New 2018 Louisiana law for ATV folks

RS 14:99.2

§99.2. Reckless operation of an off-road vehicle

A. Reckless operation of an off-road vehicle is the operation of any off-road vehicle in a criminally negligent or reckless manner upon any public roadway or right of way.

B.(1) For purposes of this Section, "off-road vehicle" shall include but not be limited to three-wheelers, four-wheelers, dirt bikes, or other all-terrain vehicles that are not specifically designed for use on public roads and highways.

(2) For the purposes of this Section, acts which may constitute reckless operation of an off-road vehicle shall include but not be limited to operating the vehicle on a public roadway or right of way in a manner that:

(a) Forces another vehicle to leave the roadway.

(b) Collides with another vehicle or person.

(c) Exceeds the posted speed limit.

(d) Travels against the flow of traffic.

(e) Disregards traffic control devices.

(f) Drives around or between standing or moving vehicles without regard to lanes of traffic.

(g) Impedes traffic flow.

(h) Travels off the roadway and back on to the roadway deliberately.

(3) For purposes of this Section, reckless operation of an off-road vehicle shall also include operating the vehicle on a public roadway or right of way:

(a) While performing stunts of showmanship, such as riding wheelies or acrobatic stunts.

(b) While harassing the drivers of other vehicles or pedestrians by verbal taunting or making threatening gestures.

(c) While corralling an occupied vehicle or a pedestrian.

C. It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit or to assist in soliciting participation in any rally, ride, or gathering that encourages the violation of this Section by the use of a computer online service, internet service, or any other means of electronic communication, including but not limited to a local bulletin board service, internet chat room, electronic mail, social media, or online messaging service.

D. Any drivers of motor vehicles participating in or traveling in support of persons in violation of this Section shall be considered in violation of this Section. Persons who are directly participating in this activity by photographing or filming violations of this Section to document the activity for the riders shall also be considered in violation of this Section. This Section shall not apply to individuals who are not participating in the violation of this Section and who are filming or photographing.

E.(1) Whoever commits a violation of this Section shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than ninety days, or both.

(2) In addition to any other sentence, the court shall order, upon motion of the prosecuting district attorney, that the off-road vehicle being operated by the offender at the time of the offense be seized and impounded and destroyed when:

(a) The driver was wearing a hood, mask, or disguise of any kind with the intent to hide or conceal his identity during the commission of the crime of reckless operation of an off-road vehicle.

(b) It is a second or subsequent conviction for the offender pursuant to this Section.

(c) The driver has a previous conviction in this state or under a similar law in another state for:

(i) R.S. 14:96, aggravated obstruction of a highway of commerce.

(ii) R.S. 14:97, simple obstruction of a highway of commerce.

(iii) R.S. 14:99, reckless operation.

(iv) R.S. 14:108, resisting an officer.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph (2) of this Subsection, the off-road vehicle shall not be destroyed if it was stolen, or if the driver of the off-road vehicle at the time of the violation was not the owner and the owner did not know that the driver was operating the off-road vehicle in violation of this Section. However, the off-road vehicle shall not be released from impoundment until such time as towing and storage fees have been paid. In addition, the off-road vehicle shall not be destroyed if the towing and storage fees are paid by a valid lienholder.

(4) If the district attorney elects to seize and impound the off-road vehicle, he shall file a written motion at least five days prior to sentencing, stating his intention to destroy the off-road vehicle. When the district attorney elects to seize, impound, and destroy the off-road vehicle, the court shall order it seized and impounded. The court shall also order the vehicle destroyed unless the provisions of Paragraph (3) of this Subsection are applicable.

Acts 2018, No. 415, §1.

Okay -- let's see if LEO actually enforce this...….there are many good laws on the books that they seem to cast a blind eye to.

I saw a lot of this behavior in NOLA and Marrero. Enforcement options will make or break this. It's hard to enforce without initiating a pursuit and several cities on the east coast relented to large civil settlements after juveniles died or were severely disabled resulting from these types of pursuits. The police in those municipalities were subsequently curtailed by policy in effective enforcement to stop this illegal behavior.

I guess we needed this law?

Its a good thing both of my ORVs have license plates! Lol. Hard to beat a KLR650 and lifted jeep.

Yup. On/off road options are nice for legally getting to a place on the asphalt and being able to keep on going.

Gus McCrae said:

I guess we needed this law?

Click to expand...

https://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2018/02/atv_chase_metairie_mugshots.html

https://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2018/02/atv_bikes_four_wheel_new_orlea.html

https://www.nola.com/traffic/index.ssf/2018/01/atvs_doing_wheelies_i-10.html


That answers the Reason behind it.

