What the H#!!

[YoungPUP]

I got a call from some friends that were pulled over in Portage indiana.  2 of the 3 of the group were given tickets for riding without a helmet.  Last time I checked Indiana wasn't a helmet state.  They were informed that there is an ordinance requiring helmets on motorcycles.  Sounds like it time to call ABATE.

[Dave Ritsema]

Indiana is NOT a helmet state and this law cannot be superceded by local ordinances. Tell your friends to hire a lawyer, they WILL win.

EDIT**  During a brief internet search I was amazed to find that the city of Portage may actually have an ordinance requiring helmets in their city limits. Wow, I had no idea. Yet just another reason never to go to Portage IN.

[jammer]

It  has been to target the Invaders MC.  However now they are issueing tickets to show that the Invaders are not the only people/group that is being sited.

 http://www.nwitimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/mark-kiesling/mark-kiesling-it-s-time-for-portage-to-stop-invading/article_bc83f6f3-7f42-5a35-993c-b238a05d9107.html

[cookiedough]

I could very well be wrong, but how can any city in a state enforce helmet laws for cycles?  Doesn't the helmet law have to be statewide, not city to city ordinance?

Doesn't make sense to me, I'd fight it.

[GreenLantern57]

Just like red-light cameras, all you have to do is pass a civil ordinance and it is a law. Those kind of laws are a work-around. Not a traffic ticket, so state does nothing about it.

[SANDMAN5]

Seems like Myrtle Beach, SC, went through this a while back. Don't
remember how it turned out.

[fudgie]

Thats a bunch of bull. I been thru there every July for the last 5 yrs and been fine. I think they can fight it. To me it has to be a sign somewhere, right? How am I to know what the city ord is?

[tank_post142]

same a chicago or new york and their anti gun laws.

[fudgie]

same a chicago or new york and their anti gun laws.

True, but you can pass threw there with a firearm.

[Valkahuna]

Seems like Myrtle Beach, SC, went through this a while back. Don't
remember how it turned out.

You are correct. They enacted that ordinance as a protest to Bike Week there. From what I read, it was repealed. (last year I think?)

[SDS]

Municipal ordinance can be MORE restrictive than state law, but not less restrictive.  Basically a city can enact a law that is stricter than the state law (in this case the helmet) but a city could not pass a law saying you are not required to wear one in a state that DOES require it.

Unfortunately the law does not have to be posted.  If it did, every law that differs from state statute would have to be posted as well. 

They might be able to get some leniancy from a judge but it could just as easily go the other way.  It just depends on the judge and how aggressive the city is in regards to this.  It does sound like there is more to this than just another traffic ordinance.

SDS

[fiddle mike]

Seems like Myrtle Beach, SC, went through this a while back. Don't
remember how it turned out.

Their State Supreme Court ruled that a city cannot pass a law that runs counter to state law.  States write the vehicle code.  Ferinstance, it's NHTSA's wettest dream to get a national helmet law passed, but they haven't found a way to end-run the Constitution... yet.

[R J]

Seems like Myrtle Beach, SC, went through this a while back. Don't
remember how it turned out.

Their State Supreme Court ruled that a city cannot pass a law that runs counter to state law.  States write the vehicle code.  Ferinstance, it's NHTSA's wettest dream to get a national helmet law passed, but they haven't found a way to end-run the Constitution... yet.

Not a problem on the end run, just give it to Obama and enough $$$$$ to curl his little toes and you is in like Flynn.

[vanagon40]

In Indiana, a local ordinance may not directly conflict with a state statute.  “An impermissible conflict with state law will be found if the Ordinance seeks to prohibit that which a statute expressly permits.”  Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources v. Newton County, 802 N.E.2d 430, 433 (Ind. 2004).

In Indiana, there is no statute that “permits” adults to ride without a helmet.  Rather, Indiana Code § 9-21-10-9 mandates that minors must wear helmets:

If a person who is less than eighteen (18) years of age is operating or riding on a motorcycle on the streets or highways, the person shall wear the following:
        (1)   Protective headgear meeting the minimum standards set by the bureau.
        (2)   Protective glasses, goggles, or a transparent face shield.

The Indiana Code is silent regarding any helmet requirement (or lack of one) for adult motorcycle riders.  As such, an argument can be made that the local ordinance does not conflict with any Indiana statute.  (Other portions of the Ordinance--in particular the licensing requirements--do directly conflict with the Indiana Code.)

I recall several years ago many local governments adopted bans on open containers in vehicles, because the Indiana legislature did not prohibit open containers.  To my knowledge, those ordinances were never challenged.  Indiana has since adopted an open container ban.