Laws that are Relevant to My Situation
These sections of the Massachusetts General Laws are relevant to this case.
- Chapter 85: Section 11B (the rights and duties of cyclists) - "Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the Commonwealth ... and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth..."
- Chapter 85: Section 11C (Police officers may not arrest a cyclist for violating traffic laws) - "[N]o person shall be arrested without a warrant for any ... traffic law violation committed while operating a bicycle."
- Chapter 89: Section 2 (A cyclist may control an entire lane) - "If it is not possible to overtake a bicycle or other vehicle at a safe distance in the same lane, the overtaking vehicle shall use all or part of an adjacent lane if it is safe to do so or wait for a safe opportunity to overtake."
- Chapter 265: Section 37 (violations of constitutional rights)
- Chapter 272: Section 53 (Disorderly Conduct)
- Commonwealth versus Weston (and a companion case) (the right to travel)
- Alegata versus Commonwealth (and four companion cases) (the definition of "disorderly conduct") - In regard to appellant Donald G. Chartrand, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts defined "disorderly conduct" as follows: "A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor."My conduct fails to meet even a single condition mentioned in this definition, let alone the definition as a whole.
- Commonwealth versus juvenile (Exercising the right to freedom of speech is not disorderly.)
- Commonwealth versus Feigenbaum (Political protest is a legitimate purpose.)
- Commonwealth versus Zettel (another example of a legitimate purpose)
Sounds like you are really doing your research on this case, that's awesome. I really like how you have taken madders into your own hands and have decided to fight the power. I think you have some really good info in there. I hope you can win and hopefully make some sort of difference for cyclist like you and me.
Reply to this