding his bicycle in the wrong direction on a residential street in Lawndale. McKay, who was 32 at the time, did not have any identification but told the deputy his name and address.

The deputy then arrested and searched McKay and found a bag of a white substance in his sock. The substance turned out to be methamphetamine. McKay pleaded guilty and served 32 months in state prison.

In an appeal, he argued that his arrest for such a minor traffic offense violated the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable seizures.

McKay was arrested for violating a state law that requires a bicycle to be operated “in the same direction as vehicles are required to be driven upon the roadway.” The law is punishable by a fine not to exceed $100. Under another state law, an officer who cites an offender for a minor offense must release him unless he fails to present identification or refuses to promise to appear in court.

But the state high court ruled 6 to 1 in People vs. McKay, S091421, that the arrest complied with state law and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Texas case. Under the high court decision, “there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about effecting a custodial arrest for a fine-only offense,” Justice Marvin Baxter wrote for the court.

“An offender may avoid a custodial arrest by presenting a driver’s license to the officer for examination,” Baxter wrote. If the license is valid, the cyclist may be cited and released, he said.

The court stressed that it is up to the officer to determine whether a person without identification should be brought to a magistrate.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown dissented. She argued the decision could lead to discriminatory enforcement.

“I do not know Mr. McKay’s ethnic background,” she wrote. “One thing I would bet on: He was not riding his bike a few doors down from his home in Bel-Air, or Brentwood, or Rancho Palos Verdes--places where no resident would be arrested for riding the ‘wrong way’ on a bicycle whether he had his driver’s license or not.”

“Well,” she continued, “it would not get anyone arrested unless he looked like he did not belong in the neighborhood. That is the problem. And it matters.”

Deputy Atty. Gen. Thomas C. Hsieh said the case was not about racial profiling. McKay, Hsieh said, is white.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has already dealt with this issue,” Hsieh said. “Basically, there is just not a lot of evidence that this sort of thing is happening a lot.”

Daniel Tokaji, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said the ruling “comes perilously close to imposing a requirement that to walk a street or ride a bicycle on the street, you need to carry an ID.”

“Providing such unfettered discretion to police officers is the equivalent to a license to discriminate,” Tokaji said. “The decision runs the risk of aggravating racial profiling and people being searched and arrested for driving while black.”