HRES-366-117
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1531, H. Res. 366 is considered passed House. (text: CR H10074)
Sponsored by Tim Walberg (R-MI)
What it does
This resolution expresses the sense of the House of Representatives on the issue of motorcyclist profiling by law enforcement. It promotes public awareness of the practice, encourages collaboration between the motorcyclist community and law enforcement, and urges state law enforcement agencies to include anti-profiling statements in their written policies and training materials. As a simple House resolution, it does not create binding law, impose mandates, or appropriate funds.
Who benefits
The approximately 13 million registered motorcyclists in the United States, particularly those who have experienced stops or searches based on their motorcycle use or apparel rather than observed violations. Motorcycle rights advocacy organizations that have campaigned for legislative recognition of this issue. State law enforcement training programs that could use the resolution as a policy reference. Riders who belong to motorcycle clubs, who the bill's "whereas" clauses suggest are disproportionately targeted.
Who is hurt
There are no direct financial or legal burdens imposed by this resolution, as it is non-binding. Law enforcement agencies that disagree with the characterization of their practices may view the resolution as reputationally harmful. Officers who believe motorcycle club affiliation is a legitimate factor in assessing risk may see the resolution as constraining professional judgment, even though it carries no legal force.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Motorcycle Profiling Project's ongoing national survey (2015–2020) found roughly half of motorcyclists reported being profiled at least once, and that 90% of respondents urged legislative action. They further argue that Washington State's 2011 law addressing motorcyclist profiling in law enforcement training was followed by a reported 90% drop in profiling incidents, demonstrating that awareness-based policy can produce measurable results without imposing costly mandates on agencies.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a non-binding resolution relying on a self-selected survey — conducted by an advocacy organization with an interest in the outcome — does not constitute a rigorous evidentiary basis for a congressional statement. They contend that encouraging blanket condemnation of motorcycle-related factors in law enforcement decisions could complicate legitimate investigative tools, and that the resolution's practical effect is negligible since it imposes no enforceable obligations on any agency or official.
Constitutional context
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment bars discriminatory enforcement based on protected characteristics. The resolution itself defines motorcyclist profiling as the "illegal use" of motorcycle-related factors in enforcement decisions, implicitly invoking these existing constitutional protections — though the resolution creates no new legal standard or cause of action.
Checks and balances
This resolution does not shift power between branches; it is a non-binding expression of the House's sense, carrying no enforcement mechanism, appropriation, or mandate on the executive branch or state governments.
Historical precedent
Washington State enacted legislation in 2011 requiring its criminal justice training commission to address motorcyclist profiling in basic and in-service law enforcement training, serving as the direct state-level model this resolution references and encourages other states to follow.