Identifying Ethical Dilemma in the Case
Easyriders v. Hunnigan (1995) represents the case of California motorcyclists filing a suit against the Commissioner of California Highway Patrol (CHP) for the purpose of permanent injunction against stopping motorcyclists on the ground of officer’s subjective opinion that helmets either conform or dot not conform the established safety standards. On the one hand, motorcyclists might be unaware of the consequences for wearing sub-standardized helmets because they do not have knowledge of the actual safety standards.
Therefore, the specialized shops should also have permission on solving helmets that fully correspond to the federal safety standards and, therefore, motorcyclists cannot be the only ones to blame. On the other hand, the permanent injunction of practicing subjective opinion can increase the risk of road accidents because precautious measures are beneficial despite the initial intent of the officers. Both sides of debate reveal serious ethical concerns because of negligence of risks related to safety and health of citizens. In this respect, the decision made in the court has two sides of the medal.
Supportive Side of the Ethical Issue
Presenting Relevant Legal Precedents, Statuses, or Cases
Unreasonable suspicion, as well as subjective opinion, should not be the main reasons guiding police officers while stopping the motorcyclists. Such measures contradict the Forth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which runs,
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (US Const. amend. IV).
Hence, the police officers did not have any reasonable ground for arresting the motorcyclists because their decisions were based on sole suspicions and subjective assumptions. As a result, the law enforced by the CHP representatives is not unconstitutionally vague.
There is also a mandatory law implying that helmet may not be worn unless it corresponds to the established federal safety measures. In this respect, the motorcyclists buying helmets were unable to prove whether these devices meet the established laws or not because the responsibility is imposed on helmet sellers. The case Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) reveals that the manufacturers should sell the helmets that pass the testing procedure and meet the federal standards.
Analysis of Ethical Dilemmas within a Theoretical Framework
To support the ethical argument is possible through presenting the basic of deontological ethics. Hence, in case the act is initially meant as morally justified, individuals perform such acts follow the ethical and moral principles. Specifically, “only actions done from duty have true, genuine, or authentic “moral worth” or “moral content”” (Wood, 2008, p. 27).
The motorcyclists wore helmets they bought at a specialized shop to protect themselves from injuries and avoid threats to their health. Therefore, their initial intents were morally justified because they did not foresee any harm to other people and to themselves. Their decisions are morally and ethically worth and, thus, the proposed theoretical perspective provides a solid opposition to the claim that their actions were not initially ethical despite the consequences.
In addition, the Kantian view on deontological ethics does not approve the distinction between good and bad actions because the moral intent and commitment to duty are the main conditions supporting its ethical theory (Woods, 2008). The framework also explains the actions of police. While looking through similar ethical prism at the actions of the road safety supervisors, their actions are confined to moral and ethical ambiguity because it is hard to decide whether CHP representatives have positive intentions while stopping the motorcyclists.
Identifying Societal and Individual Values
Notwithstanding with the existing laws and regulations, the motorcyclists’ unawareness of the wearing the helmets that do not comply with the standards deprive them of social and moral criticism because there are no stands concerning requirement to have knowledge of awareness of the helmets worn in accordance with norms. From the individual perspective, the motorcyclists do not have immoral and unethical intents. From similar viewpoint, police officers’ actions did not suit moral principles; instead, they should follow have absolute faith in people’s initial intent to follow the existing laws and regulations.
Presenting the Argument in Opposition to the Ethical Issue
Presenting Relevant Legal Precedents, Statutes, or Cases
Though the case under analysis has approved the permanent injunction of law enforcement, there are specific safety regulations aimed at protecting people from injuries and eliminating the potential threats to their lives and health. At this point, because the motorcyclists, as consumers buying helmets that should comply with specific standards, did not have the actual knowledge of those standards and, therefore, they did not have sufficient ground for opposing officers’ arrest. In this respect, the case Hanlester v. Shalala (1995) stipulates that a person should not have specific knowledge of committing a crime and there is a high probability of the motorcyclists having full awareness of the consequences of wearing helmets non-complying with standards.
There are cases when helmet may be legally sold with no evidence of having certification of DOT compliance. Premised on the materials from Bull v. Hannigan (1993) case, the helmet can be attached with a certification, but “(A) the helmet has been shown not to conform with federal safety standards and (B) the person being cited has actual knowledge of a showing of non-conformity with federal standards”. Therefore, there is always a probability that the motorcyclist drivers and passengers are wearing helmets non-complying with existing standards and police officers have legal grounds for checking the compliance.
