Is there a minimum speed limit on US hwy 60 in OK? Are bicycles legal on US hwy 60 in OK?

Question

I had this experience about 4 years ago (which actually culminated a series of many similar experiences) where I was cycling my way back home (Missouri) from a bicycle trip to Cancun MX.

In Washington county of Oklahoma, just east of Bartlesville on US hwy 60, while observing (and respecting) all applicable laws, hwy patrol officer stops me because I am "obstructing the traffic". He then asks for my ID.

• I respectfully asked "did I break any law?"
• Officer: "in Oklahoma bicycles have the same rights as the cars and also same responsabilities. That means you need to have the same speed as the cars"

Thinking that he was just mocking the law, I refused to hand him the ID. He could not articulate any reasonable suspicion. He then took me to jail for obstructing an investigation (where the cops stole/took some of my most treasued memories from my bag because they found some Tylenol and Ibuprofen in the same jar) and the next day I posted bail (about $300 in full, cash) I was notified that I had to come back to Oklahoma for a court appearance. Seing that things get more complicated I decided to just pay them to get them off my back, go home and never return to that state. They would not accept my payment as it had been decided I had to come back. I came back, full of hope that the judge would listen and dismiss the case as it was based on a lie. Instead, he said that if I wanted to plead not guilty, I'd have to come back for a new court date to argue my case. At this point I found myself back at square one, so I decided I'd pay them and get it over with (with a "no contest plea") as the trips back and forth to OK would have cost me more that the ticket.

Later in the hallway I told the judge the cop's reasoning and his reply was: "He may have been wrong on the bicycle law, but you still should have handed him your ID"

Needless to say, I have not taken my bike on any trips ever since.

Now after 4 years I still can't get it off my mind and it's consuming me thinking that I was fooled into believing that the rule of law was the norm in this country (not the jungle law) and the beautiful constitution we have is not there just to look pretty, but something we can rely on.

My questions are:
1 - Is making up a law on the spot an acceptable alternative to the requirement that the cops have to have a reasonable suspicion in order to detain a civilian?
Remember, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"
2 - Was the cop right? Does anyone know of a "minimum speed limit" on US hwy 60 ? (there were no signs about minimum speed limit or any signs regulating bicycle trafic on that road)
3 - Was the judge right to make me come back to OK (under threat of arrest warrant) just to tell me that he can not dismiss the case (in case I was to plead not guilty) ?
This is a screenshot of US hwy 60 (Limestone). It is clearly not a "controlled access highway"

Answer 1

Now after 4 years I still can't get it off my mind and it's consuming me thinking that I was fooled into believing that the rule of law was the norm in this country (not the jungle law) and the beautiful constitution we have is not there just to look pretty, but something we can rely on.

So, at this point, do I need legal help? Or mental help or some kind of miracle pill to help me cope with the situation (?) I know that 6' under we can have peace, but can I live a peaceful (bully free) life here too?

We do have rule of law as a powerful norm in this country. But, we also live in a very complex society and the exact content of the law will always be the subject of fierce dispute.

The solution is, pretty much, to lower your expectations. The vast majority of the time the law works. Your beliefs about exactly how far you are allowed to disobey an order from a law enforcement officer as a matter of practical reality, were miscalibrated. But, you did get out of jail the next day and the punishment you received was very survivable. In much of the world, this wouldn't be true.

The rule of law doesn't mean that everyone perfectly obeys the law. It means that when the law is seriously broken in a manner that has big consequences that there is usually a way to legally mitigate the harm or to obtain a remedy.

Pushing the limits of the freedoms the law gives you is rarely wise. But, that is no reason to refuse to live your life. It is one thing to learn from experience. But, sometimes, you can overlearn from experience and need to recognize that your anecdotal experience on a single occasion is not all that there is the law.

Answer 2

The main issue here seems to be uncertainty as to when you can refuse to obey an order by the police. You need to know how to distinguish between an order and a suggestion or request. The words used can tell you directly that you have been given an order: verbs in the imperative are unambiguously orders. Statements like "It would help us if you would let us look in the trunk" is a suggestion; "I need you to step out of the car" is on the cusp between a suggestion and an order. The case of Sly v. Alabama (where the court referred to the statement "I need to see your driver's license" as a request) clarifies that a request coupled with a legal obligation to do something is in fact an order.

