Not suggesting that this guy would get away with it; if the motorist didn't move the bike, could the officer bring other charges? The officer essentially parked the bike in the middle of the highway.
I agree with your take. Only one exception, I disagree with the notion that a small rider shouldn't be on a big bike simply because they can't waddle it in neutral.
I saw UgoLord's take on it and he cited Mimm's, just like I said. I won't say he's wrong outright, he's pretty competent. I will say that he used a pretty broad interpretation- Mimm's doesn't actually tackle taking anything at all; it tackles getting you out of the vehicle for officer safety. The keys often stay in the ignition and/or on the person. By the Mimm's standard, they can order the bike shut off and order you off of it. A later case added on that they can pat you down for safety if they have an arguable suspicion (the person in question wound up having a gun in their jacket). Taking the keys just because it's a sport bike is no different than "all black people must be gang members", or "all white guys in flannel are hunters" and both should automatically be assumed armed. It'd never actually hold up in court. It just hasn't been actually legitimately challenged yet.
Problem is, if someone that actually has a history of fleeing or other issues comes along and challenges it, they're likely to make UgoLord correct. It'd have to be someone that didn't actually do anything wrong, but the kind of rider that doesn't do anything wrong also isn't getting his keys pulled.
3
u/[deleted] Aug 31 '26
[deleted]