Ethical Theory Related to the Issue
To stand the argument in opposition to the ethical dilemma, specific references should be made to the consequential ethics. According to this theoretical model, “The fact that an action will produce a valuable outcome provides a reason to perform that action” (Mulgan, 2005, p. 27). Thus, if an action produces a positive outcome, the reason to perform an action is identical to the produced outcome. At the same time, in case a person is ready to provide help to a person, the action itself is mental as ethically justified, albeit it implies self-sacrifice.
The consequentialism is a theory that also justifies the action of the police officers whose intention to stop the motorcyclists insures of the road safety. Their actions, therefore, lead to a valuable outcome because it increases the chances of positive outcomes for the motorcyclists despite the fact their initial intent may not be morally justified. Such an approach also meets the non-social values because their actions are at aimed at maintaining physical health of motorcyclist drivers and passengers.
Identifying Societal and Individual Values
From the viewpoint of societal values, such as responsibility in front of law, police officers did not give reason to believe that their actions are unlawful and biased because there are no other substantial ground for arresting the motorcyclists, but suspecting that their helmets are not save enough for driving. At this point, the motorcyclist drivers, in contrast, ignored the actual social values and freedom of the surrounding people by stating that they did not have knowledge about the necessity to wear helmets with certification, which specifies their failure to meet the societal concerns with security and welfare of the surrounding people.
Individual Stand
Regarding the above-presented arguments against and in favor of the identified ethical issue, solid evidence and substantial grounds still support the supportive side of the debate because of the presence of legal, ethical, and social reasons for providing solutions to the ethical dilemma.
From legal perspective, there are several statutes, cases, and acts supporting the rights of the motorcyclists and underlining sufficient grounds for upholding the court decision against CHP representatives. Specifically, the Vehicle Code Section 27802 runs, that “no person shall sell…for use by a driver or passenger a motorcycle…any safety helmet which is not of a type meeting requirements established by the department” (Amended Ch 163, Stats, 1985). When taking this into consideration, the police officers did not have the right to suspect that the drivers and passengers wear helmet that fail to comply with the standards.
From an ethical perspective, both theories are able to support the drivers’ position since neither consequences nor initial intentions were meant to base on negative will or desire. Specifically, even consequential ethics support the idea that in case the person has positive intentions, there is a high probability of receiving the best consequences of the action (Mulgan, 2005). Moral duty, as followed by Kantian ethics, is also presented because the fact of motorcyclists wearing helmet already indicates their increased awareness of health safety.
The prism of societal values can also presents evidence supporting the actions of motorcyclists because all the actions and decisions made were directed at violating the constitutional rights and freedoms of a person. Therefore, police officers went beyond their commission by stopping the drivers without reasoning. Judging from these perspectives, the court’s decision toward motorcyclists is fair enough because it meets the ethical standards as well.
Conclusion
Considering all aspects of the case, the ethical perspective of the decisions made in the court justifies the actions of drivers and withdrawn unreasonable and subjective actions of the police. The point is that motorcyclists were unaware of the necessity to know about the rules of wearing helmets with DOT stickers because this knowledge should be primarily acquired by the helmet manufacturers. They should produce helmets that correspond to the standards issues in California. The majority of cases reveal that the motorcyclists’ intentions are initially good.
From the ethical theory perspective, the plaintiffs have sufficient grounds for advocating their position since their intentions are based on moral, social, and legal bases. These three dimensions, however, do not cover the intents, as well as the outcomes, of the positions protected by the CHP officers. Social and individual perspectives also give credit to the drivers whose civil rights were violated without any objective reason.
Reference List
Bianco v. California Highway Patrol 24 Cal. App. 4th 1113. 711 (1994).
Easyriders v. Hunnigan 93-0807-J, 16 (1995).
Hanlester v. Shalala, 51 F. 3d 1390 (1995).
Mulgan, T. (2005). The Demands of Consequentialism. UK: Oxford University Press.
The Vehicle Code Section 27802 (1985). Amended Ch 163, Stats.
US. Const. amend. IV.
Wood, A. W. (2008). Kantian Ethics. UK: Cambridge University Press.