You also need to know whether the order is "lawful", which is about the officer and not you. If it would violate the law for the officer to force you to comply, the order is not lawful. But, as the court pointed out in Oregon v. Ruggles, "Whether a particular police order is 'lawful' is frequently a complex question involving some of the most vexing and intractable issues in constitutional law". It is unreasonable to expect an ordinary citizen to have the depth of knowledge of case law that would be required to know with absolute certainty that an order is unlawful (barring the hypothetical situation where an officer orders you to commit a crime).

What this means, then, is that if you do not comply with a officer's order, you run a substantial risk of being arrested. On appeal you might prevail in your argument that the order was unlawful, if you are willing to spend the time and money to make a point. That seems not to be the case here, since you didn't pursue justice to the end, instead you pleaded no contest (so the judge could not find in your favor). Pleading no contest extinguishes all hope of getting your money back. It is not clear to me what that deeper philosophical point would be, but I suppose that it would be that officers should be vigorously instructed in some of the finer points of Title 47 as it applies to bicycles and the fact that the "show ID" requirement applies to motor vehicles, not all vehicles. There are many subtleties in law that are not commonly understood by officers, and while it would be highly desirable for officers to have lawerly expertise in the law, that is an unrealistic expectation. For one thing, what you need is a political solution coming from the legislature (a law about legal training for police), and you can't get a court order demanding that.

Answer 3

So I did some digging and found the website for BikeOklahoma, an advocacy group for cyclists, which has several laws and some interpretations of specific situation. The best interpretation is that as Bicycles are not motor vehicles, it has to be explicitly stated that the law applies to bicycles or refers to a vehicle, which is defined as any device for transportation does not use rails (i.e. anything not a train... don't ask how a train could accidently get onto the road.). All vehicles count as traffic as defined by law. The one gray area that was discussed is it seems U.S. 60 is a limited access highway, which could mean bikes are not allowed, but I don't see any specific rule on that... lets set that aside for a moment. Without that, I will say that yes, the Officer probably misread the law and thought that a bicycle counted as a motor vehicle (which cannot drive at a low speed) when it in fact does not.

Now, this is not to say you did not do anything wrong, because you did. Per Oklahomala law §47-11-103:

No person shall willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic.

This means that any lawful request by the officer you refused is an infraction of this law. So the question becomes was the officer giving you a lawful order? BikeOklahoma offers §47-6-112:

License to be Carried and Displayed on Demand of Peace Officer A. Every licensee shall have his or her driver license in his or her immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display the same upon demand of a peace officer. Any person violating this subsection shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor.

While it is true that bike is not a motor vehicle, there is one other element that comes into play, §47-10-104 A (likely paraphrased but I can't say if it is true rule as written):

If you are involved in an accident or stopped for a traffic violation, you are required to identify yourself.

Since you do qualify as "Traffic" by the definition of the law, and you were stopped for a traffic violation (even if the cop misread the rule) you are still required to identify yourself to the officer. As the officer was invested by law to regulate traffic, which includes all legal vehicles, motor or not, and he did make a stop on you (even if the law was incorrectly applied) he is within his legal authority to lawfully request you to identify yourself, and request a form of identification (it need not be a drivers liscense... it could be a passport or a state ID) to validate that you are the person you are claiming to be. The judge is correct that you did break the law in this respect and since you paid bail, you are required to return to court.

BikeOklahoma lists several remedies to a cop who misinterprets the laws, none of which involve contesting them at the traffic stop. Had you offered your ID and taken the ticket, you could return to court to plead your case to the judge, who likely would have likely found you innocent. Mistakes in the enforcement of the law do happen (And in fact, I had a similar mistake on the states part happen to me... essentially, I had paid a traffic ticket several months previous and had recieved a reciept to that effect... however, the DMV did not properly check all the boxes and accepted the fact that I had paid, but forward the notice that I had not to the Police... flash-forward several months when I was pulled over for driving on a "suspended license". Despite the fact that it was clearly an error, the officer had to "arrest me" (legally yes, but he released me on my own recognizance and I was given a date to go to booking office to properly file these facts)... and I had to go to court and prepare my case... in the end, the prosecution found the same issue and dropped it.). Even though state and thereby the officer were incorrect in my violation of the law, the side of the road, at 2 am on a holiday weekend was not the place to argue with the cop... the court date was. Had I failed to comply, I would have been arrested for an actual crime, rather than been released to still go about my life until the judicial system did it's own thing.).