I only see a couple of sections of this ''new'' law that violates the Constitution, But heck what do we care?

1. Chances are.. it will not be enforced...
2. Even if it was enforced, chances of them getting caught are slim to none.

Side note....I remember riding my dirt bike as a kid in Avondale and JPSO trying to catch me. All I had to do was hit the woods, and it was game over. At the time at least, I could hit the woods behind Ruth Dr. in Avondale and be almost to Luling before I was anywhere near a road again.

And Louisiana Mud-fest in Colfax has just been shut down!

CatCam said:

Okay -- let's see if LEO actually enforce this...….there are many good laws on the books that they seem to cast a blind eye to.

Click to expand...

A number of departments have a no pursuit policy for motorcycles and atv's for public safety reasons. Criminals learn the policies and exploit them.

Gator 45/70 said:

I only see a couple of sections of this ''new'' law that violates the Constitution, But heck what do we care?

Click to expand...

I had the same thought with the one that outlaws filming the riders. Definitely ripe for a 1A challenge. They should have just stuck to the riding.

WildBillKelso said:

I had the same thought with the one that outlaws filming the riders. Definitely ripe for a 1A challenge. They should have just stuck to the riding.

Click to expand...

And obscene gestures, The old middle finger remains legal to this day.

WildBillKelso said:

I had the same thought with the one that outlaws filming the riders. Definitely ripe for a 1A challenge. They should have just stuck to the riding.

Click to expand...

I suspect their intention was to give the police a tool to go after the spectators who are egging the riders on.

thperez1972 said:

I suspect their intention was to give the police a tool to go after the spectators who are egging the riders on.

Click to expand...

Oh man, that would be worse than any possible obstruction charge. I’ll wager the first person catching that charge will find the right attorney.

Magdump said:

Oh man, that would be worse than any possible obstruction charge. I’ll wager the first person catching that charge will find the right attorney.

Click to expand...

The guy could be arrested and given a bond. If he didn't make his bond, he could sit for 90 days before his first real court appearance. At that point, the DA could drop the charges and it the law won't have its day in court. It would be a while in that case before the right attorney had any effect.

thperez1972 said:

The guy could be arrested and given a bond. If he didn't make his bond, he could sit for 90 days before his first real court appearance. At that point, the DA could drop the charges and it the law won't have its day in court. It would be a while in that case before the right attorney had any effect.

Click to expand...

Yeah, i've seen that tactic used by other municipalities that made arrests that were pretty much guaranteed to be nol pros. In street parlance used by cops and criminals alike it was called "taking a humble" and it was to let the pretrial detention be the punishment for the indigents of that city. It worked but... The ACLU established a pattern of this without too much effort and hit the city with a big class action with a large settlement and an injunctive ruling affecting their bail process and how things were enforced.
If difficult problems are going to be enforced this way there are only so many bites at that apple.

thperez1972 said:

The guy could be arrested and given a bond. If he didn't make his bond, he could sit for 90 days before his first real court appearance. At that point, the DA could drop the charges and it the law won't have its day in court. It would be a while in that case before the right attorney had any effect.

Click to expand...

and this is why being in law enforcement is not for me. When the enforcers and the system are as dirty as any other criminal you just can’t call it the justice system anymore.

Magdump said:

and this is why being in law enforcement is not for me. When the enforcers and the system are as dirty as any other criminal you just can’t call it the justice system anymore.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying here but here's some things to consider. The police don't create the laws nor do they decide what charges will be dismissed or accepted. At this time, that is a valid law. In some circumstances, it could be argued the person could be considered an accessory to the crime if his being there was for the sole purpose of filming the crime.

Should the cops have wider latitude to make a decision to take legal action based on their personal beliefs even if those beliefs go against the law? If you get into a verbal altercation with someone (which is legal) and he punches you in the face and knocks out 2 teeth, should I be allowed to do nothing because I believe "you were asking for it"?

I believe marijuana possession should be legal. But I've arrested people and brought them to jail for possession of marijuana second offense knowing with a pretty high degree of certainty that IF the DA accepted the charges, the judge would almost certainly reduce the charge to first offense and credit him to time served or just find the guy not guilty. I once had a judge find a guy guilty of his third 1st offense marijuana possession.

Should the police be allowed to enforce some laws and not enforce others? And who gets to determine what laws are to be enforced and what laws are to be overlooked?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, police use discrection all day long on which laws to enforce or not. Mostly minor infractions but they do have some say so...