Close

New Laws in 2023 for E-Bikes, Sideshows and Police

The year 2023 will usher in several new laws that may create issues for our clients who have an e-bike or enjoy sideshows, but also gives new rights to citizens after a traffic stop or jaywalking.
Assembly Bill (AB) 1909 imposes new rules for electric bikes, as such bikes are often heavier and faster, so collisions between pedestrians or other cyclists with e-bikes can be significant. AB 1909 eliminates the ban of Class 3 electric bicycles on a bicycle path or trail, bicycle lane, equestrian trail or hiking or recreational trail, but the Department of Parks and Recreation retains power to prohibit e-bike use on bike paths or trails within its jurisdiction.
While this may seem good for someone who has an e-bike, it also will no doubt allow e-bike to e-bike collisions that may produce significant injuries.
It is important to know that a Class 3 electric bicycle is one that assists a person pedaling up to 28 miles per hour. Such a bike has a speedometer. This is regarded as the most powerful of electric bikes. A Class 2 electric bicycle, in contrast, does not require pedaling at all and has a top speed of twenty miles per hour. A Class 1 electric bike is one that requires pedaling, like a Class 3 bicycle, but can only reach speeds of 20 miles per hour.
AB 109 eliminates a local authority, i.e., a city, from being able to ban electric bikes on bike paths. This may help prevent car versus e-bike collisions, but it may increase collisions between e-bikes and traditional bike riders.
As to sideshows, Assembly Bill 2000 expands the crimes of motor vehicle exhibition of speed (Vehicle Code § 23109) and speed contests to include occurrences of this in parking lots. The term “sideshow” had previously been defined to as two or more persons blocking or impeding traffic on a highway for the purpose of performing motor vehicle stunts, motor vehicle speed contests, motor vehicle exhibitions of speed or reckless driving for spectators.
We have seen such side shows result in tickets to spectators, particularly at the Compton and Downey Superior Court in the last few years.
Assembly Bill 2537 requires the California Department of Justice to develop a video demonstrating the proper conduct by a peace officer and an individual during a traffic stop. The video is to be posted on the Department of Motor Vehicles website and included in the driver’s education course.
We will be eager to see this video, as it may allow defenses to charges of delaying, obstructing or evading arrest (Penal Code § 148(a)(1)) or resisting arrest (Penal Code § 69) based on a police officer acting outside the scope of what is proper peace officer conduct.
In addition, Assembly Bill 2773, effective January 1, 2024, requires a peace officer who is making a traffic stop “or pedestrian stop” to state the reason for the stop prior to asking interrogatory questions, unless the officer reasonably believes that withholding such information is necessary to protect life or property from imminent threat.
We can see fifty appellate court opinions within the first year of this law taking effect clarifying whether an officer’s failure to state the reason is based on a reasonable belief that withholding such information is necessary. We can also see a fountain of motions to suppress evidence for unlawful search and seizure based on unlawful detentions, particularly based on the U.S. Supreme Court case, authored by Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (R.I.P.), of Dennys Rodriguez v. U.S. Supreme Court (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 191 L. Ed. 2d 492. In that landmark case, Justice Ginsburg wrote that the tolerable duration of a traffic stop and detention thereafter is limited to resolving the reason for the traffic stop and no longer, unless the officer develops a reasonable suspicion to prolong the detention based on new facts or evidence made apparent during the detention.
We also foresee that what will inevitably happen when officers advise the driver of the reason for the stop, an argument or discussion will ensue and there will be a rise in arrests for delaying or obstructing a police officer (Penal Code § 148(a)(1)).
For more information about traffic stops in general, please click on the following articles:
  1. U.S. Supreme Court Rules Dog Sniff of Car Improper After Officer Makes Routine Traffic Stop for Driving on the Shoulder of the Road.
  2. U.S. Supreme Court Lowers Standards for Allowing a DUI Traffic Stop Based on an Anonymous Call to 911.
  3. Good Faith Exception to Officer’s Execution of an Improper Search Warrant Does Not Have Similar Application to an Improper Traffic Stop.
Contact us.

Client Reviews
★★★★★
"Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well." S.A., Torrance
★★★★★
"Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him." S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
★★★★★
"Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards." L.H., Torrance
★★★★★
"Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help." V.L., Carson
★★★★★
"Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot." C.R., Pomona
Contact Us