Answer 4

There's not an explicit minimum speed limit, but note that the officer didn't say you were below the limit - he said you obstructed traffic. The limit on that highway is probably about 70 mph, and in the picture it's a single lane with double lines. If any cars need to use the highway while you bike, they will very quickly end up stuck behind you driving at ~20 mph (if that) with no way of legally passing you. So you really would be obstructing traffic.

This isn't specific to bikes - a car driving 20 mph would come under the same rule. Even if the car was driving that slow due to damage, it might still be considered obstruction because the driver didn't choose a slower road. Even if the damage was caused on the road, the officer might tell you to get a tow truck instead. Of course in the realistic situation of getting a flat tire and having to drive 40 on your spare they would probably be more understanding.

Generally the solution to such situations is that the slow vehicle pulls right into the shoulder (and maybe even stops), letting the faster traffic go around. It is technically an illegal pass (not if you pull over and stop) but rarely punished. Possibly you could have also biked on the shoulder or the grass. In any case, when a cop does tell you to stop doing something, your best option is to comply (as you've found out). Keep in mind that riding bikes on a highway is not a constitutional right.

The arrest and ensuing court case was clearly not caused solely by biking, but also refusing to show ID as well as the Tylenol. In all, it doesn't sound very fair, but it's one of those grey areas where you technically didn't do anything illegal, but did get clever with the cop/system, and as a result the system exercised its bureaucratic power to give you the run around. Again, I don't see how your constitutional rights are violated here - if you do, feel free to go to the Supreme Court (and I'd be happy for you if you did - as I said, the situation is unfair and I wish it didn't happen). Unfortunately, the founding fathers did not have the wisdom to include freedom from bureaucracy in the bill of rights. The right to speedy and fair trial is unfortunately subject to reinterpretation of what exactly counts as speedy or fair, just as many other parts of the constitution. In any case, this slow creep of judicial activism is not something you can fight by annoying cops, you can only fight it by voting and possibly practicing in the Supreme Court. I say possibly because I'm skeptical that any legal professional ultimately has much power over the Supreme Justices.

Alternatively, you can also try to sway public opinion so that the police departments change policy, which has actually been happening for bike related law over the past years, but that is not very related to your objections on constitutional grounds.

Is making up a law on the spot an acceptable alternative to the requirement that the cops have to have a reasonable suspicion in order to detain a civilian?

In theory, no. In practice, this is pretty common in the US. Police often don't know the law or they are wrong about it. Whether it is still a reasonable suspicion if the cop misunderstood the law is for the court to decide - and in cases such as yours where there is injustice but not gross injustice and no significant political issue is served by siding with you, the courts tend to default to siding with the police. Also the courts really don't like people making light of the court's rules, so if you flout them, they can "make an example" by throwing the book at you just to ensure that nobody else gets funny ideas in the future.

Remember, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"

Injustice is indeed bad, but in your last election, did anyone run on a platform eliminating injustice (legal, not economic or social) and upholding constitutional rights? Did you vote for them? Did they win? Did they do what they promised? If not, then as an ideal it is nice, but not very useful to understanding the legal reality.

Was the cop right? Does anyone know of a "minimum speed limit" on US hwy 60 ?

Right to stop you? I'd say yes, based on the first part of my answer. Right to arrest you? Per se, no, it seems unnecessarily heavy-handed. But then you did provoke him by disobeying. I still don't think needlessly harsh treatment from police is justified just because you annoyed the cop, but realistically, you can't expect to annoy a person with power and have no repercussions. You could claim you were harassed, but you wouldn't have a case because the harassment was very minor and debatable.

Was the judge right to make me come back to OK (under threat of arrest warrant) just to tell me that he can not dismiss the case (in case I was to plead not guilty) ?

It's certainly mean of him to do that, but then he doesn't owe it to you to be nice. As for legally, he is perfectly within his rights. Missouri isn't that far and expecting you to appear in court for the arrest is not unreasonable. Granted, for such a trivial thing it's a bit unnecessary - which is why if you are cooperative the police will often offer you the opportunity to "just pay the fine and make it go away". But then we come back to the issue of your attitude to the officer.

I'm not saying that you're not in the right here, but you have to consider that cops are not robots but human beings, as are the courts. Even if it is illegal for him to arrest you, he might arrest you anyway if you give him a reason (such as annoying him). Yes, legally you could then seek restitution and punishment for the cop. But you will have to convince the court of your case, in which you may or may not succeed. Either way, it can cost you money and time. So you have to think of the law not as a law of nature, but as a guideline that will probably be followed more or less, and eventually the courts will ensure some measure of justice (although justice according to them, not you, and based on what they think the situation was, and not reality). But in terms of the here and now, you have to also consider the human factor, which might dominate over the legal in determining what will happen next and whether you'll be happy with it.

Answer 5

Later in the hallway I told the judge the cop's reasoning and his reply was: "He may have been wrong on the bicycle law, but you still should have handed him your ID"

That is correct. The officer was mistaken about the speed limit, but you snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by botching the police encounter. Probably, because you had not been properly trained on how to conduct yourself in a police encounter. You'd think that would be part of official university curriculum along with financial education - bah, probably a bad idea as the authorities would tamper with the curriculum. However, it is available, in a manner analogous to "The D.A." in Harry Potter -- taught ad-hoc by people passionate about civil rights bringing in guests like the ACLU to teach seminars. As such, to call it an "elective" is an understatement.

Get up to speed on how to conduct yourself in police encounters. The ACLU has pages and pages of quality analysis -- and all this stuff is "memory checklist items" for any citizen.

Now after 4 years I still can't get it off my mind and it's consuming me thinking that I was fooled into believing that the rule of law was the norm in this country (not the jungle law) and the beautiful constitution we have is not there just to look pretty, but something we can rely on.

I understand the hurt feelings and l'esprit d'escalier of wishing you had done something different... but honestly, bicycling across a huge nation is more ambitious and bold than perhaps you know, and it hurts my heart to think a bad experience has turned you into a shrinking violet.

If I may be brutally honest, there's some vanity in what you say. You have nurtured your hurt feelings and wrapped yourself in a feeling of injustice, but you have not displayed one ounce of admitting to error, and certainly not owned the mistakes and grown better by them.

You botched the traffic stop badly due to lack of education. The result was your fault. You should forgive yourself and use the burn as motivation to school up on how to do this. You're going to have to write the experience off - there's nothing you can do about it now. In law, you only get one bite at the apple. You could have lawyered up and fought the good fight, but you went another way for reasons. And that's it, the end.

DO NOT litigate "at the side of the road"

1 - Is making up a law on the spot an acceptable alternative to the requirement that the cops have to have a reasonable suspicion in order to detain a civilian? Remember, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"

Of course not, but again according to ACLU etc. advice, you do NOT litigate THAT at the side of the road. You follow the narrow "script" as their consumer lawyers have defined it, and then you get to the end of the encounter and move on.

Finish the police encounter without error on your part, and then, if there's a problem like an improperly applied law, sort that out later with the court. As cops famously say, "tell it to the judge". That is correct, cops aren't lawyers.

Typically the results of an improper police action are "fruit of the poisoned tree" and will be thrown out in court.

Expecting cops to be perfect is unrealistic. Do they "game" the fact that they're not lawyers by accidentally-on-purpose making "errors"? You bet they do, but this is not fixable at the side of the road.

The Vulcan "hello"

2 - Was the cop right? Does anyone know of a "minimum speed limit" on US hwy 60 ? (there were no signs about minimum speed limit or any signs regulating bicycle trafic on that road)

No, see Oklahoma 47-11-804. To set a minimum speed limit requires a special procedure, and set of underlying circumstances which would be extremely unlikely on the type of road a bicyclist would consider a suitable rural bicycle route.

But you missed the entire point of that stop, because you're seeing red about civil rights. Better to have more "street smarts" than that.

The actual purpose of the stop was to "get to know ya". They wanted to find out who you are, this random person going through their area of responsibility. And that stop was a whole bunch of "get to know ya" things at once:

• To see if you're a fugitive.
• If you were thinking of committing any crimes, to rattle you so you think of taking a pass on this county.
• To have your ID in case any local crimes happen connected to a mystery bicyclist, and/or to know who you are if they find your body in a ditch with ID missing.
• To do a welfare check (are you OK/ in distress?).
• To see if you're actually a local they don't know about.
• To see if you need help/advice / give you a chance to ask about wher things are.
• So you become a "known quantity" they can take off their radar.

I'm not endorsing that as a police practice, but it's a reality of how some police work, especially in places where "everybody knows everybody". Also, actually, crime is worse per-capita in rural areas - that's not widely known, but the cops sure know it.

Of course because they're police they do that uniquely cop-ish way, the "Vulcan hello" (not quite, but it's catchy if you've seen Star Trek: Discovery). Rattling your cage is part of sizing you up. And you would be better off having the "street smarts" to roll with that, and perform your side of the script correctly but be a nice person.

Put them at ease. Yes, it's an annoying chore.

On a single ocasion" ? As I was saying, this incident "culminated a series of many similar experiences" with "funny" excuses for harassment.

Well, it's not that often they see a Mars Rover!

Seriously, you're unusual. It's not every day they see a long haul biker coming through their county. So they're just as interested as all the other people who say "hi" and ask you questions. They just do it in their uniquely cop-ish way. For best success, recognize that is what is happening, and deal with it kindly. They are regular folk, probably a fair bit nicer than your peers, because "nice" is a social prerequisite in a small town, and they don't like having to do the "cop-ish" thing any more than you do. So yes, it's galling to have to "break the ice" when they open the conversation with red and blue lights, but they don't enjoy their role in that Kabuki theater any more than you do, and when you successfully break the ice, things will probably go pretty well. Of course, never forget it's a traffic stop, and do not violate the rules of those.

I regularly do this (granted, when I'm pulled over I'm not innocent) but as soon as possible I drop that I spend summers here volunteering at a local charity. I can't tell you how many "nice to meet you/don't worry about it"s I get. Likewise for you, "Yeah, am I on the right road for <perfectly respectable local lodging or dining here>?" That immediately lets them tick a bunch of the above boxes and puts them at ease - you're regular folk, just odd in a way that's not their problem.

And as you get better than this, you get good at following the script with panache so it doesn't offend the officer. For instance, "I need you to _______" is standard form because case law says it's a police order you must obey if it's a valid order, otherwise it's a request. But that allows them to "play it both ways" giving plausible deniability of accused of an illegal order. The proper reply is" Is that a police order?" calling their bluff and making them commit. However this is confrontational; you're calling them a bad cop. Much smoother is to say "do I really have to? (glances at gear) It'll take some digging". That calls their bluff exactly the same, but gives them a face-saving "out": aw, don't worry about it. That's what I mean about skill and street smarts.

I know it's grating, but it's like Sun Tzu says: always give your enemy a retreat path (unless you're prepared for a fight to the death).

When you dig the hole deep enough, you need to go to court.

3 - Was the judge right to make me come back to OK (under threat of arrest warrant) just to tell me that he can not dismiss the case (in case I was to plead not guilty) ?

Yes, even presidents have to appear at arraignments. However given the distance you'd been better off retaining a local lawyer, who would a) probably have been able to make the whole thing go away (and then, no arraignment at all), or b) would have at least been able to appear in court for you, saving you most of the trips. Country lawyers often aren't nearly as expensive as city lawyers. Have you heard the one about the person who represents oneself has a fool for a client?

They don't arraign for traffic tickets. This was a serious matter and you don't even realize it. You were in the soup. You got into it by botching the police encounter, which opened the door to their searching your belongings, which then "compounded" your trouble with your mishandling of the drugs. Come on, man, you've crossed national boundaries. Each drug always in a pharmacy-supplied container.

The drug thing would have resolved itself once they tested, but probably polarized them into pressing charges they might not have otherwise pressed. I'm sure your aggressive but ill-informed conduct did not help matters.

This could've been much worse. Learn to behave at police encounters.

I was fooled into believing that the rule of law was the norm in this country (not the jungle law) and the beautiful constitution we have is not there just to look pretty, but something we can rely on.

I was raised to believe that freedom isn't free, and it's something you have to fight for. There are a lot of people fighting the good fight, and you should stand on the shoulders of these giants instead of what you've been doing. And ask anyone who's been the victim of a predatory lawsuit or civil asset forfeiture, you don't get to volunteer, you get drafted. That's how it is. And I think you know it has to be that way. I'm sorry you got drafted.

By the way, there's not a small chance the cop feels the same way about freedom. But the job of a police officer is to catch bad guys, and they depend pretty heavily on them not being all that bright. If you stick up for your rights friendly but firmly, you're likely to get respect.

Answer 6

If I were a federal judge:

• Judge: What happened?
• Defendant: .. he said.. I said.. He made up a law on the spot just to bypass the law of the land and violate my 4th amendment rights. Your honor, the whole case is based on a lie. Please dismiss it.

• Judge: Case dismissed. Cop put on notice with a warning.

  To the local judge that made the defendant come from out of state without giving him a chance to argue his case:

  • You should have accepted his offer to pay the ticket when you had a chance. Now you and the cop have to give him recourse for his loss. If you don't like bikes on hwy 60, kindly tell them to take a different route or put a "no bicycles allowed" sign or a minimum speed limit sign. Until then, stop using your authority to harass people.